How do climate doomsayers explain the current state of Arctic ice?

By Vijay Jayaraj

With ice coverage for July and August remaining above the ten-year average of 2010–20, the extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic has surprised experts who once predicted that such levels would be impossible.

This stands in stark contrast to the dominant climate narrative that predicts the dwindling of summer ice in the Arctic.  Some politicians had even claimed that parts of the Arctic would be ice-free by now.

With the seasonal Arctic melt technically over, it is fair to conclude that the extent of ice in the summer of 2022 has been greater than the ten-year average.  On most days in July and August, sea ice levels were above the ten-year average and significantly more than the previous few years.

The Japanese National Institute of Polar Research provides a useful visualization in the graph below.  This year’s Arctic sea ice — shown in red — is compared with the ten-year average and the levels of the previous few years, including that of 2012, when ice had reached its lowest of the period tracked.


Data of sea-ice extent in square kilometers in the Arctic Ocean from June 2002 to the present and decadal averages of 1980’s, 1990’s, 2000’s, and 2010’s are included.
Source: National Institute of Polar Research, 
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent.

According to the Danish Meteorological Institute, the extent of Arctic sea ice was much greater than the last five years, as shown in the below graph.


Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
Source: Danish Meteorological Institute, 
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php.

Summer temperatures in the Arctic remained at levels similar to the 44-year average of 1958–2002, with no marked increase in warming.  In the graph, temperature is shown in the Kelvin scale; the horizontal blue line is freezing, or zero degrees Celsius and 32 degrees Fahrenheit.


Daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel as a function of the day of year.
Source: Danish Meteorological Institute, 
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php.

Now, here’s the big question: why were internationally acclaimed climate scientists unable to predict this marked increase in the extent of summer sea ice?  Is it because their overall approach is biased toward supporting the theory that carbon dioxide is warming the planet to dangerous levels?  Or is it because their models are incapable of predicting future temperatures?

The answers must come from the doomsayers themselves.  They need to explain why Arctic summer temperatures have been not at all different from the 44-year average and why summer sea ice is above decadal averages.

Acknowledging that we have yet to understand the complex climate system will undermine the credibility of scientists and political institutions advancing destructive energy policies to address a fantasy of climate catastrophe.

Melting of Arctic ice has been used as a major data point in the justification of restrictive energy policies adopted by many countries.  It is ironic — and infuriating — that millions across the world are suffering from high energy prices and blackouts at the same time that Arctic sea ice has been at its greatest extent in five years!

Europe is facing rapidly rising electricity prices and a natural gas shortage.  Citizens in the U.S. are experiencing high energy prices as their access to cheap fossil fuels is restricted by government’s infatuation with solar and wind power.  China is scampering to reduce blackouts.  All this could have been avoided if political leaders had not promoted a false climate emergency.

It makes no sense to force people to live in darkness in the name of climate policy when the policy-makers themselves have so little understanding of the planet’s mechanisms of warming and cooling.  Acknowledge the infancy of climate science and liberate people from energy tyranny.

Vijay Jayaraj is a research associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, VA.  He holds a Master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K. and resides in India.

Comical Clash of the Climate Eggheads

Battle of the eggheads


AUGUST 26, 2022


NY Times:
 Pace of Climate Change Sends Economists Back to Drawing Board


They underestimated the impact of global warming, and their preferred policy solution floundered in the United States.

What’s this? The Globalist “paper of record” admitting that the infallible models of warmist Fake Economists were actually wrong? Well, of course they are wrong because the whole Climate Con is a HOAX — but that’s not the context of this particular propaganda piece. According to the Times, they got it wrong in the opposite way, meaning — “climate change” is affecting the world to an even worse extent that had been previously modeled and more aggressive solutions are needed.

A bit of undecipherable dung, from the article:

“The Yale economist William Nordhaus began constructing a model meant to gauge the effect of warming on economic growth. The work, first published in 1992, gave rise to a field of scholarship assessing the cost to society of each ton of emitted carbon offset by the benefits of cheap power — and thus how much it was worth paying to avert it.

Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University, worked on developing carbon pricing methods at the Department of Energy. He thinks the relentless focus on prices, with little attention paid to direct investments, lasted too long.

There was an idealization and simplification of the problem that started in the economics literature,” Dr. Kopp said. “And things that start out in the economics literature have half-lives in the applied policy world that are longer than the time period during which they’re the frontier of the field.

At the same time, Dr. Nordhaus’s model was drawing criticism for underestimating the havoc that climate change would wreak.”

In short, the young commie crackpot economist Professor Robert Kopp says that the punitive tax hike models of the old commie crackpot scientist Professor William Nordhaus are outdated and not aggressive enough — an assertion to which Comrade Nordhaus takes umbrage against. Kopp wants more direct “investment” in “green energy” scams. You see, that’s what the “academic debate” on this issue is all about — how best to punish, control and degrade the goyim.

Under. Every. Rock.

1. The Star of Moloch comes in green too. // 2. Nordhaus of Yale wants to focus on mass behavioral control by punishing us with higher taxes for using “fossil fuels.” // 3. Beaked Bolshevik Kopp of Rutgers & NASA (or is that NASAL?) advocates for a far more aggressive “investment regime” in wind & solar scams instead.

These types of “models” are the paid-for product of a quackademic marriage between Fake Science and Fake Economics — a match made in Hell! With the exception of Fake History, no other fields of academic research are more prone to reckless conjecture and malevolent manipulation than Fake (theoretical) Science and Fake Economics. A skilled mathematician / wordsmith sophist with “PhD.” after his name can easily wow the “educated” normies with technical verbosity, cherry-picked data and ponderous mathematical equations with no relation to reality. Plug it all into what are essentially cartoons and video game “models” — throw in some “peer reviews”from fellow Oy Vey League whores — threaten the “deniers” with ridicule, publishing lockouts and defunding — amplify it all with ample amounts of Fake News hype and voilà — “the science is settled!”

Indeed, the entirety of the “science” underpinning the Climate Con amounts to a giant Fallacy of Verbosity & Complexity, aka Argumentum Verbosium, which is textbook defined as:

“… when a conclusion is supported with an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. This fallacy is similar to the fallacy of information overload. Sometimes, verbosity can be a means of intimidation, especially when insider jargon is used to confuse and overwhelm the listener/reader.”

Truth tellers simplify — liars complicate with blah blah blah and lots of numbers. The closing line of the Slimes article — when read with a “third eye” –reveals the bamboozle for us:

“The larger lesson is that modern climate policy is a complex endeavor that calls for large, interdisciplinary teams — which is not historically how the economics field has operated.

You can only do so much by writing things down on a single sheet of paper from your office at Yale,” said Dr. Kopp, of Rutgers. “That’s not how science gets done. That’s how a lot of economics gets done. But you run into limits.”

These Climate Con crackpots are not only wicked wordsmiths — but to the extent which they eventually start to, in due time, actually believe their own bullshit (and many of them will)— are also insane.

Sophisticated blah blah blah +
 complex math equations =
 BULLSHIT! — not “science.”

Against NYT’s Paul Krugman And Climate Change

JULY 19, 2022

 
NY Times: 
Climate Politics Are Worse Than You Think


By PAUL KRUGMAN

The despicable Nobel Prize Winning Fake Economist Paul Krugman is one of the most senior propagandists at the “paper of record” and a ubiquitous TV gadfly. The odious little rodent’s subtle condescending scorn and veiled hatred for White people. In this propaganda piece, the sneaky sniveling specimen of Satanic scum attempts to prop up the weakening Climate Con by utilizing every commie cliché and logical fallacy in his arsenal of asininity.

Rather than repeating my usual rebuttals to the usual lies of “climate science,” let’s focus on the deliberately deceptive logical fallacies / rhetorical devices which this master of mendacity — this juvenile joker — this heckling hyena vomits out for his legions of stupid and vapid groupies to gulp down like mother’s milk.

1. Rat-faced lying greaseball. // 2. Nobel Prizes for the hard sciences tend to be valid, but in the realms of foreign affairs and economics, the million dollar award is an indicator of high level criminality. // 3. Putrid Paulie will often scamper out of his rat’s nest to give “expert opinion” by TV Fake News.

Krugman: Texas is often hot, but not like this.
Analysis: This is Recency Bias. With far less asphalt than there is today — Waco, Texas reached 104 degrees in 1917, 1935 and 1978. During the heat wave of 1980, the Dallas/Fort Worth area recorded 42 consecutive days with temperatures above 100 ° F — with temperatures reaching 117 °F at Wichita Falls, Texas.

Krugman: Current forecasts have the temperature in Dallas hitting 109 degrees Tuesday, with highs in triple digits well into next week.
Analysis: This is the Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence, aka “Cherry-Picking” data. On any given day, one can just as easily pick out places on Earth that are experiencing normal temps, or having an unusual cool spell.

Krugman: You have to be willfully blind — unfortunately, a fairly common ailment among politicians, not to see that —
Analysis: This is the ad Hominem Attack Fallacy. He is essentially calling anyone who disputes the Climate Con stupid, dishonest, or both — without presenting any hard evidence to support his own case.

Krugman: — global warming has stopped being a debatable threat.
Analysis:  This is The Science is Settled Fallacy — a variation of what I like to refer to as the “Case Closed Fallacy” — in which a fool or a liar (in this case, a liar) will declare in an authoritative tone that “There is no longer any debate.” — as if such pathetic posturing actually proves anything!

Krugman: Climate scientists — whose warnings ….
Analysis: This is the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. It is intended to intimidate us mere mortals into bowing before the bought & paid for whore “scientists” without so much as even attempting to do our own research and use our own reasoning. This device also ignores the fact that there are many other scientists (all censored) who refute this garbage.

Krugman: …have been overwhelmingly vindicated …
Analysis: They will often say that the evidence for this or that “latest thing” is “overwhelming” — yet they never actually produce any. The powerful-sounding word itself is intended to substitute for the lack of evidence. This is salesmanship, not scholarship. Let’s just call this trick “The Evidence is Overwhelming Trick.” (no link)

God gave us the capacity to reason. The world would be a much brighter place if only people learned to recognize the fundamental fallacies which deceivers (and innocent dupes) utilize to spread dangerous falsehoods and errors.

Krugman: (West Virginia Senator) Joe Manchin just pulled the plug on what may have been the Biden administration’s last chance to do something — anything — meaningful about climate change. Manchin represents a state that still thinks of itself as coal country. He gets more political contributions from the energy industry than any other member of Congress …. He has a large financial conflict of interest arising from his family’s ownership of a coal business.
Analysis: This is the Appeal to Motive Fallacy. Senator Manchin’s perceived motives for opposing the Climate Con (from a coal state, donations from energy companies) is not at all relevant for establishing the veracity of the fundamental theory that man-made CO2 will cause catastrophic “Global Warming.”

Krugman: My guess is that Manchin’s act has as much to do with vanity as with money. His act has, after all, kept him in the political limelight month after month.
Analysis: Let’s call this one the “Little Paulie is a Nasty Slandering Piece of Shit Human Being Fallacy.(no link)

Krugman: Scientific consensus in favor of such policies doesn’t help.
Analysis: This is the Appeal to the Popular Fallacy — truth is arrived at by research and analysis of facts and patterns — not by the “overwhelming consensus” of whore “scientists.”

Krugman: Emission taxes are the Econ 101 solution to pollution.
Analysis: The unspoken reference to “emissions” (CO2) as “pollution” is an Assumptive Fallacy because the casual mention of it as such leads the reader to accepting something that it actually false as being true. CO2 is no more of a “pollutant” than oxygen or water vapor are!

Krugman: The modern G.O.P. is hostile to science and scientists.
Analysis:   Not sure whether to file this doozie under  ad Hominem Attack Fallacy or escalate it to “Little Paulie is a Nasty Slandering Piece of Shit Human Being Fallacy. Probably the latter.

Krugman: Death rates since vaccines became widely available have been far higher in strongly Republican areas than in Democratic areas.
Analysis: This is False Equivalence Fallacy and also Red Herring (Diversion) Fallacy. Even if we were to accept, purely for argument’s sake, that the Stupid-19 scamdemic was real; that vaccines saved millions of lives; and that anti-science Republicans got it all wrong — that would not prove the ludicrous theory which holds that manmade CO2 “emissions” will melt Antarctica and wash away our heavily populated coastal regions.

Krugman: Overwhelming scientific consensus….
Analysis: Wow! A “three-fer” of high-school-level debate team fallacies back-to-back-back — “overwhelming” (“The Overwhelming Trick,” again) “scientific” (Appeal to Authority, again) and “consensus”(Appeal to the Popular, again)

Krugman: That hostility is the fundamental reason we appear set to do nothing while the planet burns.
Analysis: “While the planet burns, eh?” With that bit of drama, Paulie Propagandists closes with a classic example of the Appeal to Fear Fallacy.

*********
So there it is. As usual, not one iota of hard data to support the Climate Con. Just one classic fallacy (lie) heaped upon another upon another. One could actually teach a college course on logic just by analyzing the seditious scribbling of this demented little “Nobel Prize winning” ™ demon.

Once one learns the tricks of the “intellectual” deceiver, his diversionary tactics become very easy to spot. For that reason, critical thinking skills are NOT something that Krugman’s quackademic comrades want their normie students to develop.

1. The “usual suspects” at the Manhattan Mendacity Machine manufacture lies like an auto factory assembly line churns out Fords. // 2. Climate Bogeyman — an entertaining and comprehensive debunk of the Climate Con (in paperback or pdf)
 // 3. Paul Krugman is a deceitful, slandering, anti-White / America-hating COMMUNIST in the mold of “Russian” Red Leon Trotsky — a creature so vile that even Joe Stalin hated him (and had him murdered).
In 2020, Krugman claimed that the child porn on his computer may have been put there by Q Anon hackers.

The “Supremes” Kill the Climate Con 

Still gated up — Is the Supreme Court really in session?

JUNE 30, 2022

NY Times Headlines:

Supreme Court Decision Leaves Biden With Few Tools to Combat Climate Change
*

Supreme Court Strips Federal Government of Crucial Tool to Control Pollution
*

The Climate Math Just Got Harder
*
The Ruling’s Implications May Extend Beyond the Climate Fight

Oh the butt-hurt among the deranged denizens of Libtardia! Another day, and yet another delightful and revolutionary strike-down of a Marxist dictate previously thought to have been permanently engraved in stone. On guns, on abortion, on prayer — the fresh air of justice and liberty emanating from the military junta posing as “Clarence and the Supremes” is sending “the usual suspects” into a mental meltdown.

Now — and this is all just over the course of 8 days, mind you — comes a ruling on “West Virginia vs EPA” which is even more consequential than those recent shock 6-3 rulings. The Global Warming / Climate Change HOAX is dead. Perhaps not the religious belief itself, but for all practical purposes, the de-balling of the tyrannical EPA has put an end to the dangerous Globalist agenda which — in and of itself — had the potential to grind society down into mass poverty and force us into world government. Do “you guys” understand just how BIG this is – hence, the multiple scary stories in “the paper of record” today?

From one of the articles:

“The Supreme Court has issued one of the most important environmental rulings ever, which will make the battle against global warming even more difficult. It is a major setback to the U.S.’s ability to keep its promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The court was asked to consider whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to issue broad, aggressive regulations on climate-warming pollution from power plants that would force many of those plants to close. In a 6-to-3 decision, the justices ruled that the agency has no such authority.”

*
So goes the USA, so goes the rest of the “international community” — in due time. Hail Clarence! Hail Trump!

1. The “Climate Bogeyman” just had his balls ripped out. // 2. Thank you, Clarence, Clarence, Clarence, Clarence, Clarence & Clarence. 
That miserable little Swedish she-devil has been very quiet lately. Did the military White Hats ship this Marxist monster to Gitmo for trial and execution too?

Just imagine the demoralization of the New World Order bosses (if they are even still alive at this point). With tremendous wall-to-wall “flood-the-zone” fanfare, they had kicked-off the Green Scheme with the first “Earth Day” in 1970. It was an intense Covid-like event which was used to bully the Nixon administration into adding, on a small scale, a new department to the Executive Branch of government — the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and also signing “The Clean Air Act”(which was somewhat needed at the time) into law.  About a decade later, in 1979 to be precise, came the first whispers of a “Greenhouse Effect” caused by CO2. If left uncontrolled, the hoaxsters claimed, “emissions” would so heat the planet that Antarctica’s 1-mile deep ice cover would melt and wipe us out.

By the mid-1980’s, the hideous HOAX – by then rebranded as “Global Warming” — had been declared to be “settled science.” By the time the criminal Clinton-Gore gang left office in 2001, the again rebranded crisis — now “Climate Change” — was subject to unilateral “regulation” by the super-powered EPA. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could “regulate” CO2. And by the time Obongo and his cross-dressing fag-hag were done raping the country in 2017, the EPA was aggressively hobbling industry and even killing coal companies at will.

That’s how long the Globalists have been at this dangerous game; and how vast the Green Power had become. But now, just like the striking down of the 49-year old Roe vs Wade ruling — and the striking down of the 21-year old ban on prayer at High School football games — the enforcement mechanism of the Climate Con has been deactivated. Wow.

Let us close today’s piece with the same words as we closed the one from just three days ago, and the one just three days before that:

“Let’s see what the next pleasant surprise from Papa Clarence and the “Supremes” will be.”

*Editor’s Note: The ongoing January 6th circus is having the effect of diverting the big guns of the Jurisprudence Armada to such an extent that the juiced-up “outrage” over these recent SC decisions has been significantly blunted. I wonder if Trump planned it that way?

All that effort — all those years — all that scheming, manipulation and brainwashing — ALL FOR NAUGHT NOW!

Elon Musk vs the Marxists: A Very Strange Development

NY Times Caption: Elon Musk has not helped Tesla’s stock price by turning his bid to buy Twitter into a financial soap opera.

May 22, 2022


NY Times:


Tesla’s Aura Dims as Its Plunging Stock Highlights the Risks It Faces
*

How Elon Musk Winged It With Twitter, and Everything Else

*

Elon Musk Left a South Africa That Was Rife With Misinformation and White Privilege

*

The Problem With Elon Musk’s Vision of Tesla’s Autopilot Future

*

Piecing Together the Messages of Elon Musk

*

The Allegations Against Musk



Elon Musk — that mysterious mogul who owes his entire “richest-man-in-the-world” fortune to —

1. Exploitation of the Global Warming / Climate Change  HOAX
2. Unlimited positive free publicity from the Globalist media
3. Never-ending government contracts, mandates and subsidies associated with his companies (SpaceX, Tesla, Solar City, Boring, Neuralink)

— 
is now at war with the “elites” who made him and the activist radicals who once admired him. His tweets — amplified by countless millions of fanboys — are rocking the foundations of Libtardia even more so than Trump’s ever did because, in Musk’s case, his brutal and unremitting attacks on the Left are coming from a politically left-leaning “moderate” — not a “far right extremist.”

Musk — though probably hurting his business in the process — is making it safe for the mushy middle to turn against the Demonrat Party; and the sudden vicious counter attacks by pinko press against Musk and his Tesla company  only serve to expose their “mainstream media” bias even more. This is truly a delightful development that we could never have anticipated.

The questions remain, on Musk:

“Is Musk a “White Hat” now? Was he a sleeper all along? Is he faking it? Or is he a “Gray Hat” now — meaning, someone who — either for money or under duress — was flipped from Black to White by the White Hats?

The Mystery of Musk just gets murkier and murkier.”

Let’s examine this matter further.

Musk’s “tweets” are even mightier than Trump’s used to be — and he is killing the Democrats with them on many different issues. (((They))) never saw this one coming either.

In November & December of 2021  — at a time when Tesla stocks were still rising and rising — Musk — or shall we say “Musk” — sold off an eye-popping $16 Billion worth of Tesla shares. In April of this year, an additional $8.5 billion was sold — ostensibly to help buy Twitter. Just before Elon began his late 2021 selling spree, his equally shady younger brother, Kimbal Musksold off $109 Million. Eight months earlier, Kimbal had sold $25,000,000 worth. Since the 2021 sell-offs, Tesla stock has plunged from its November high of $1,208 down to $663 as of today! Nice “pump & dump” there, Elon — or “Elon.”

Not only did the Musk boys avert big personal losses, but Elon’s shift to the “far right” — a move that has already killed the favorable free publicity which created him and is now hammering down Tesla stock even further — is sure to hurt sales as many goofy global warmists will now buy their electric cars from BMW or Mercedes. What’s going on here?

We should all reject, out of hand, any consideration of the possibility that Murky Musk, or “Musk,” is now a morally motivated adopted American patriot for whom noblesse oblige outweighs profits. That characterization may work for his fawning fanboys, but to a seasoned analyst of these slimy characters, any such naive notion is laughable. And we may also now rule out the aforementioned option that he is faking his sudden rightward tilt as part of a Deep State psyop. He’s gone waaay too “far right” on too many issues by now. He’s even mentioning “red pills” and promoting the John Durham investigation of Q fame! Deductively speaking, that leaves us with only three options:

1. Musk is a self-serving, money & fame addicted, long term sleeper recruited by the White Hats a long time ago and secretly working for them all along.
2. The White Hats, in recent years, made crooked Musk an offer he couldn’t refuse — specifically this: “Work for us and let us access some of your billions — or die in Gitmo!”
3. The real Musk — like the real Biden, the real Killary, the real Fauci et al. — was disappeared & deep faked, his fortune commandeered, and his mighty twitter account taken over.

* Editor’s Note: Musk isn’t the only character to suddenly and surprisingly start attacking liberals and/or sounding conciliatory toward Trump. In recent months, we have noticed examples of this growing phenomenon with extreme Left TV hosts Bill Maher & Trevor Noah, race-baiter extraordinaire Al Sharpton, and ultra-libtard “intellectual” guru, Noam Chomksy.

It’s a vexing riddle — with each of the three possibilities sounding “crazier” than the other; and yet, it must be one of those options. But whichever way one leans as to the answer, the multiple-choice question itself represents a win-win-win for our side — a BIG win. Hence, the hateful Fake News barrage now being unloaded against “the world’s richest man” — a now out-of-control Frankenstein monster (or Frankenstein Ghost?) which (((they))) created.

Go, “Elon.” Go!

Destroying Food To Fight Climate Change Is MADNESS

What is happening in Northern Ireland is part of a larger push to wean humans off red meat, particularly beef, which humans consume to the tune of 350 millions tons each year.

destroying food to fight climate change is madness

On Earth Day, a 50-year-old environmentalist and photographer from Colorado named Wynn Alan Bruce lit himself on fire outside the US Supreme Court.

Friends of Bruce, who subsequently died, said he was worried about climate change.

“This guy was my friend,” said Kritee Kanko, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. “This was not an act of suicide. This is a deeply fearless act of compassion to bring attention to [the] climate crisis.”

Bruce’s act of immolation is one example of increasing fear of climate change, a fear that is damaging humans in various ways, including a surge in so-called “climate anxiety.”

This fear is also manifesting itself in other ways, including the realm of public policy.

Many countries around the world are aggressively pursuing net-zero carbon emission plans designed to mitigate the effects of global warming.

‘Losing’ A Million Sheep And Cattle

While people tend to think reducing emissions involves shutting down coal plants, driving more electric vehicles, and relying more on solar and wind power — each of which comes with environmental and economic costs — these are not the only policies on the table.

Increasingly governments are targeting a different emission source: food (livestock specifically). The reasons for this are not hard to find.

No less an authority than the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes that about one third of climate warming from greenhouse gasses stems from human-caused emissions of methane. While CO2 gets more attention, the EPA notes that methane is actually a more potent greenhouse gas, trapping about 30 times as much heat as CO2 over a century.

A new law in Northern Ireland sets a target of zero net emissions by 2050, and the BBC reports the legislation includes a proposed 46 percent reduction in methane emissions.

Since about a third of human-caused methane gasses come from livestock, Northern Ireland is looking at a huge reduction of farm animals — especially sheep and cattle — to meet that goal.

“Northern Ireland will need to lose more than 1 million sheep and cattle to meet its new legally binding climate emissions targets,” The Guardian recently reported.

Specifically, according to estimates from the Ulster Farmers’ Union, some 500,000 cattle and roughly 700,000 sheep would have to “be lost in order for Northern Ireland to meet the new climate targets.”

While the pig and poultry sectors also will need to be cut to meet emission targets, climate officials said these sectors are less harmful to the environment than “red meat” livestock.

“If you look at the evidence on the lifecycle of greenhouse gas emissions, the red meat livestock sources – beef, dairy, sheep – have the highest emissions because they’re ruminant and they have high methane emissions,” Ewa Kmietowicz, head of the land use mitigations team at the Climate Change Committee told the paper.

Chris Stark, CCC chief executive, told The Guardian that a switch to arable farming would likely be necessary to maintain food production levels.

Let Them Eat Synthetic Beef

What is happening in Northern Ireland is part of a much larger push to wean humans off red meat, particularly beef, which humans consume to the tune of 350 millions tons each year.

Many people, including Microsoft founder Billy Boy, have argued nations have a responsibility to transition off beef for environmental reasons.

“I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,” Gates remarked in an interview with MIT Technology Review last year. “You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time.”

Gates doesn’t really explain how this transition should occur, but we’re beginning to see.

While there’s no question that global temperatures are rising — 14 percent per decade, on average — people should find the efforts by central planners to curb climate change more alarming than rising temps.

Such policies have the earmarks of failed collectivist programs of the past, such as FDR’s “porcine slaughter of the innocents,” which saw millions of pigs and sows destroyed while people were going hungry — all in an attempt to keep prices high.

FDR’s mad program was child’s play, however, compared to Chairman Mao, who had plans to revolutionize China’s agricultural sector with his Great Leap Forward.

Things didn’t go as planned. It turned out food production was more complex than Mao anticipated. Via Britannica Online:

“The inefficiency of the communes and the large-scale diversion of farm labour into small-scale industry disrupted China’s agriculture seriously, and three consecutive years of natural calamities added to what quickly turned into a national disaster; in all, about 20 million people were estimated to have died of starvation between 1959 and 1962.”

Did you catch that? Twenty million people died under Mao’s collectivist effort.

Nor was this the first man-made famine created by socialists. In 1932 and 1933, millions of Ukraininans died in a famine engineered by the Soviet Union.

“In the case of the Holodomor, this was the first genocide that was methodically planned out and perpetrated by depriving the very people who were producers of food of their nourishment (for survival),” wrote historian Andrea Graziosi, a professor at the University of Naples.

The genocide, Graziosi notes, was not just tragic but ironic in that it took place in a region globally recognzed as the “breadbasket of Europe.”

These accounts remind us of a dark and disturbing reality highlighted by economist Thomas Sowell.

“Many of the greatest disasters of our time have been created by experts,” Sowell has observed.

In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, the economist F.A. Hayek explained that such disasters stem from the lack of humility among central planners about the knowledge (or lack thereof) they possess in their “fatal striving to control society.”

Above all else, Hayek said, the role of economics is to temper such grand plans.

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to [humans] how little they really know about what they imagine they can design,” Hayek observed in The Fatal Conceit.

Attempting to curb climate change by destroying food supplies may not appear quite as crazy as lighting oneself on fire in front of the Supreme Court to protest a lack of government action on climate change.

But it may ultimately prove to be even more deadly.

Source: FEE.org

Climate Change Alarmism Debunked AGAIN: Arctic Sea Ice Is Now 3% Below Its 30 Year Average

According to the latest report from the EU’s Earth observation programme, Arctic sea ice is just 3 per cent below its 30 year average.

Whoops, narrative fail!

The Daily Sceptic’s environmental editor Chris Morrison explains the data:

The red line on the graph on the left plots the 2021 record and it can be seen that it is an improvement on recent years. Deviations from the average in March and September shown on the right have both eased in recent years.

Of course in historical and geological terms these changes are insignificant, but they are likely to put a dampener on the generally hysterical tone about polar weather encountered in most climate change debate. This tone was set back in 2009 when former US vice president Al Gore reported there was a high chance that the North Pole would be summer ice free by 2013.

So far as climate catastrophism is concerned, the Arctic is the gift that keeps on giving. Discussing a crackpot scheme to ‘save the Arctic ice’ by sprinkling it with glass, the BBC Future Planet site noted in 2020 that the area was in a “self-destructive feedback loop”. Much of the ice was said to be “rapidly vanishing”.

Morrison goes on to document how Arctic sea ice has grown and abated for hundreds of years of historical records and well before man started emitting carbon dioxide to any significant degree.

gulf sea ice

As we highlighted last year, one of the authors of the United Nations IPCC report who focused on “extreme” consequences of man-made global warming lauded the fact that “people are starting to get scared” about climate change and that this would “affect the way they vote.”

However, doomsday climate change prophecies have been proven spectacularly wrong time and time again.

According to a much heralded 2004 report, man-made climate change would cause “millions” of deaths, major European cities being sunken, nuclear war and global environmental riots… all by 2020.

Related article: Al Gore’s 10 Global Warming Predictions, 16 Years Later — None Happened!

As we highlighted back in January 2020, Montana’s Glacier National Park was forced to remove all signs that read “glaciers will all be gone by 2020,” after the doomsday scenario didn’t happen.

glacier national park removes signs 2020 750x394

So-called “climate experts” have got it wrong time and time again on absolutely everything, from Paul Ehrlich’s prediction of millions of deaths from famine by the 80’s, to Al Gore’s absurd claim that the Arctic would have “ice free” summers by 2013.

arctic sea ice cap

At the end of the 70’s, climate experts said that a new ice age was coming. It didn’t happen.

None of it ever happens, yet the same “experts” are still given platforms and vast funding to insist we reduce our living standards, while voices of dissent are silenced by government decree, Big Tech censorship and social media algorithms.

Reference: Summit.news

UN Warning: The “Global Wildfire Crisis”

For those of us who understand how the illusionists behind this fallen world of ours operate, and are able to “read between the lines” with our third eye, the opening lines of this Slimes article amount to a confession to serial arson coming from the Globalists at the UN, and published in “the paper of record.”

“A landmark United Nations report has concluded that the risk of devastating wildfires around the world will surge in coming decades as climate change further intensifies what the report described as a “global wildfire crisis.

The scientific assessment is the first by the organization’s environmental authority to evaluate wildfire risks worldwide. It was inspired by a string of deadly blazes around the globe in recent years, burning the American West, vast stretches of Australia and even the Arctic.

The heating of the planet is turning landscapes into tinderboxes,” said the report, which was published on Wednesday by the United Nations Environment Program.” (emphasis added)
*

Problem — reaction — solution. TEXTBOOK!

Who needs to wait around for the mile-thick ice-caps of the deep Antarctic and Greenland interiors to melt and drown us within the span of the ever-moving-up timeline of “20-25 years from now” when a few gas cans — or, better yet, some aerial or space-based lasers — can whip up made-for-TV infernos now and in the near future. Oh yes, it was (((the usual suspects))) who were behind the rash of mysterious hell-on-earth fires of these past few years now dubbed as “the global wildfire crisis.” Bet on it.

The report attributes the “the global wildfire crisis” to increased temperatures and dryness caused by decreased rainfall and humidity. This is truly an astonishing example of Orwellian double-think coming from the very same United Nations which, in another “scientific” report published only six months ago, had this to say about precipitation:

“As air temperatures increase, the atmosphere can hold more moisture and thus produce heavier rainfall. As a result, heavy precipitation events have increased in both frequency and intensity since 1950.” (emphasis added)

*

Too much rain and more flooding? Blame it on CO2 (plant food).
Not enough rain and more wildfires? Blame it on CO2.
Droughts and floods at “normal” levels? Don’t confuse weather and climate, dammit!

No matter which predictable or unpredictable, short term or long term course nature takes, the well-paid high priests of the Communist Climate Con and their true-believing “lesser brethren” have got a manufactured explanation for it — one which their co-conspirators in Fake News will always publish and extol as “settled science.”

The article closes out with some “educational” links for the demented boobs who worship the Slimes to “learn more.”

Learn More About Climate Change

  • If you struggle to understand the science behind climate change, let us walk you through the basics.
  • Get your children invested, by talking to them about our warming planet, and what we can all do about it.
  • In the climate debate, the science is clear, and the language is anything but.  These are the buzzwords to know.

Fake News has come a long way since the very first casually mentioned “trial balloon” claims of 1979 about how “Some scientists speculate that we may be experiencing a CO2-caused Greenhouse Effect” — to: “Shut up, you imbecile! the science is settled! Learn more!” And all throughout that 43-year period, all of the real observable science points to the theory of man-made CO2-based “Global Warming” as being a well-financed joke on humanity — just like its cousin, the Stupid-19 scamdemic.

Global Freezing and Global Warming

Following the supposedly unusual “record” high and low temps of 2021, the first real snow and cold wave has descended upon the eastern United States. But if any of “you guys” think this presents a good “teachable moment” to tweak the loons of Libtardia with a “Say, what happened to Global Warming?” barb —  well, that won’t get you too far because “science” now tells us that nasty cold spells (just like killer heat waves) are also caused by “heat-trapping” CO2 as well. Hence the back & forth marketing shift from “Global Warming” to the catch-all “Climate Change.

A bit of “1984”-ish Orwellian double-think, from the article:

Temperatures in the United States last year set more heat and cold records than any other year since 1994.” (emphasis added)

You see how the Marxist manipulators of the public mind work?

Too hot — blame it on made-made CO2 and call for taxing “emissions.”
Too cold — blame it on man-made CO2 and call for taxing “emissions.” 
Just right — say we must not mistake weather for climate and call for taxing “emissions .”

Still not buying this now 43-year-old doomsday bullshit? Well then, you evidently just don’t understand “science,” boys and girls.

Fake Science aside, from a philosophical perspective, what really fascinates your baby-boomer historian here — who, having lived through all 43 years of this hoax and watched it grow from a few sporadic hypotheses into a Global cult of “settled science”  — is how short people’s memories are. We may forgive the 35 & under population demographic for not appreciating how long and how wrong the “20-years-from-now” doomsday computer model forecasts have been. But how can anyone who has been blasted with this Bolshevik bullshit for a full 20 years or more not have realized by now that new doomsday target dates are perpetually pushed forward as the old doomsday dates come and go? Heck, I specifically recall being taught, circa 1981-82, that lower Manhattan would be under water “by the year 2000!”

Even if a man did not possess a basic understanding of the Globalist Conspiracy nor of basic science; one would think that by actually living through the passing of relatively recent history and so many wrong predictions (including the ice-age scare of the 1970’s) that the middle-aged Normie would have grown suspicious about all the past and present hype by now, and started to ask some probing questions. Evidently not, and Orwell nailed this one too:

Eric Arthur Blair

The Climate Con  — referred to in the beginning as “The Greenhouse Effect” — was preceded by the announcement of “Earth Day” in 1970. With great fanfare ginned up by the Jurisprudence, the very first such observance kicked-off with CBS’s Walter Cronkite (CFR) (aka, “the most trusted man in America) hosting a nationally televised TV special (at a time when there were only 3 networks). The theme of “saving the planet” was thus introduced to the gullible young hippie crowd who have since grown up to take over America — at the behest of their invisible New World Order handlers.

During the period between 1979-1982, at a time when world population and man-made CO2 “emissions” were far lower than today, concerns about an ice-age were suddenly replaced with tales of a warming “Greenhouse Effect” that was expected to melt the Antarctic ice-cap and catastrophically flood the world’s coastlines by the Year 2000. Four decades later, none of the dire flooding and crop failure predictions have come to pass as “doomsday” is again and again pushed up to yet another far off date in “our children’s future” as forgetful fools over forty fail to notice anything suspicious about the “science” behind the never-materializing and never-ending scare that is the Climate Con. What the heck is the matter with people?

As The Great One(that’s Hitler for you newbies & normies) once observed in one of his criticisms of the predatory political class which he was seeking to replace: “What good fortune for rulers that men do not think.”

1 & 2. Cronkite (who years later openly admitted to supporting world government) and the media’s heavy promotion of “Earth Day 1970” was a sure indication of a Globalist push for some sinister agenda. /// 3. 1978: “In Search Of” TV Show — People aged 45 and under cannot remember that we once had an ice-age scare which some scientists were actually blaming on “pollution.”

People Don’t ‘Trust The Science’ Because Too Many Scientists Are Liars With Agendas

By Brandon Smith

There has been an unfortunate shift in Western educational practices in the past few decades away from what we used to call “critical thinking.” In fact, critical thinking was once a fundamental staple of US colleges and now it seems as though the concept doesn’t exist anymore; at least not in the way it used to.

Instead, another form of learning has arisen which promotes “right thinking”; a form of indoctrination which encourages and rewards a particular response from students that falls in line with ideology and not necessarily in line with reality.

people don’t 'trust the science' because too many scientists are liars with agendas

It’s not that schools directly enforce a collectivist or corporatist ideology (sometimes they do), it’s more that they filter out alternative viewpoints as well as facts and evidence they do not like until all that is left is a single path and a single conclusion to any given problem. They teach students how to NOT think by presenting thought experiments and then controlling the acceptable outcomes.

For example, a common and manipulative thought experiment used in schools is to ask students to write an “analysis” on why people do not trust science or scientists these days. The trick is that the question is always presented with a built-in conclusion – that scientists should be trusted, and some people are refusing to listen, so let’s figure out why these people are so stupid.

I have seen this experiment numerous times, always presented in the same way. Not once have I ever seen a college professor or public school teacher ask students: “Should scientists today be trusted?”

Not once.

This is NOT analysis, this is controlled hypothesis. If you already have a conclusion in mind before you enter into a thought experiment, then you will naturally try to adjust the outcome of the experiment to fit your preconceived notions. Schools today present this foolishness as a form of thinking game when it is actually propaganda.

Students are being taught to think inside the box, not outside the box. This is not science, it is anti-science.

Educational programming like this is now a mainstay while actual science has taken a backseat. Millions of kids are exiting public schools and universities with no understanding of actual scientific method or science in general.

Ask them what the equations for Density or Acceleration are, and they’ll have no clue what your are talking about. Ask them about issues surrounding vaccination or “climate change”, and they will regurgitate a litany of pre-programmed responses as to why the science cannot be questioned in any way.

In the alternative media we often refer to this as being “trapped in the Matrix,” and it’s hard to think of a better analogy. People have been rewarded for so long for accepting the mainstream narrative and blindly dismissing any other information that when they are presented with reality they either laugh at it arrogantly or recoil in horror. The Matrix is so much more comfortable and safe, and look at all the good grades you get when you say the right things and avoid the hard questions and agree with the teacher.

Given the sad state of science in the West these days surrounding the response to covid as well as the insane and unscientific push for forced vaccinations, I thought it would be interesting to try out this thought exercise, but from an angle that is never allowed in today’s schools:

Why don’t people trust the science and scientists anymore?

This is simple: Because too many scientists have been caught lying and misrepresenting their data to fit the conclusions they want rather than the facts at hand. Science is often politicized to serve an agenda. This is not conspiracy theory, this is provable fact.

That’s not to say that all science is to be mistrusted. The point is, no science should be blindly accepted without independent examination of ALL the available facts. This is the whole point of science, after all.

Yes, there are idiotic conspiracy theories out there when it comes to scientific analysis, but there are a number of scams in the world of science as well.

The usual false claim is that the average person is ignorant and that they don’t have the capacity to understand scientific data. I do find it interesting that this is the general message of the trust-science thought experiment. It fits right in line with the mainstream and government narrative that THEIR scientists, the scientists they pay for and that corporations pay for, are implicitly correct and should not be questioned. They are the high priests of the modern era, delving into great magics that we dirty peasants cannot possibly grasp. It is not for us to question “the science”, it our job to simply embrace it like a religion and bow down in reverence.

Most people have the capacity to sift through scientific data as long as it’s transparent. When the facts are obscured or spun or omitted this causes confusion, and of course only the establishment scientists can untangle the mess because they are the ones that created it. Let’s look at a couple of examples directly related to human health…

GMO Crops And The Corporate Money Train

The propaganda surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms is relentless and pervasive, with the overall thrust being that they are perfectly safe and that anyone who says otherwise is a tinfoil hat crackpot. And certainly, there a hundreds if not thousands of studies which readily confirm this conclusion. So, case closed, right?

Not quite. Here is where critical thinking is so useful and where reality escapes the indoctrinated – Who paid for these studies, and do they have a vested interest in censoring negative data on GMOs?

Well, in the vast majority of cases GMO studies are funded by two sources – GMO industry giants like Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, or, government agencies like the FDA and EPA. Very few studies are truly independent, and this is the problem. Both the government and corporations like Monsanto have a vested interest in preventing any critical studies from being released on GMO’s.

Monsanto has been caught on numerous occasions hiding the dangerous health effects of its products, from Agent Orange to the RGBH growth hormone used in dairy cows. They have been caught compiling illegal dossiers on their critics. The industry has been caught multiple times paying off academics and scientists to produce studies on GMOs with a positive spin and even to attack other scientists that are involved in experiments that are critical of GMOs. Research shows that at least half of all GMO studies are funded by the GMO industry, while the majority of the other half are funded by governments.

There has also long been a revolving door between GMO industry insiders and the FDA and EPA; officials often work for Monsanto and then get jobs with the government, then go back to Monsanto again. The back scratching is so egregious that the government even created special legal protections for GMO companies like Monsanto under what is now known as the Monsanto Protection Act (Section 735 of Agricultural Appropriations Bill HR 993) under the Obama Administration in 2013. This essentially makes GMO companies immune to litigation over GMOs, and the same protections have been renewed in different bills ever since.

Beyond the revolving door, the government has approved many GMO products with little to no critical data to confirm their safety. Not only that, but in most cases the government has sovereign immunity from litigation, even if they’ve been negligent. Meaning, if any of these products is proven to cause long term health damage the government cannot be sued for approving them unless there are special circumstances.

If they could be held liable, you would be damn sure the FDA would be running every conceivable test imaginable to confirm GMOs are definitively safe without any bias attached, but this is not the case. Instead, the government actively propagandizes for GMO companies and uses hired hatchet men to derail any public criticism.

I, for one, would certainly like to know for sure if GMOs are harmful to the human body in the long term, and there is certainly science to suggest that this might be the case. There have been many situations in which specific GMO foods were removed from the market because of potentially harmful side effects. Endogenous toxins of plants with modified metabolites are a concern, along with “plant incorporated protectants” (plants designed to produce toxins which act as pesticides).

There is data that tells us to be wary, but nothing conclusive. Why? Because billions of dollars are being invested by corporations into research designed to “debunk” any notion of side effects.

If the same amount of funding was put into independent studies with no bias, then we might hear a different story about the risks of GMOs. All the money is in dismissing the risks of GMOs; there’s almost no money in studying them honestly.

The science appears to be rigged to a particular outcome or narrative, and that is lying. Science is supposed to remain as objective as possible, but how can it be objective when it is being paid for by people with an agenda? The temptation to sell out is extreme.

Covid Vaccines And The Death Of Science

I bring up the example of GMO’s because I think it is representative of how science can be controlled to produce only one message while excluding all other analysis.

We don’t really know for sure how dangerous GMOs are because the majority of data is dictated by the people that profit from them and by their friends in government.

The lack of knowing is upheld as proof of safety – but this is not scientific. Science and medicine would demand that we err on the side of caution until we know for sure.

The same dynamic exists in the world of covid vaccines. Big Pharma has a vested interest in ensuring NO negative information is released about the mRNA vaccines because there is a perpetual river of money to be made as long as the vax remains approved for emergency use by the FDA. It may be important to note that the FDA has said it will take at least 55 YEARS to release all the data it has on the Pfizer covid vaccines, which suggests again that there is a beneficial collusion between the government and corporate behemoths.

In the meantime, anyone that questions the efficacy or safety of the vax is immediately set upon by attack dogs in the media, most of them paid with advertising dollars from Big Pharma. These attacks are not limited to the alternative media; the establishment has also gone after any scientist or doctor with questions about vaccine safety.

There are clear and openly admitted ideological agendas surrounding covid science which have nothing to do with public health safety and everything to do with political control. When you have the head of the World Economic Forum applauding the covid pandemic as a perfect “opportunity” to push forward global socialist centralization and erase the last vestiges of free markets and individual liberty, any rational person would have to question if the covid science is also being rigged to support special interests.

Luckily, the covid issue is so massive that it is impossible for them to control every study. Instead, the establishment ignores the studies and data they don’t like.

The virus is being hyped as a threat to the majority of the public and as a rationale for 100% vaccination rates, by force if needed. Yet, the median Infection Fatality Rate of covid is only 0.27%. This means that on average 99.7% of the population at any given time has nothing to fear from the virus. This is confirmed by dozens of independent medical studies, but when was the last time you heard that number discussed by mainstream government scientists like Anthony Fauci?

I’ve never heard them talk about it. But how is it scientific to ignore data just because it doesn’t fit your political aims? Again, deliberate omission of data is a form of lying.

What about the multiple studies indicating that natural immunity is far superior in protection to the mRNA vaccines? What about the fact that the countries with the highest vaccination rates also have the highest rates of infections and their hospitalizations have actually increased? What about the fact that the states and countries with the harshest lockdown and mask mandates also have the highest infection rates? What about the fact that the average vaccine is tested for 10-15 years before being approved for human use, while the covid mRNA vaccines were put into production within months? That is to say, there is NO long term data to prove the safety of the covid vax.

These are easily observable scientific facts, but we never hear about them from corporate scientists or government scientists like Fauci. Instead, Fauci argues that criticism of his policies is an attack on him, and attacking him is the same as “attacking science.” In other words, Fauci believes HE IS the science.

And doesn’t that just illustrate how far science has fallen in the new millennium. Real scientists like Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technique, call Fauci a fraud, but they are ignored while Fauci is worshiped.

The Global Cooling, Global Warming And Now Climate Change Fraud

I can’t even get into climate change “science” here, I would have to write an entire separate article about the fallacies perpetrated by global warming academics (did you know that global temperatures have only increased by 1 degree Celsius in the past century? Yep, just 1 degree according to the NOAA’s own data, yet, institutions like the NOAA continue to claim the end of the world is nigh because of global warming).

The stringent bottleneck on science today reminds me of the Catholic church under Pope Innocent III when church authorities forbade common people from owning or reading a bible. These laws remained in effect well into the 13th century. Instead, the peasants were to go to church and have the texts read to them by specific clergy. Often the bible readings were done in Latin which most people did not speak, and interpreted however the church wished.

It was only the invention of the printing press in the 1400s that changed the power dynamic and allowed bibles to be widely distributed and information to spread without church oversight. Much like the creation of the internet allows the public to access mountains of scientific data and methodologies at their fingertips. The free flow of information is an anathema according to the establishment; they argue that only they have the right to process information for public consumption.

Cultism requires excessive control of data and the complete restriction of outside interpretations. As information becomes openly available the public is then able to learn the whole truth, not just approved establishment narratives.

Science is quickly becoming a political religion rather than a bastion of critical thought. Conflicting data is ignored as “non-science” or even censored as “dangerous.” Government and corporate paid studies are treated as sacrosanct. Is it any wonder that so many people now distrust the science? Any reasonable person would have questions and suspicions. Those who do not have been indoctrinated into a cult they don’t even know they are a part of.