GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Snowflakes Prove Again That Truth Melts Them

by

At Breitbart.com, James Delingpole savors the meltdown. Here’s the summary.

  • Bret Stephens, not all that much of a conservative firebrand, comes to the New York Times.
  • His first column suggests ever so gently that the Climate Changists may have over-hyped their case just a tad, making the public’s skeptical reactions just a bit understandable. He adds, “None of this is to deny climate change.”
  • Hilarity ensues.

You’ve seen the items about climate scienticians cancelling their NYT subscriptions. My favorite is German climate professor Stefan Rahmstorf, who compares his side to the heroes Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler facing the wrath of the Roman Church.

Why my favorite? Because it’s so delusional. Yes: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler faced off against the religious, well-funded “scientific consensus” of their day. In our day, the Climate Changists ARE that religious, well-funded “scientific consensus”. Not the heroes challenging it.

As Delingpole concludes, Climate Change has become “a religion where heretics must burn.” Or even non-heretics, like Bret Stephens, who show heretics the tiniest crumb of understanding.

UPDATE: Steven Crowder hosts a real scientist, to talk climate change. They’re both smart guys and I found it informative.

Just How Long Has This Racket Been In Business?

by

Not to step on Jeff’s excellent post, but I saw this and thought it kind of forwards his points. The use of the Global Warming/Climate Change Scare to further a socialist/globalist political agenda has been going on almost as long as I have been alive.

It was in 1972 that the UN and World Bank, along with the Club of Rome decided to use CAGW (“catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”) as a whip to drive humanity back into serfdom.

Details in comments at the link.  Including the CIA getting into the act in 1974, publishing a report claiming that “global cooling” and overpopulation would lead to catastrophic consequences by the mid-1980s.

In 1973, NASA made conscious political decision to preserve its funding by reinventing itself as an environmentalist organization:

“NASA realized that it needed to research environmental-atmospheric impacts of the shuttle to defend itself, if necessary, against possible opposition more positively, (NASA Chief James) Fletcher sought to align his agency with environmental values. In 1973, he told congress that NASA should be considered “an environmental agency.” he declared: “everything we do …helps in some practical way to improve the environment of our planet and helps us understand the forces that affect it. Perhaps that is our essential task, to study and understand the earth and its environment.”

Which resulted in NASA predicting, in 1988, that devastating consequences from Global Warming would begin to be felt in the mid-1990s.

Then, as now, there was only one set of solutions to avoid global catastrophe: A massive transfer of power and wealth from the private sector to the Government, and trans-national political authorities led by political elites to implement planet-wide environmental policies and resource allocation. Coincidentally, the people promoting the Climate Change Catastrophes would accumulate wealth and power under these policies; but this was necessary to save the planet.

Stefan Molyneux on “Climate Change”

by

I find Molyneux’s video-enlarged, ranting bald head a bit creepy. But his content is often brilliant. I recently listened to this one from 2015.

Molyneux proposes the following thought experiment:

  1. Suppose stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs – whomever you view as corruptible) are in charge of calculating some important measure of the world.
  2. Let’s call it the Economy Rate (ER). It could go up or down. The stockbrokers fudge and massage the ER data, as they see fit.
  3. First, the stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going DOWN! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
  4. But over the years, the ER rises. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going UP! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
  5. But then the ER stops going up. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it could go UP OR DOWN! With unpredictable pauses! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”

At what point do you begin to see that the stockbrokers are taking you, in a racket?

  • Point 1 is climate scientists – who are a huge, publicly-funded industry. Each scientist profits (as wage/salary payments, benefits, etc.) from the grants she receives.
  • Point 2 is the world average temperature, which climate scientists derive from data that they themselves fudge and massage.
  • Point 3 is the 1970s, when climate scientists gave alarming predictions of a New Ice Age.
  • Point 4 is the 1980s to the 2000s, when their monster was Global Warming. The famous “hockey stick” upward graph.
  • Point 5 is recent years, when the “hockey stick” graph failed and they switched it to Climate Change – in whatever direction.

Do you believe that climate scientists are less corruptible than stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs)? That they’re somehow more objective and noble?

I don’t. You who do (lefties) have a RELIGIOUS FAITH in climate scientists, that you’re not admitting. And it’s exactly what climate scientists want you to have.

Your delusional, gullible faith is how they keep their tens of billions of taxpayer dollars coming. And of course they would have a “consensus” that they are objective and noble and deserve it and should be listened to and those dollars should keep coming. Of course they would.

Happy Earth Day!

Doom!

by

A leading Climate Scientician with a Captain Kangaroo haircut says we’re doomed and the human race will be extinct in ten years.

 The University of Arizona emeritus professor says in 10 years, humans will cease to exist. Abrupt rises in temperature have us on course for the sixth mass extinction – similar to one that happened about 252 million years ago that culminated in the “great dying”.

That event was the worst of the mass extinction events in our planet’s history and saw all complex life cease, leaving microbes and fungi to rule the planet.

“I think we are heading for something like that this time around, too,” McPherson said.

“I just don’t see how very complex, very complicated organisms that depend upon so many other species, such as humans, I just don’t see how we get through that.”

All righty, then, so let’s not even bother with destroying the Global economy in order to “fight Climate Change.” If we’re doomed anyway, let’s have some fun with it. Forget recounting Jill Stein’s votes (it doesn’t matter anyway) and burn some whales.

[Read more…]

YHGTBFKM*

by

Stockholm had over a foot of Global Warming dumped on it last week; a record for the month of November. You would think Scandinavian countries located in what PJ O’Rourke once called “The Unheated Attic of Europe” would be able to handle a little snow. However, the socialist government of Stockholm decided … I am not making this up … that snow removal should take into account gender inequities and… yadda, yadda, yadda… big f–king mess.

Stockholm’s center-left government introduced a new “gender equal” approach to clearing the roads of snow last year. The policy states that sidewalks, public transport and bicycle lanes should be cleared before turning attention to the roads. The reason is that women are more likely to use sidewalks while men are overrepresented among commuters driving to work.

When the first major snow storm swept the capital last week, traffic went into a standstill as no one cleared the streets. People couldn’t get to work, schools had to close and commuters were stuck in traffic for hours without moving.

*You Have Got To Be Kidding Me.

Green Energy Policies Force Canadians to Choose Between Heat and Food

by

America’s Hat — like many other places brainwashed into believing that the possibility of a slight temperature rise will doom all of humanity — has adopted “green energy policies” that favor expensive, unreliable sources of power (wind and solar) over less expensive, highly reliable sources like coal, gas, and nuclear. I witnessed this first-hand driving through southern Ontario last year, where there are some sixty continuous miles of spinning bird-choppers lining the highway between Toronto and Detroit.

Bowing at the altar of Gaia comes with a significant cost. In Ontario, the province where the Gaia Agenda has been pushed to California-style extremes — energy rates have skyrocketed. And now many Canucks are finding themselves having to choose between having back-bacon in the fridge and heating their homes.

Ontario premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, via their 2009 Green Energy Act and other poor decisions, have pushed many of the people they govern into dire financial straits thanks to their activist agendas.

“They live as if it’s Cold War Russia,” Miranda from Toronto told me during a phone conversation about her parent’s energy woes. “They use a pellet stove and propane heating. They put construction-style plastic on the windows and extra insulation.”

“They’re considering using food banks this winter,” she said. “I work in international development in third world countries and I’m starting to see the stuff here that I’m seeing there.”

Not everybody is doing so bad. Canada’s Carbon Tax “Slush Fund” promises to become a big, fat gold mine for politically connected cronies and rent-seekers.

Play Socialist Games, Win Socialist Prizes.

Even if you do buy into the “Carbon Dioxide is the Devil and Industrial Civilization is Evil,” it doesn’t have to be this way. A Dutch inventor claims to have developed a technology that pulls pollution out of the atmosphere. The details are a little sketchy, but surely building large-scale atmospheric processors in heavily polluted cities is an achievable technology if we decided to do that instead of following the Green Path of energy poverty.

The Pacific Garbage Island Is a Hoax and I Fell for it

by

I am embarrassed to admit I thought the Pacific garbage island … a supposed mass of refuse in the Pacific Ocean the size of a subcontinent … was a real thing. Nope, it was all dreamed up by a guilt-ridden lefty trustafarian to atone for the oil wealth he inherited and then promoted by the environmental left with the willing cooperation of the political and media lefts.

In early August 1997, Charles Moore found himself floating through the North Pacific in his Tasmanian-built catamaran. Moore, an oil heir, activist, and yachting captain, had just finished up a two-week race and was heading back from Honolulu to Santa Barbara, California, through what’s called a “gyre”—an area of the ocean like the Sargasso Sea, wrapped inside a giant weather spiral, that serves as a reservoir for flotsam. As he described it in a 2003 article for Natural History, the thousand-mile journey took him through an endless field of plastic—3 million tons of it in all, he guessed, in an area about the size of Texas. Everywhere he looked he saw debris: bottles, bottle caps, wrappers, fragments.

This never happened.

Scientists have known for a long time that there is nothing like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch reported in the media. There is a small amount of noticeable debris in these areas—old plastic bottles and parts of nets—but the vast majority of the plastic consists of very small flakes, much of it microscopic.

I should have known better; the left lies about everything, and they will advance any lie they have to in order to claw their way to power. Everything every leftist ever says should be treated with extreme skepticism always and forever.

The Global Warming Cult Wants to Outlaw Meat

by

Perhaps not outlaw, but raise the price to levels so high that only the wealthy and powerful will be able to afford it.

Meat should be taxed at the wholesale level to raise the price and deter consumption, says a new report from the UN’s International Research Panel (IRP). This will (supposedly) save the environment and prevent global warming.

The evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment,” agrees Rachel Premack, a columnist for The Washington Post’s Wongblog.

“Agriculture today accounts for for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions that promote global warming,” says Premack, “and half of those agriculture emissions come from livestock.”

“Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the US – most of that being for meat, says Premack. “… For a kilogram of red meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.”

Who elected these people?

Oh, that’s right, nobody.

Climate Change Fanaticism

by

The first rule of a fanatical cult is that you are not allowed to question the teachings of the fanatical cult.

The reason for this has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics. Every “solution” to “Climate Change” involves institution the left’s preferred policies… Centralized Control of the Economy; Global Redistribution of Wealth, Restrictions on Individual Liberties… and destruction of those things they despise; Free Enterprise and Individual Liberty.

That is why Climate Change Indoctrination is being instituted at every level of Government and why questioning the Dogma of Climate Change is being persecuted.

Climate Change Is Pretty Much the Fraud We Thought It Was

by

So says… one of the Architects of the Climate Change Scam.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

The fact that leftists have been pushing the Full Implementation of Global Socialism as the only way to stop Global Warming was kind of a major hint.