Davin News Server

  AlleyCat wrote:

> Christine says it's Okay if the global warming narrative is phony.

There was a point, not a very lengthy one, where I knew it was
phony and I was still okay with it.

Why?

Because "Conservation."

Fossil fuels do pollute. Coal is hideously bad but even
automobile exhaust, before emissions controls, was choking
the air:  Smog

Google L.A. smog from the 1970s. It began at least three
decades earlier but you'll find more color photos. And the
1970s was sort of the last hurrah for smog. Emissions
controls started in the late 60s, here in America,
catalytic converters in the mid 70s...

There is not an infinite supply of fossil fuels! There's
using fossil fuels and then there's using fossil fuels
smarter!

IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE!

If we don't pull it out of the ground & burn it today, it'll
still be there, in the ground, tomorrow.

Anyway, it didn't take me long to see that "Conservation"
was Pig Latin for "Let's screw the little people as hard as
we can!"




> 
> Christine Stewart - Former Canadian Minister of the Environment:
> 
> "No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... Climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in
> the world."
> 
> 
> Calgary Herald, December, 14, 1998
> 
> https://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/1998/dec14_20.html
> 
> 
> The Week That Was - December 14-20, 1998
> 
> Focusing on the federal regulation follies gets more and more difficult, given the turmoil now going on in Washington, D.C. While Americans may
> complain that they are tired of hearing about the President and his various moral and legal peccadilloes, the truth is that their attention is
> riveted on this historic impeachment and little else is being read about or discussed or acted upon.
> 
> That may be true in Britain as well, where the public can't seem to get enough of the Clinton scandals. Last week in London, a jailed activist who
> threatened to starve himself to death in the cause of animal rights (his third try), and his cronies who threatened to assassinate 10 medical
> researchers if he was successful, called off both when it became apparent that it wasn't exactly grabbing "end of the world" headlines. Although the
> London tabloids were giving him some play, the BBC reported that his impending demise had been somewhat overstated by his supporters, the Daily
> Telegraph called his various antics "farce," and the U.S. press relegated him to the back pages, or ignored him altogether. As the saying goes, if
> your death isn't going to be reported on page one, why bother?
> 
> Before we move on, next week, to our year-end wrap-up, a couple of items - one published, one private - are worth mentioning, if only because they
> show that American politics isn't the only thing that's 'surreal" these days.
> 
> Up in the far north, where socialism doesn't develop quite as rank an odor as it does in the United States, Canada's Minister of the Environment,
> Christine Stewart, tipped her hand on the global warming issue and revealed her true agenda. Speaking to editors and reporters with the Calgary
> Herald newspaper, Stewart said: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits... .Climate change  the greatest
> chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
> 
> The problem with that line of reasoning, of course, is that it DOES matter if the science is "all phony." In fact, that's why The Science &
> Environmental Policy Project was founded 6 years ago, because phony science is a poor basis for public policy.
> 
> But you have to admire the sheer inventiveness of Green activists and their ability to tap into the seemingly endless gullibility of the news media.
> Over the years, we have seen a litany of frightening claims and "what if" scenarios, based on the flimsiest research, paraded across our televisions
> screens and taking up endless column-inches in print. Stock footage of weather disasters, packaged for broadcasters by activists promoting global
> warming, show up on television without attribution and with few in the press questioning whether links between extreme weather events and global
> warming had credible scientific support.
> 
> One after another, the scares are examined and fall to pieces. Sheep in Chile, claimed to have been blinded by the disappearance of stratospheric
> ozone, were found instead to have a bacterial eye infection. A study claiming that just a 40 percent increase in solar ultraviolet radiation would
> kill plants was found to have eliminated the day/night cycle; in short, positing that the Earth would stand still.
> 
> Ten years ago, videos promoting global warming and distributed to the news media showed melting ice caps sending sea levels halfway up the Washington
> Monument. A little over a year ago, a global warming exhibit put together for the National Museum of Natural History by the Environmental Defense
> Fund (this is what passes for scholarship these days) could only manage a puddling of sea water in the streets AROUND the Washington Monument, and
> this was achieved only by factoring in a storm surge that occurs, on average, once every 50 years.
> 
> No sooner does one scary scenario fall apart under scientific scrutiny than another is put forth to take its place, and reporters take the bait
> again. When the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to admit that a warmer climate would NOT increase the frequency of dangerous Force 4
> and 5 hurricanes, Mike MacCracken of the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, a federal employee, told the news media that, well, the real worry was
> flooding from the weak Force 1 and 2 hurricanes. (Last week, University of Virginia climatologist Patrick Michaels, writing in the Washington Times,
> effectively put that claim to rest as well.)
> 
> In the last year, the public has been told that global warming would cause malaria, dengue fever, and other dread tropical diseases to spread
> throughout the United States and Europe, cause bugs to breed and mutate into insecticide-resistant strains that would overrun the Earth, cause
> icebergs as big as Delaware to break off in the Antarctic, cause glaciers to melt and ruin tourism at Glacier National Park. Warmer temperatures,
> said the Associated Press, will kill all the flowers and leave just the weeds. CNN said scientists predicted "mega-droughts" in the Midwest that
> would make the 1930s Oklahoma Dust Bowl look like a picnic. USA Today reported a "relentless rise" in heatwaves that endangered the nation's elderly
> (apparently the slogan "do it for our children" is running out of steam).
> 
> A great deal of this is simply the kind of junk you get when Green activists take control of our institutions and the federal government decides to
> pour $2 billion a year into one area of research. But it's encouraging to finally see what is driving this - apart from a druidic religion combined
> with cold, hard cash. Thank you, Environment Minister Stewart, for admitting it openly.
> 
> The second item we would like to mention was frankly a bit of a surprise. It seems that climate scientist Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for
> Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, a faithful reader of The Week That Was, was somewhat taken aback by Dr. S. Fred Singer's critique on these
> pages (November 16th) of a research paper he coauthored.
> 
> Dr. Wigley, as readers may remember, earlier this year announced his withdrawal from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, saying he
> intended to devote himself to proving that man-made global warming was real. Indeed, the promotional material accompanying his coauthored article
> published in the November 27 issue of the journal Science, says his research supports the global warming hypothesis - 'supports" rather than
> "confirms," an interesting choice of words.
> 
> Singer's assessment of Wigley et al's work is that it demonstrates only that climate models cannot simulate the natural variability of the
> atmosphere. Nothing new there. Numerous scientists have said the same thing, most recently James Hansen of NASA.
> 
> In any case, as part of his rebuttal, Dr. Wigley informs us that those of his peers who reviewed his research paper for Science thought it was just
> fine, thank you. In fact, he quoted from their reviews, and we reprint those quotes here, exactly as he conveyed them to us:
> 
> Referee #1: "Overall evaluation: Excellent and exciting... presents an insightful and deceptively simple analysis... "
> 
> Referee #2: "Overall evaluation: excellent and exciting... an exciting paper using an underutilized technique... deserves rapid publication...
> 
> Referee #3: "This is an excellent and exciting paper... has some very interesting and important results... a novel, yet simple approach... "
> 
> Wigley goes on to say "I hope you will note the uniformity of the referees opinions."
> 
> We certainly did. In fact, we are still trying to calculate the statistical probability that three reviewers, wholly unknown to each other and
> examining the paper independently - as they should - would each come up with the rather unusual phrase "excellent and exciting."
> 
> As we said, American politics isn't the only thing that's surreal these days
> 
> Until next week...
> 
> TW2 is compiled by SEPP Research Associate Candace Crandall
> 
> Update on Dr. Wigley's reviews : The mystery has now been solved. Science, as it turns out, is one of several journals that includes a multiple-
> choice questionnaire at the end of its review form. "Excellent and exciting" is one of the boxes reviewers can check off, and apparently at least two
> of Wigley's reviewers picked up on the phrase and repeated it in their written comments. Wigley's third reviewer's "comment" is actually from the
> questionnaire itself.
> 
> Journals have been including such questionnaires in recent years so that editors won't have to read through all of the written comments. But this is
> unfortunate; any shortcut encourages a less than thorough reading of the paper and could result in research being rushed into print that lacks merit
> or is seriously flawed.
> 
> We don't know that that's what happened in this case, of course. With Dr. Wigley's paper, although Dr. Singer found it less than "excellent and
> exciting," we are satisfied that Wigley's three reviewers legitimately and anonymously did.
> 
> 
> Go to the Week That Was Index
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ============================================================================
> 
> THIS Is Why Chicken Shit Chicken Littles Screech About Climate And Weather And Global Warbling:
> 
> The UN Makes it Official: Global Warming Hysteria Is All About Redistributing Wealth
> 
> UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
> 
> Global Study Reveals Wealth Redistribution From Blue-Carbon Ecosystems
> 
> Failed Climate Policies Are About Wealth Redistribution
> 
> "We Redistribute De Facto The World's Wealth By Climate Policy."
> 
> How Global Warming Has Made The Rich Richer
> https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer
> 
> The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/?sh=4f89a2d429be
> 
> The Doha Wealth Redistribution Process Moves On
> https://townhall.com/columnists/davidrothbard/2012/12/14/the-doha-wealth-redistribution-process-moves-on-n1465410
> 
> =====
> 
> "There is no doubt, that we need to have a complete transformation... the transformation of the economy, and that includes, of course, the private
> sector."
> 
> A carbon tax will change NOTHING, other than the wealth of politicians and countries who beg us for money. THAT was the purpose of the Paris
> Accord... the ONLY purpose.
> 
> Funny... when the government no longer pays for bogus money-grabbing data, the truth comes out.
> 
> "It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
> https://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI?t=74
> 
> "And we're like... the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change..."
> 
> AOC's Top Aide Admits Green New Deal About The Economy, Not Climate
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aocs-top-aide-admits-green-new-deal-
> about-the-economy-not-the-climate
> 
> Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff recently admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change,
> but instead a "how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing" a remark likely to fuel Republican claims that the deal is nothing more than a thinly
> veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all,"
> Saikat Chakrabarti said in May, according to The Washington Post.
> 
> *****
> 
> UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The World's Economy
> http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
> un-promote-economic-agenda/
> 
> *****
> 
> "Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
> climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
> 
> *****
> 
> U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
> destroy-capitalism/
> 
> *****
> 
> Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
> http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
> admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
> 
> *****
> 
> United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is to Destroy Capitalism
> http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
> 27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
> 
> 
> 


-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5