|
|
Tell the world it is all an act.
…
It’s a do or die moment for The Cause. Brexit has hit them hard, and the Trump factor threatens to wreck everything. The Paris agreement has stalled pathetically at 1.1% of all human emissions (they need 55% to come into force). They need a gamechanger or the illusion of one.
Next week expect a grand performance from US and China — or rather from two men who look solemn and can sign important looking carbon chastity vows on behalf of 1.8 billion people. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping will say they have ratified the Paris agreement. Expect triumphant parades, and smiles, handshakes and talk of a historic moment. It’s all for show. China will agree to do nothing different until 2030 when its population growth peaks, and Obama can’t get the support of Congress.
But the gala performance may work if enough other countries fall for it — especially the stupidly obedient Anglosphere, and the trapped EU. India, Russia and Brazil will only buy into it they are fed enough pork. But the pork has to come from somewhere, and that’s us — The West. That’s who this show […]
The good news is that a majority of people are aware of media bias, and are skeptical of what the media tells them. The bad news is that this is just another marker showing the average Western citizen is losing faith in the integrity of so many key institutions.
The activist journo’s have overplayed their hand. They are not even trying…
“Voters Expect Reporters To Help Clinton Over Trump”
[July 21st, 2016] A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters think that when covering a political campaign, most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage. Most (69%) say reporters try to help the candidate they want to win. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The media have lost so much influence. They described Brexiteers as loony, selfish and xenophobic, but more than half the country ignored them and voted for Brexit. Similarly, the US media mocked and denigrated Trump supporters, and continually predicted he wouldn’t stay in the race, and wouldn’t make it through the primaries, and yet he did. Poor pundits keep being surprised by the people.
The key word in this […]
Readers may find this documentary interesting. I doubt the ABC will be running it. This US election matters to so many people around the world. The outcome makes a big difference to climate skeptics. And it’s about so much more than that. How do we beat corruption?
Breitbart is hosting the free showing (only for a few hours) for the documentary based on a senior editors book: Clinton Cash
UPDATE: Australia is in this too. Both Gillard and Bishop have contributed $500m Australian taxpayer dollars to Clinton charities [and other Democrat power brokers*].Tony Thomas has those details. “Julia Gillard lavished an unprecedented $292 million in taxpayer dollars on the Clinton-dominated Global Partnership for Education, where she was later appointed chair. Imagine the howls if Tony Abbott had underwritten…” See also “The Clintons and Their Corruptocrats” for even more…
From Breitbart:
The film, based on the New York Times bestselling investigative book Clinton Cash by Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, has sent shockwaves through media. The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, and other Establishment Media have verified and confirmed the book’s explosive revelations about how Hillary Clinton auctioned State Department policies to foreign Clinton […]
Remember how skeptics are dying out?
Tens of thousands of Republican voters in Iowa chose the most skeptical candidate they could find. The new landscape of Republican contenders is dominated by skeptics, but the voters wanted the most skeptical. Senator Ted Cruz is flagrantly outspoken, is well read, and brings rare debate on climate issues to Congress.
Voters came en masse for the Iowa Republican caucas. Normally 120,000 Republicans vote in the Iowa caucus, but this time 180,000 turned out. One polling station ran out of ballots. Ted Cruz received more votes than any other candidate has ever received in Iowa.
The last few fringe skeptics of climate change must have all moved to Iowa right?
This is how skeptical Cruz is:
Ted Cruz is the candidate the climate Extremists hate the most.
See the Gullibility Index
The ABC and SMH described Cruz’s win, but did not mention that he was a skeptic. He is just someone who appealed to the evangelical base.
Cruz is not liked by the establishment Republicans at all. Should be interesting!
h/t Jim Simpson.
8.9 out of 10 based on 67 ratings […]
The full 2 hour 40 minute testimony of Ted Cruz and his invited guests.
Don’t underestimate the importance of what is going on in this testimony to Congress. It captures why the USA is the best hope for defeating the religious climate meme. Which other western democracy comes close to this? As Mark Steyn says, the most important form of competition is the competition of ideas. Paris will not get a binding agreement mostly because the USA congress stands in the way. (Though that doesn’t mean they won’t get billions; more on that in the next post.)
The landscape of the US presidential campaign has undergone a phase change. Watch this and think back to the bland weakness of Mitt Romney in 2012. In 2015 the top Republican candidates are competing to be the most skeptical, and to demonstrate how they don’t pander to political correctness. And Ted Cruz surely is the best informed on the climate topics.
Judith Curry ” I can no longer get government grants….”
Please copy your favorite quotes below so those who can’t watch the lot can pick up the gems.
UPDATE: Best short parts are around 2:14 – 2:20 with Steyn and Curry. […]
How many Presidential candidates are susceptible to groupthink, scare campaigns and low-base science agitprop? Thanks to Seth Borenstein, Michael Mann & Andrew Dessler we can rank them according to their ability to resist profoundly unscientific propaganda like “there is a consensus”.
Ted Cruz is clearly the best at holding his own in the independent thinker stakes. Ben Carson and Donald Trump do well. But poor Hillary Clinton doesn’t stand a chance against the onslaught of junk graphs, hyperbolic claims, and inane bumper-sticker cliches.
…
Those who fall for the consensus argument are in no position to run a nation. Firstly it’s profoundly unscientific — we don’t vote for the laws of science; scientific theories are either true or not true regardless of opinions. Secondly, it only takes ten minutes of independent searching to find that there is no consensus among scientists as a broad group, anyway. There is a consensus among various definitions of certified climate scientists, but not among meteorologists , geoscientists and engineers or other hard science areas.
As I’ve said before, skeptics outrank and outnumber believers, they make planes fly, find mineral deposits, and walked on the moon. Believers produce climate models that don’t work. If […]
…
It used to be that scientists were supposed to publish their methods, discuss their reasoning, and point out the weaknesses of their work. Now, it’s confidential.
The House Science Committee in the US is demanding with a subpoena that NOAA release internal communications related to the Karl et al study (that tried to remove the “pause” in global temperatures.) NOAA is refusing saying:
“It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”
Yes. It’s been longstanding since morning tea on Tuesday.
The new post-modern science conversation:
SCIENTIST 1: So why did Karl et al adjust the ocean buoy readings by a figure that is so uncertain as to be meaningless? From Kennedy et al 0.12 ± 1.7°C. What were you thinking?
KARL ET AL and co: snip [That’s confidential. Stop this now. We’re feeling harrassed!]
What is the world coming to if congress succeeds in exposing objective, rational discussion about thermometers?
h/t Leigh, Marvin
9.5 out of 10 based on 135 ratings
There’s a lot of cheering going on in the lead-up to Paris, but not a lot of action, and definitely, no actual journalism.
Newsweek reports on the 81-company-cheer-squad with not a single mention that any of these companies could be investing, getting government kickbacks, or profiting from “climate change”.
Newsweek: Obama Finds Corporate Allies for His Climate Change Agenda
Much to the White House’s delight, 81 companies have signed the president’s American Business Act on Climate “pledge,” a non-binding resolution that is effectively a vote of confidence in the executive branch heading into international climate talks in Paris later this year.
When Exxon supported a few skeptics was that described as a “vote of confidence in skeptical science”?
The big agreement is for “collective attention”:
The pledge doesn’t create new taxes or rules, but it amounts to an agreement among industry leaders that climate change is real, human-influenced and worthy of collective attention.
It amounts to nothing. Welcome to the Cabaret.
Who’s in the cheer squad?
“The White House on Monday announced that a total of 81 companies, including Alcoa, General Electric and Procter & Gamble, have backed a U.S.-sponsored pledge supporting […]
There’s another more subtle message to politicians from the Gallop poll last week. The headline we discussed was that a whole quarter of the US are emphatic skeptics who don’t worry “at all” about climate change. But the other message is that if the politicans want to show they care about the environment, nearly every major environmental issue is more important to voters than “climate change”: 55% of the population worries about water pollution but only 32% feel the same level of concern for global warming.
On environmental concerns, climate change has the highest profile, but is consistently low ranking in the concern-stakes. People are much more worried about clean water, lakes and rivers, and air pollution rather than “climate change”. There is room here for either side of politics to step over the top of the supposedly greenest left wing parties and win voters by tackling real pollution rather than the fantasy kind. Any party that took serious action on rivers and water would earn environmental kudos and swinging votes. They wouldn’t win the die hard green vote, because those votes are not about the environment anyway. But true swingers shift between the major parties, and they are less […]
I don’t see how this man can possibly get elected. On climate change he is far too sensible.
This is one of the best short video responses by a politician that I have ever seen. Such clarity…
The full video is at the right scoop.
If this man stays in the campaign running for long he will change the dynamics of the whole public climate debate.
h/t to Joe B. Thanks 🙂
9.5 out of 10 based on 134 ratings
…
Now that the mid-term elections are over in the US, Obama is free to announce the climate commitments that voters didn’t need to hear. (I did say this would happen.) It’s a “landmark” agreement and a “gamechanger”, but no one can point out what happens if either country doesn’t stick to its agreement.
The end-point of this grand theater of intent and glorious promises is Paris 2015.
What matters is the appearance of “momentum” — and this show ticks all the boxes. The two global superpowers make a sudden, unexpected agreement to reduce emissions and the press can call it “remarkable”, as if it has substance. Obama — the President without a majority in either house of Congress — has announced a big new target of 26% reduction by 2025. What can a lame-duck President achieve? Fluff and PR. As it happens, US emissions have been falling for years because of the miracle of shale gas and oil. This announcement supposedly doubles the pace of that reduction which was occurring anyhow, and which had nothing to do with any green policies aimed at reducing emissions. Furthermore, Obama, magically, will do it without imposing new restrictions on […]
One day people will marvel that turn of the century governments thought they could control the climate, and needed to issue decrees about how much “change” in the weather they would allow.
From different continents come two articles with a similar theme. It’s time to dump the EPA and pointless “Climate” policies.
The US should get rid of the federal EPA
Alan Caruba and Jay Lehr tell us how it is. The EPA is a rogue tool of liberal activitists.
For years now I have been saying that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be eliminated and its powers given to the fifty states, all of which, have their own departments of environmental protection. Until now, however, there has been no plan put forth to do so.
Dr. Jay Lehr has done just that and his plan no doubt will be sent to the members of Congress and the state governors. Titled “Replacing the Environmental Protection Agency” it should be read by everyone who, like Dr. Lehr, has concluded that the EPA was a good idea when it was introduced in 1971, but has since evolved into a rogue agency threatening the U.S. economy, attacking the fundamental concept of private […]
How many people will die in order to reduce world temperatures by possibly, maybe, something a lot less than 0.05 F? Commiserations to the people of the USA.
Obama said almost nothing about climate change in the 2012 election campaign. Ain’t that the way? He can’t persuade the people to take the medicine they don’t need. Congress won’t pass it, so he’s going around the voters entirely and doing it through EPA regulations.
Rothbard and Rucker look at the toll of Obama’s EPA plan to slash CO2 emissions by a pointless 30%:
224,000 more lost jobs every year (U.S. Chamber of Commerce figures). Cost to every American household $3,400 per year (U.S. Chamber of Commerce figures).
What’s the point of electing a congress if the President rules by executive order ?
“Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., went so far as to describe it as an unconstitutional power grab.”
— Jo
——————————————————
EPA’s next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations
Unleashing EPA bureaucrats on American livelihoods, living standards and liberties
David Rothbard and Craig Rucker [CFACT]
Supported by nothing but assumptions, faulty computer models and outright falsifications of what is […]
The Koch Brothers have “distorted democracy”, held a “war on climate”, built a vast network of “climate disinformation think tanks”, and we can apparently blame them for “congressional inaction“. But now (oh No) Greenpeace, DeSmog, Think Progress, Naomi Oreskes and fan-followers must be in meltdown, for it turns out there are 58 more powerful forces in US politics! Donations to US political parties were tallied from 1989 – 2012 by Open Secrets and the most powerful donors by far are the unions.
Washington Examiner: “Six of the top 10 are … wait for it … unions. They gave more than $278 million, with most of it going to Democrats.
These are familiar names: AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).
In other words, the six biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats than the Evil Koch Bros.
Others in the top ten were AT&T, Goldman Sachs, and ActBlue. Three quarters of the top 16 donors sent most of their money to the Democrats. The other quarter split it between both sides of politics. All up, the unions dominated the donor […]
Good news for climate bloggers (why aren’t I “excited”?)
The topic no one was going to mention in the election campaign, just got a mention. And in less than 24 hours, it’s already being revived from oblivion. Banking group HSBC tells us that:
Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.
A tax starting at $20 a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates. “Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.
There is no guaranteed path of course, the Republicans control the House. But how telling that the Zombie Ghost of Cap N Trade popped up its head so fast once the votes were in.
Climate Depot responds:
‘Congratulations to President Obama. Now that Obama will never have to face voters again, he may attempt to make global warming a key part […]
Ron Paul is painted as fringe by the Establishment. (If you’re not part of the establishment then you must be “fringe”, right?).
Ten years ago Ron Paul made long series of detailed economic and foreign policy predictions that he hoped he would be proven wrong on. It was a year before the US started action in Iraq. Five years before the housing bubble busted. Six years before the Global Financial Crisis. Nine years before the Arab Spring. (At least he was wrong on the US “draft”. So far).
How many mainstream politicians can point to a speech like this? How many presidential candidates saw it coming?
“Let it not he said that no one cared,
that no one objected once its realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy”
Ron Paul
Ron Paul 2002 April 24th.
There’s a copy of the video of the speech without newspaper overlays, and background music, for those who prefer the uncluttered view.
“He saw these things coming because he reveres liberty above all else and when you cherish liberty you can see the things that threaten it. “ John Carey
[…]
I met two Australian libertarians a few weeks ago who didn’t know who Ron Paul was, but then, why would they? The media sure doesn’t want anyone to talk about Paul.
In the Iowa Polls Romney is the “front-runner”, the “man-to-beat”, and leads at (wow) 24%, while Paul is completely out of contention, hardly worth a mention, at… ah… 22%. If Romney wins, it will set him up for the run at the White house, if Ron Paul wins, it “it may jeopardize the future importance of Iowa in the presidential election cycle“. Follow the logic: if Paul is elected in Iowa, then “Paul is just unelectable.” They actually say that. (Some polls put the two men level.)
If there was a serious frontrunner in the US republican race who was smart, decent, a doctor with no scandals, a long record of keeping promises in congress, a magnetic ability to raise money, massive grassroots fan base, and excellent polling, well of course the media will ignore him. Censorship by omission is weapon number one (and we know all about that as climate skeptics). If they have to mention him (and it’s coming to that), look for the opinion that writes […]
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
Recent Comments