Settled Science?

On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 11:13:46 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Andre Jute
60 years in the trenches against the weather catastrophists and other nut cases

I keep waiting for my subsidy from the oil companies. Aren't all AGW
denialists supported by the oil companies?

I think that there used to be real catastrophes to worry about and perhaps we have done such a great start on them that the Millennials have to invent problems that don't exist.

It is always the wild-eyed look that concerns me. People that do that are usually not of solid psychological standing. Like the INSTANT that Dr. Christine Ford said that she was psychologically damaged by two men standing over her and laughing I knew that she was actually and with forethought lying because ALL psychologists know that is something that a very large percentage of women have always feared - being laughed at by men. Since she had NEVER said that before anywhere or in any manner you simply had to know that she was playing her psychology game on the masses. We were to believe that she was a "survivor" of what exactly? A fully clothed man pushing his fully clothed body against her fully clothed body. Hmm, so damaged that she couldn't remember it for over 30 years until she became a Democrat activist.

On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:05:37 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2018 9:42 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

Fake news.

What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training.

Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science.

But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics.

Andre Jute
Just a pity so many of them are cyclists


If by 'Gaia' you mean 'International Communism' then I agree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110112...ds-wealth.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Sure, today's little fellow-travelers of environmentalism are neo-Marxists, but the originators of the destructive climate hysteria were billionaire Malthusians whose key intent was to limit population growth. It wasn't a conspiracy: they belonged to the Club of Rome, which published a book, The Limits of Growth, that clearly stated that in an increasingly secular society a new secular religion was required to help control the populace, and proposed that it should be climate change (they didn't care whether it was an ice age or global warming, and in fact sequentially tried both). Their leader and the founder of UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), the mother-agency of the IPCC, was the Canadian oil billionaire (yes, you read that right, his money came from oil) Maurice Strong. He ended his life as a Chinese environmental official. So, sure enough, a limousine Commie.

The Club of Rome counted too many would-be genocides among their members to list all of them here but a sample will do: they included Ted Turner of CNN who thought that the earth could maybe sustain 350,000 people and the rest would have to be sacrificed, Jacques Costeau the diver (and UN Courier -- an honorary position and platform), who thought that we could save the earth by killing between 3000 and 5000 people every day for a few years, and others who were much nuttier and more vicious. But it is from a book they collectively as the Club of Rome financed that the idea arose and was formulated of manmade climate catastrophe as a means of controlling the masses in the void created by the decline of formal religion. Compare for instance Maria Theresa, Dowager Empress of Austro-Hungary, in letters to her agnostic son the Emperor Joseph, strongly advising him to give at least the appearance of conforming to the State religion the more easily to control his subjects.

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller) hoax on the public psyche. It was apparently only later that it occurred to Strong that scientific underwriting of the idea would bring credibility and faster dissemination to what in the beginning was merely a tentative propaganda idea: thus was the IPCC born with a mandate to find and prove manmade global warnmng. Nonetheless the IPCC's first report stated emphatically that there was no global warming, merely natural climate changes in an interglacial period, and that certainly man's puny efforts were not responsible for anything. But scientists soon got the idea, which the bureaucrats got instantly, that if their body was constituted to find something, they'd better find it, or the flow of funds would dry up. Hence the desperation and unscientific behavior of the entire climate catastrophe industry when contradicted by "deniers". It was a very effective plan, as we can still see right: the global warmies on RBT cling to their faith twenty years after global warming was exposed and disgraced, indeed twenty years after the exposure of the hockey stick as an artefact of statistical crookery (or incompetence) removed the last crutch of manmade global warming by reinstating the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age which together make the concept of manmade global warming untenable because in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the earth warmed in the absence of industry and in the Little Ice Age the earth froze despite the smelters and ovens of the Industrial Revolution belching CO2. Oops!

Instead the earth has greened. CO2 is plant food. it feeds people. Environmentalists hate people.

Andre Jute
Now watch the clowns grip the tiger firmly by the tail and stick their thumbs up its arse

On 10/24/2018 6:55 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:05:37 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2018 9:42 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

Fake news.

What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training.

Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science.

But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics.

Andre Jute
Just a pity so many of them are cyclists


If by 'Gaia' you mean 'International Communism' then I agree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110112...ds-wealth.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Sure, today's little fellow-travelers of environmentalism are neo-Marxists, but the originators of the destructive climate hysteria were billionaire Malthusians whose key intent was to limit population growth. It wasn't a conspiracy: they belonged to the Club of Rome, which published a book, The Limits of Growth, that clearly stated that in an increasingly secular society a new secular religion was required to help control the populace, and proposed that it should be climate change (they didn't care whether it was an ice age or global warming, and in fact sequentially tried both). Their leader and the founder of UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), the mother-agency of the IPCC, was the Canadian oil billionaire (yes, you read that right, his money came from oil) Maurice Strong. He ended his life as a Chinese environmental official. So, sure enough, a limousine Commie.

The Club of Rome counted too many would-be genocides among their members to list all of them here but a sample will do: they included Ted Turner of CNN who thought that the earth could maybe sustain 350,000 people and the rest would have to be sacrificed, Jacques Costeau the diver (and UN Courier -- an honorary position and platform), who thought that we could save the earth by killing between 3000 and 5000 people every day for a few years, and others who were much nuttier and more vicious. But it is from a book they collectively as the Club of Rome financed that the idea arose and was formulated of manmade climate catastrophe as a means of controlling the masses in the void created by the decline of formal religion. Compare for instance Maria Theresa, Dowager Empress of Austro-Hungary, in letters to her agnostic son the Emperor Joseph, strongly advising him to give at least the appearance of conforming to the State religion the more easily to control his subjects.

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller) hoax on the public psyche. It was apparently only later that it occurred to Strong that scientific underwriting of the idea would bring credibility and faster dissemination to what in the beginning was merely a tentative propaganda idea: thus was the IPCC born with a mandate to find and prove manmade global warnmng. Nonetheless the IPCC's first report stated emphatically that there was no global warming, merely natural climate changes in an interglacial period, and that certainly man's puny efforts were not responsible for anything. But scientists soon got the idea, which the bureaucrats got instantly, that if their body was constituted to find something, they'd better find it, or the flow of funds would dry up. Hence the desperation and unscientific behavior of the entire climate catastrophe industry when contradict
ed by "deniers". It was a very effective plan, as we can still see right: the global warmies on RBT cling to their faith twenty years after global warming was exposed and disgraced, indeed twenty years after the exposure of the hockey stick as an artefact of statistical crookery (or incompetence) removed the last crutch of manmade global warming by reinstating the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age which together make the concept of manmade global warming untenable because in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the earth warmed in the absence of industry and in the Little Ice Age the earth froze despite the smelters and ovens of the Industrial Revolution belching CO2. Oops!

Instead the earth has greened. CO2 is plant food. it feeds people. Environmentalists hate people.

Andre Jute
Now watch the clowns grip the tiger firmly by the tail and stick their thumbs up its arse


Atlantis, Phlogiston, Planet X, New Ice Age, Global Warming,
meh.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 4:55:26 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:05:37 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2018 9:42 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

Fake news.

What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training.

Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science.

But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics.

Andre Jute
Just a pity so many of them are cyclists


If by 'Gaia' you mean 'International Communism' then I agree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110112...ds-wealth.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Sure, today's little fellow-travelers of environmentalism are neo-Marxists, but the originators of the destructive climate hysteria were billionaire Malthusians whose key intent was to limit population growth. It wasn't a conspiracy: they belonged to the Club of Rome, which published a book, The Limits of Growth, that clearly stated that in an increasingly secular society a new secular religion was required to help control the populace, and proposed that it should be climate change (they didn't care whether it was an ice age or global warming, and in fact sequentially tried both). Their leader and the founder of UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), the mother-agency of the IPCC, was the Canadian oil billionaire (yes, you read that right, his money came from oil) Maurice Strong. He ended his life as a Chinese environmental official. So, sure enough, a limousine Commie.

The Club of Rome counted too many would-be genocides among their members to list all of them here but a sample will do: they included Ted Turner of CNN who thought that the earth could maybe sustain 350,000 people and the rest would have to be sacrificed, Jacques Costeau the diver (and UN Courier -- an honorary position and platform), who thought that we could save the earth by killing between 3000 and 5000 people every day for a few years, and others who were much nuttier and more vicious. But it is from a book they collectively as the Club of Rome financed that the idea arose and was formulated of manmade climate catastrophe as a means of controlling the masses in the void created by the decline of formal religion. Compare for instance Maria Theresa, Dowager Empress of Austro-Hungary, in letters to her agnostic son the Emperor Joseph, strongly advising him to give at least the appearance of conforming to the State religion the more easily to control his subjects.

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller) hoax on the public psyche. It was apparently only later that it occurred to Strong that scientific underwriting of the idea would bring credibility and faster dissemination to what in the beginning was merely a tentative propaganda idea: thus was the IPCC born with a mandate to find and prove manmade global warnmng. Nonetheless the IPCC's first report stated emphatically that there was no global warming, merely natural climate changes in an interglacial period, and that certainly man's puny efforts were not responsible for anything. But scientists soon got the idea, which the bureaucrats got instantly, that if their body was constituted to find something, they'd better find it, or the flow of funds would dry up. Hence the desperation and unscientific behavior of the entire climate catastrophe industry when contradicted by "deniers". It was a very effective plan, as we can still see right: the global warmies on RBT cling to their faith twenty years after global warming was exposed and disgraced, indeed twenty years after the exposure of the hockey stick as an artefact of statistical crookery (or incompetence) removed the last crutch of manmade global warming by reinstating the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age which together make the concept of manmade global warming untenable because in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the earth warmed in the absence of industry and in the Little Ice Age the earth froze despite the smelters and ovens of the Industrial Revolution belching CO2. Oops!

Instead the earth has greened. CO2 is plant food. it feeds people. Environmentalists hate people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingst...h_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

One could go on about the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people, unlike industry. Every time I walk through pristine nature, I think, "gee, it would sure be nice if there were a strip mall here -- or maybe an oil derrick or a pit cyanide leach mine."

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:55:24 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope
plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller)
hoax on the public psyche.

"The First Global Revolution"
https://www.clubofrome.org/report/the-first-global-revolution/


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:24:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
Atlantis, Phlogiston, Planet X, New Ice Age, Global Warming,
meh.

I have a print of this on my home office wall:
"A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science"
https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science/

Also, various authorities with severe cases of premature judgement:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:56:16 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:24:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
Atlantis, Phlogiston, Planet X, New Ice Age, Global Warming,
meh.

I have a print of this on my home office wall:
"A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science"
https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science/

11. Peer review by your students and pals, often shorthanded as "the Michael Mann stain on the sheets".

Also, various authorities with severe cases of premature judgement:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt

Actually, this forecast was right for about 60 or 70 years, which is good going for any prediction:
***
"That the automobile has reached the limit of its development is suggested
by the fact that during the last year no improvements of a radical nature
have been introduced."
-- Scientific American, 1909
***
Until the coming of independent rear suspension the Panhard/Hotchkiss solid axle/longitudinal springs rear end ruled under American cars, until the coming of fuel injection the internal combustion engine was fed fuel very much like in 1909, and so on. In its major elements (a wheel at each corner, Ackerman steering, braking by friction, suspension by flexible steel and rubber, lubrication by oil, fueled by petroleum products) even today's most sophisticated cars are not radically technically different from a 1909 car. The major advances have been in comfort.

Andre Jute
Credit where it is due

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:35:24 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:55:24 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope
plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller)
hoax on the public psyche.

"The First Global Revolution"
https://www.clubofrome.org/report/the-first-global-revolution/


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Do consider my blood pressure, Jeff, if you please!

Andre Jute
Where's Bjorn Lomborg when you need him?

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:15:10 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 4:55:26 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:05:37 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2018 9:42 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

Fake news.

What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training.

Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science.

But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics.

Andre Jute
Just a pity so many of them are cyclists


If by 'Gaia' you mean 'International Communism' then I agree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110112...ds-wealth.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Sure, today's little fellow-travelers of environmentalism are neo-Marxists, but the originators of the destructive climate hysteria were billionaire Malthusians whose key intent was to limit population growth. It wasn't a conspiracy: they belonged to the Club of Rome, which published a book, The Limits of Growth, that clearly stated that in an increasingly secular society a new secular religion was required to help control the populace, and proposed that it should be climate change (they didn't care whether it was an ice age or global warming, and in fact sequentially tried both). Their leader and the founder of UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), the mother-agency of the IPCC, was the Canadian oil billionaire (yes, you read that right, his money came from oil) Maurice Strong. He ended his life as a Chinese environmental official. So, sure enough, a limousine Commie.

The Club of Rome counted too many would-be genocides among their members to list all of them here but a sample will do: they included Ted Turner of CNN who thought that the earth could maybe sustain 350,000 people and the rest would have to be sacrificed, Jacques Costeau the diver (and UN Courier -- an honorary position and platform), who thought that we could save the earth by killing between 3000 and 5000 people every day for a few years, and others who were much nuttier and more vicious. But it is from a book they collectively as the Club of Rome financed that the idea arose and was formulated of manmade climate catastrophe as a means of controlling the masses in the void created by the decline of formal religion. Compare for instance Maria Theresa, Dowager Empress of Austro-Hungary, in letters to her agnostic son the Emperor Joseph, strongly advising him to give at least the appearance of conforming to the State religion the more easily to control his subjects.

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller) hoax on the public psyche. It was apparently only later that it occurred to Strong that scientific underwriting of the idea would bring credibility and faster dissemination to what in the beginning was merely a tentative propaganda idea: thus was the IPCC born with a mandate to find and prove manmade global warnmng. Nonetheless the IPCC's first report stated emphatically that there was no global warming, merely natural climate changes in an interglacial period, and that certainly man's puny efforts were not responsible for anything. But scientists soon got the idea, which the bureaucrats got instantly, that if their body was constituted to find something, they'd better find it, or the flow of funds would dry up. Hence the desperation and unscientific behavior of the entire climate catastrophe industry when contradicted by "deniers". It was a very effective plan, as we can still see right: the global warmies on RBT cling to their faith twenty years after global warming was exposed and disgraced, indeed twenty years after the exposure of the hockey stick as an artefact of statistical crookery (or incompetence) removed the last crutch of manmade global warming by reinstating the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age which together make the concept of manmade global warming untenable because in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the earth warmed in the absence of industry and in the Little Ice Age the earth froze despite the smelters and ovens of the Industrial Revolution belching CO2. Oops!

Instead the earth has greened. CO2 is plant food. it feeds people. Environmentalists hate people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingst...h_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

I certainly hope, Jay, that you aren't by these links trying to justify a monstrous fraud on the public purse, which is all that global warming, and before that the big freeze, and before that the hole in ozone layer, all were.

...the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people...

That's an exact description of their aims. The people who banned DDT and thereby committed the biggest genocide the world has ever seen knew for a fact that their claim that DDT caused cancer in humans was a lie. The nonetheless continued with their efforts to ban it to show the government who was boss. Their leaders said so at the time, the head of the EPA wrote in his memoirs that he knew what they were about and banned DDT as a convenient political action because Nixon was "busy elsewhere".

Environmentalists love animals and hate people. I listed some who want to murder most of us to depopulate the world in favour of the animals. I can make a much longer list, if you insist. They're all environmentalists in positions of power either through leadership or donations.d

One could go on about the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people, unlike industry.

Industry is controlled and regulated and punished for stepping outside the lines. Who punished the environmentalists who, to save a few eagles who didn't need their help, lied that DDT caused human cancer, and in the process of banning DDT committed the largest genocide the world has ever see, more than 220m of the most powerless people on earth. I know lawyers don't believe in justice, but even for a lawyer yours is a breathtaking statement.

Every time I walk through pristine nature, I think, "gee, it would sure be nice if there were a strip mall here -- or maybe an oil derrick or a pit cyanide leach mine."

Sure. I'm a conservationist who gave up a seven-figure salary to live and bring up my child in an idyllic countryside. So what? I'm not about to join you in your claim that that justifies genocides of third worlders, or keeping them oppressed in peasant poverty without industry. I leave that to the sanctimonious self-declared "good people" who claim they aren't racists. Very odd that most of their victims are yellow, brown or black.

-- Jay Beattie.

Andre Jute
As a lifelong conservationist, I'm embarrassed by environmentalists

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 6:33:13 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 2:15:10 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 4:55:26 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:05:37 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2018 9:42 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:53 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 10/22/18 11:08 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
What I've been saying since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national broadsheet is now official:
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fir...boats-on-land/

Fake news.

What I find interesting is that those most loudly pro-AGW are those with the least training.

Training is irrelevant to the believers. Global warming is a belief system, a religion, more in the realms of pathology than science. There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming.

The interesting thing is the professional organizations of scientists around the world have ethical guidelines or even rules against practice of or reliance by scientists on scientism, which is a magical belief that scientists know better ("97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade" -- which contains three fallacies, to wit that [unnatural] global warming exists, that it is manmade, and that more than a tiny minority of scientists agree to the previous two fallacies). I would dearly love for these bodies to apply their own rules to people like Michael Mann, who is a stink bomb under the chair of respectable science.

But logic and rationality makes no impression on people who feel that they're acting in the service of Gaia, and that such activity makes them superior to the rationality that you and I apply to their shibboleth of global warming. You can't argue with religious fanatics.

Andre Jute
Just a pity so many of them are cyclists


If by 'Gaia' you mean 'International Communism' then I agree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110112...ds-wealth.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Sure, today's little fellow-travelers of environmentalism are neo-Marxists, but the originators of the destructive climate hysteria were billionaire Malthusians whose key intent was to limit population growth. It wasn't a conspiracy: they belonged to the Club of Rome, which published a book, The Limits of Growth, that clearly stated that in an increasingly secular society a new secular religion was required to help control the populace, and proposed that it should be climate change (they didn't care whether it was an ice age or global warming, and in fact sequentially tried both). Their leader and the founder of UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), the mother-agency of the IPCC, was the Canadian oil billionaire (yes, you read that right, his money came from oil) Maurice Strong. He ended his life as a Chinese environmental official. So, sure enough, a limousine Commie.

The Club of Rome counted too many would-be genocides among their members to list all of them here but a sample will do: they included Ted Turner of CNN who thought that the earth could maybe sustain 350,000 people and the rest would have to be sacrificed, Jacques Costeau the diver (and UN Courier -- an honorary position and platform), who thought that we could save the earth by killing between 3000 and 5000 people every day for a few years, and others who were much nuttier and more vicious. But it is from a book they collectively as the Club of Rome financed that the idea arose and was formulated of manmade climate catastrophe as a means of controlling the masses in the void created by the decline of formal religion. Compare for instance Maria Theresa, Dowager Empress of Austro-Hungary, in letters to her agnostic son the Emperor Joseph, strongly advising him to give at least the appearance of conforming to the State religion the more easily to control his subjects.

Notice that from the beginning in the 1960s the Club of Rome's climate catastrope plan was intended as an openly stated (in a book that became a worldwide bestseller) hoax on the public psyche. It was apparently only later that it occurred to Strong that scientific underwriting of the idea would bring credibility and faster dissemination to what in the beginning was merely a tentative propaganda idea: thus was the IPCC born with a mandate to find and prove manmade global warnmng. Nonetheless the IPCC's first report stated emphatically that there was no global warming, merely natural climate changes in an interglacial period, and that certainly man's puny efforts were not responsible for anything. But scientists soon got the idea, which the bureaucrats got instantly, that if their body was constituted to find something, they'd better find it, or the flow of funds would dry up. Hence the desperation and unscientific behavior of the entire climate catastrophe industry when contradicted by "deniers". It was a very effective plan, as we can still see right: the global warmies on RBT cling to their faith twenty years after global warming was exposed and disgraced, indeed twenty years after the exposure of the hockey stick as an artefact of statistical crookery (or incompetence) removed the last crutch of manmade global warming by reinstating the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age which together make the concept of manmade global warming untenable because in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods the earth warmed in the absence of industry and in the Little Ice Age the earth froze despite the smelters and ovens of the Industrial Revolution belching CO2. Oops!

Instead the earth has greened. CO2 is plant food. it feeds people. Environmentalists hate people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingst...h_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

I certainly hope, Jay, that you aren't by these links trying to justify a monstrous fraud on the public purse, which is all that global warming, and before that the big freeze, and before that the hole in ozone layer, all were.

...the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people...

That's an exact description of their aims. The people who banned DDT and thereby committed the biggest genocide the world has ever seen knew for a fact that their claim that DDT caused cancer in humans was a lie. The nonetheless continued with their efforts to ban it to show the government who was boss. Their leaders said so at the time, the head of the EPA wrote in his memoirs that he knew what they were about and banned DDT as a convenient political action because Nixon was "busy elsewhere".

Environmentalists love animals and hate people. I listed some who want to murder most of us to depopulate the world in favour of the animals. I can make a much longer list, if you insist. They're all environmentalists in positions of power either through leadership or donations.d

One could go on about the horrible environmentalists. All they want to do is subjugate and destroy people, unlike industry.

Industry is controlled and regulated and punished for stepping outside the lines. Who punished the environmentalists who, to save a few eagles who didn't need their help, lied that DDT caused human cancer, and in the process of banning DDT committed the largest genocide the world has ever see, more than 220m of the most powerless people on earth. I know lawyers don't believe in justice, but even for a lawyer yours is a breathtaking statement.

Every time I walk through pristine nature, I think, "gee, it would sure be nice if there were a strip mall here -- or maybe an oil derrick or a pit cyanide leach mine."

Sure. I'm a conservationist who gave up a seven-figure salary to live and bring up my child in an idyllic countryside. So what? I'm not about to join you in your claim that that justifies genocides of third worlders, or keeping them oppressed in peasant poverty without industry. I leave that to the sanctimonious self-declared "good people" who claim they aren't racists. Very odd that most of their victims are yellow, brown or black.

I'm sure you're making the world better for our brown-skinned brothers everyday, bringing them industry and enlightenment with your novellas, preferably in digital format to save trees.

The US EPA does not set international policy, and other nations are free to use DDT -- an they do use DDT -- to control mosquito populations, at least where mosquitoes have not developed a resistance. US C02 standards are not preventing any third-world nation from developing industry or keeping them in "peasant poverty" (say that ten times fast). India, for example, is enjoying the benefits of vigorous industry without the constraints of repressive environmental laws. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...beijing-s.html God bless them, each and every asthmatic one -- living free and unfettered by the genocidal environmental laws of their white oppressors.

-- Jay Beattie.