Archives for posts with tag: global warming

Dr. Ball wrote an article for Anthony, over at WattsUpWithThat.

Very insightful article.

The rule of thumb regarding questions in headlines is that the answers must be assumed to be “no.”

So, is the Pope worried about prosperity? I’d say probably, but not in the general sense as asked in the question. The Pope may be getting such bad advice, and so much of it, that he thinks our current prosperity is only increasing as a bubble, and the crash is coming, and it will be worse than the dark ages.

Given the long view the church must take, I understand, but if the leadership of the church is trying to mitigate against loss of adherents, it has lost sight of the reason for the churches existence. Besides, Jesus himself declared He would build the church and hell would not prevail against it.


Carbon dioxide is an essential ingredient of life. It is not pollution any more than oxygen or water, both of which are far more dangerous. Both oxygen and water contribute directly to billions of dollars in damages, both slow and sudden, and thousands of deaths every year.

Trying to control carbon dioxide means trying to control your breathing. Taxing carbon is half-a-step from taxing your very breath. Those who pretend we need to stop producing carbon prove their hypocrisy with every breath they continue to breath.

Charles Battig wrote this article for American Thinker:

He is correct. We must reestablish the validity of science. It has become a radicalized, fundamentalist religion. They will be burning us at the stake soon, they already joke and write about it.

By the way, the industrial revolution and the inexpensive energy we have is what ended slavery. Fighting coal and forcing energy costs up will very likely bring back slavery, as slave labor is the only option for the hyperwealthy when the machines have no power, or when that power costs more than keeping slaves. The environmentalists want to put us all in chains as slaves, literally.

I’ve refrained from saying much about the new Cosmos. I’ve written a bit here

I really am not pleased with it overall. They had such an opportunity.

I record my exasperation. I really think it ought to be possible to sue Neil and company for such gross negligence. Of course, who am I, a lowly engineer, to question such a preeminent physicist? Well, I’m the same guy that is willing to question the Pope (though I usually find myself agreeing with him), the President (and it has been decades since I’ve agreed with one of them), and even the local pastor. I question all authority. I try to question myself and my own biases.

The global warming episode is utterly emotional and fact-free. A stereotypical Jewish mother has nothing on Neil when it comes to guilt trips. I guess he wants everyone, especially the children, to feel guilt and shame that they are not doing their part and suffering now so that the future generations can have something in the distant future.

It borders child abuse in my opinion.

Solar power and wind power are pipe dreams! Read the rest of this entry »

How many episodes of Cosmos so far? I don’t care. Only one good episode, last week. This week sucked bad.

Overall, I love what they are doing, but they are such bullies and so arbitrary!

Alarmism is alarmism whether delivered by a fire-and-brimstone preacher, or a snake-oil salesman, or by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Yes, I’m comparing the three together, equating them. Neil is simply acting to scare people when he ridicules religion or tries to scare us into killing each other in order to stop burning fuel. Yes, the greens, the climate alarmists, the “Agent Smiths” of the world are calling for mass murder when they call for the ending of the fossil fuel era. Neil is simply lying when he pretends solar power can run our industrial, technological world. Part of why we were able to end the heinous crime, the sin, of slavery, is because of the inexpensive availability of fossil fuel and our innovation abilities to turn chemical energy into mechanical energy and production.

The alarmists and greens claim they are calling for the greater good but what will result, if they get what they want, is tyranny, murder, and slavery.

Learn. Study. Seek truth. ALWAYS question authority.

When it comes to Cosmos, be as smart as an old cow; eat the hay, and spit out the sticks. Many aspects of each show are good, but some of it is rotten. Throw it out.

Dr. Spencer reports here:

From Dr. Spencer’s page

I ran across a post from three years back, where physicist Luboš Motl from Pilsen, Czech Republic, takes on some misleading and errant statements from one of the global warming propagandists. (One of the better ones, I might add.)

Anyway, Dr. Motl is one of the truly big brains, Einstein level. He is a string theorist, the kind of guy who works with mathematics that scare even mathematics professors. A real life Sheldon Cooper.

The truth is out there, and it has been written up well for long enough that most anyone that prefers to be correct, rather than self-confident, should know by now.

Documenting this for reference. Dr. Singer is exceptionally well qualified to write about this subject.

Climate Consensus Con Game.

In chapter 7 of what is a rather large report from our National Science Foundation, we find out that over half of Americans accept astrology as at least somewhat scientific.

UPI writes it up here:

The full chapter seven is here (PDF):

All of the material is available here:

Perhaps there is better news in the rest of the files.

This doesn’t surprise me. Similar reports over the last several years have shown the same in Russia (and former USSR). The issue here is faith. We have a diminishing faith in God and the reality of absolutes. We also have a diminishing confidence in science and our ability to know and understand things.

Christians are not all helping, but obviously Christianity cannot be blamed for acceptance of astrology as science.

Our education system is a large part of the problem. As emphasis over “STEM” and other mathematical and science education has ramped up the volume, our actual understanding of such subjects has fallen.

Political pushing of nonsense like Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming fears and demonization of carbon dioxide doesn’t help either. Earth has been warmer and colder, with carbon dioxide levels higher and lower during both. (At different times, of course.) Carbon dioxide is one of the three absolutely essential ingredients to life on our planet. It is at least as important as oxygen and water. And it is far less destructive and deadly in all regards.

It is no wonder the average person holds conflicting and irrational views. Our society, our leaders, our power brokers, and our experts all shovel BS at us constantly. It all depends on the objective of the moment with no commitment to truth, and most people simply take it in and incorporate it in some hodgepodge mashup that is utter nonsense when closely examined.

It is sad that people hold such tragic views in politics as well as science. It is their sad views in politics and social science that will cause them the most pain. Their ignorance in science will not affect most of them. Our refusal to remember the gods of the copybook headings repeatedly causes us pain, and we refuse to learn. (Google “Gods of the Copybook Headings” and educate and edify yourself.)

I’d be remiss to not mention that the churches in the USA are helping mess up our reasoning too. Young earth creationism is false, and those who purport it and other antievolutionary rhetoric are dishonest, and they will answer for their lies when they stand before the Almighty.

We must commit to truth, facts, and thorough thinking. We will continue to suffer while we don’t.

I’ve stood against young earth creationism nearly 50 years. I’ve stood against global warming alarmism for over 20 years. They are the same thing. Both are committed to agenda driven ideology with no commitment to truth, facts, and verifiable observation.

The #hamonnye nonsense yesterday was as bad as I suspected it would be. I missed too much of it while driving kids to say much, but I expected Nye to be shallow. He was. I expected Ham to focus on the trivial and to equivocate. He did.

Truth! Above all. I saw very little truth from Ham. Very sad, especially since he is a professing Christian. is a truth-committed source of information.

Like me, they expressed little hope regarding the #hamonnye event.

They have addressed the result here:

Over at AmericanThinker, Thomas Lifson comments on some absurd propaganda.

It would be somewhat humorous if there were any possibility it was supposed to be, satire, hyperbole, and such, but no, they (at least Oleg) really seem to think people will accept such drivel. Sadly, some will.

Anthony Watts rightly makes fun of the Mann-child and the Lewandowskyites here,

Anthony correctly states that the alarmists are losing the argument so they are now trying to suppress dissent. (Not new, actually. It has been part of their tactics from the beginning.)

Anthony correctly points out that this is the tactic the soviets used where they asserted that only crazy people would disagree with them, so those who disagree must be locked away and medicated into oblivion and silence.

I agree with Anthony that the likes of Mann and Lew need professional counseling and help. If they are not yet dangerous to themselves or others, they are likely to be soon. They really seem to need help. The paper sited is truly sad. Emotionalism, not science.  Read the rest of this entry »

Here is another interesting looking book:

How to Cure a Climate Change Denier (Kindle Edition)

by Paul Caruso

Amazon is selling it as a Kindle edition for four bucks.

Anthony points it out on his most-excellent blog, Watts Up With That

The “Look inside” selection has a passage that caught my eye. Since the text is configured to protect it, I’m typing from memory, and my quote below is inexact. Mr. Caruso points out that the “97% consensus” lacks force, and he explains what it is, then he says (approximate quote), “Even if the majority of climate scientists believe in global warming, the majority of priests believe in God.” He then asks what this proves? Does it prove God exists? He wonders if it rather indicates that those who believe in God are more likely to enter the priesthood.

Seems an apt analogy. I like it.

I’m pretty sure that nearly 100% of all holy men (and women) believe in god. They are experts in most every regard, and they are true authorities in the matter. Of course, this variety of holy man disagrees with that variety, but we can major on the similarities for the moment.

What has me irked is I am likened, in anti-Semitic fervor, to a Holocaust denier, while evangelical atheists strut smugly as skeptics, as though the label can only be used in their special sense, as the “It” religion of the day.

Mr. Caruso also points out that researchers follow available funding. At least clergy don’t generally do that. (With some exceptions, of course, some even horrid. That is why the Lord cautioned that one cannot serve both God and money.)

Stanley Kurtz, writing for the National Review Online, which the Climate Change Dispatch reproduced here,, (a less cluttered page than the original, here, –Ads don’t bother me. I’m happy to see them all in all, but some of the nonsense gets sad, and pop-ups, lay-overs, and things that start playing automatically are too invasive and presumptive in my opinion.)

The article is about the book, The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse: Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings, by “French intellectual gadfly Pascal Bruckner” where he “does the most thorough job yet of explaining the climate movement as a secular religion, an odd combination of deformed Christianity and reconstructed Marxism.”

My point here is that modern alarmism in all its stripes, is simply religion. Man is religious. We can no more be irreligious than we can be nonhuman. (We can be inhuman in our actions toward our fellow man, and inhumane, but human we remain. Likewise, religious.)

It helps to acknowledge this fact.

It is good to take account of the underpinnings of movements, and the way global warming alarmism plays out, it cannot be denied that it is a fundamentalists religious movement. One can identify point for point every aspect of young-earth creationism in global warming alarmism. Even the victimhood and “nobility” of persecution, real and imagined, are the same.

Stand for something, or fall for anything.

Thorough thinking is required. The unexamined life is not worth living. Far too many of us fail to notice this fact.

Alarmism is reactionary, not rational.

I like Norman Rogers writings. He’s written a piece at American Thinker, (and a slightly older article here: Good stuff.

In the current article, Mr. Rogers makes the case that our science associations, pretty much without exception, are self-serving money grubbers. Pretty much the only thing this science organizations accomplish any more is grant proposals and propaganda designed to keep fear high and public money flowing.

The argument leads directly to the politicized “science” environment we see with all things related to environmentalism and climate alarmism.

Quoting from the article:

“The climate science establishment does not criticize “clean” energy companies promoting highly impracticable schemes, be it wind farms, solar installations or electric cars. This is not because they don’t know that these schemes are useless, even by the standards of true believers in global warming, but because they have no enemies in the global warming subsidy sphere. They welcome allies in the climate-industrial complex, no matter how deficient in intellectual integrity, in the long march to fleece the taxpayer.” […]

“When scientific organizations endorse global warming catastrophe theory, remember that these organizations are really just fancied-up labor unions and their reports and statements are generally self-serving declarations disguised as objective analysis.  It is obviously foolish to ask scientific organizations to give objective advice concerning programs in which they are deeply self-interested.  The National Academy of Sciences says it mission is to give “… independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.” The problem is obvious.  The government should seek out persons and organizations without a self-interest stake when asking for advice concerning science policy and science spending.”

%d bloggers like this: