Recycling

Years ago, “Slow” Joe Biden, who was until recently, inexplicably, the Democrat front-runner, was busted plagiarizing a speech by British Labour droog Neil Kinnock.

I’m starting to think that Big Left only has a few speeches; they just recycle them with different speakers.

Case in point: Greta Thunberg and one Severn Cullis-Suzuki – the 1992 model of the left’s Childrens Crusader, in this case.

Go ahead. Watch.

It truly befits a movement that has no original thoughts.

Let’s Do Some Thunberging

Steven Miller on Twitter:

Speaking of “cyberbullying”: so when a teenager smiles awkwardly at guy tacitly harassing him at a rally in DC, it’s racism – but when a teenager rants at the UN like a junior Mussolini, before taking a “green” trip to the next stop on her agenda and thence home on $10M sailing yacht? Voice of a generation!

If I Were A Betting Man

A roundup of climate panic advocates’ recrods shows…

…well, you know:

“While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited,” they added.
Some examples:

1967 — Stanford University expert Paul Erlich predicted “time of famines” in 1975.
1971 — A top NASA expert predicted an “ice age” by 2021.
1988 — It was predicted that the Maldives [Ahem – usually referred to as “The Falklands” – Ed] would be under water by last year.
2008 — Gore said the Arctic would be free of ice by 2013.
2009 — Charles said there was just 96 months left to save the world.
Starting Friday, there is a global climate strike set to last for a week. According to the organizers, “Our house is on fire — let’s act like it. We demand climate justice for everyone.”

And my favorite: 1988, Ted Danson predicting that the growing hole in the ozone would kill us all in 15 years.

My go-to response to the whole thing: let’s say for sake of argument that they get one right; let’s say that the climate is irreversibly warming due to human activity.

Why is the solution to turn the keys to the world’s economies over to the kind of people who gave us Srebrenica, or Chicago city politics or MN-LARS?

I’ll wait.

Heads You Lose. Tails Shut Up.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Too much water in the Great Lakes. Global warming.

Not enough water in the Great Lakes.  Global warming.

Or maybe it’s just natural variation?

But definitely, the solution is for you to quit driving your car and pay more taxes.  Definitely. 

Joe Doakes

I’m trying to imagine a “climate science journalist” taking my high school’s chemistry class…

Dissociation?

Some people read this story – about a “psychiatrist” taking umbrage at people calling Trump “crazy” to avoid stigmatizing the mentally ill – and taking it as a sign of the growing intellectual frivolity of our society’s putative elite and the left in general.  

I”m going to add emphasis:

“Second, calling Trump crazy hides the fact that we’re crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist,” Frances went on. “Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, Mao in the last century. He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were.”

Someone looking to get headlines for their book, consulting practice or media brand by making a big, stupid headline? 

But of course.

But let’s not sell the little fella short. Remember – Berg’s Seventh Law never sleeps.

Why are “progressives” blaiming Trump for millions of deaths he never committed (note to my progressive readers: the guy’s making it all up)?

Just Another Kid Concerned About The Environment

Greta Thunberg seems to be for Swedish environmentalists what Alexandria “Tide Pod Evita” Ocasio Cortez is for American progressives; overconfident, undereducated, and very, very overpromoted.

I’ll give her this much, though; unlike the folks flying in private jets and ocean motor yachts to climate conferences, the girl – who has “led” a number of climate-related school strikes in Sweden – is putting her travel plans where her mouth is. More or less.

Greta Thunberg is to sail across the Atlantic in a high-speed racing yacht next month to attend UN climate summits in the US and Chile as part of a sabbatical year the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist will spend in the US.“Good news! I’ll be joining the UN Climate Action Summit in New York, COP25 in Santiago … I’ve been offered a ride on the 60ft racing boat Malizia II. We’ll be sailing across the Atlantic Ocean from the UK to NYC in mid August,” Greta tweeted. The journey will take two weeks.

So at least she’s sailing, rather than taking some plutoprog’s Gulfstream.

Although it’s not exactly the kind of boat my great-grandparents sailed from Norway and Sweden on. It’s the kind of rustic adventure Robin Leach in his heyday might have said was “a bit much”.

So – travel is apparently either for those who are wealthy enough to qualify as exceptions to global warming, or only for people who can take a month out of their lives to cross the ocean on a yacht that costs millions to build and tens of thousands a week to charter.

Sounds about right.

I’ll Start Treating Climate Change Like A Crisis When The People Who Tell Me It’s A Crisis Start Acting Like It’s A Crisis

The rich, powerful and famous journey to a climate change conference at a posh resort in Sicily, leaving a luxuriant trail of hydrocarbon exhaust:

According to Italian media reports, guests were expected to arrive in an eye-popping 114 private jets.
The Post guesstimated that with 114 flights from Los Angeles to Palermo, the planes would have pumped an astonishing 100,000 kilos of C02 into the atmosphere.
“Google Camp is meant to be a place where influential people get together to discuss how to make the world better,” one frequent flier told the tabloid.
“There will likely be discussions about online privacy, politics, human rights, and of course, the environment, which makes it highly ironic that this event requires 114 private jets to happen.”

Interesting to note by way of contrast that climate skeptics tend to have smaller carbon footprints than Warmers. I’m not sure if the figures for the warmers control for the profligate use by the rich and famous.

Revelation

I have these two jokes – which in a sense aren’t jokes at all.

First – when it comes to progressivism, yesterday’s joke is today’s proposal and tomorrow’s policy.

And the second: Babylon Bee is becoming less and less distinguishable with “real news”.

And now, the former “fact-check” site Snopes is trying to deplatform Babylon Bee because…well, apparently they think satire confuses people?

And it occurs to me – it’s all clear, and the dots all connect, now: Snopes is trying to deplatform Babylon Bee because they’re actually the real news, 2-3 years ahead of time.

Question Authority

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The one question people never ask about transgender athletic competition is why.  Why do we have separate Boys’ and Girls’ sports?  If boys and girls are identical in every way that matters, with lifestyle differences simply a matter of personal choice that can be changed at whim, why don’t we have one competition for all?
Minnesota State High School record holders:
Boys’ 100-yard dash: 9.6
Girls’ 100-yard dash: 10.8
Boy’s Shot Put: 65 feet 6 inches
Girls’ Shot Put: 54 feet 8.5 inches.
It’s not about personal choice, it’s about biology.  The fastest girl is slower than every one of the top 10 boys.  The strongest girl’s throw is 11 feet shorter.  At the margin where champions are determined, girls cannot compete against boys.  It sucks.  It’s unfair.  But it’s reality.
People who deny reality are delusional.  We should not allow delusional people to make decisions affecting our children.

And if you ask the the question, the subject gets changed.

Every. Single. Time.

Green. Not New. Deal.

The actual science about the dangers of nuclear power – or lack thereof – is not “settled” so much as it is  very, very convincing:

“By now close to one million people have died of causes linked to the Chernobyl disaster,” wrote Helen Caldicott, an Australian medical doctor, in The New York Times. Fukushima could “far exceed Chernobyl in terms of the effects on public health.”

Many pro-nuclear people came to believe that the accident was proof that the dominant form of nuclear reactor, which is cooled by water, is fatally flawed. They called for radically different kinds of reactors to make the technology “inherently safe.”

But now, eight years after Fukushima, the best-available science clearly shows that Caldicott’s estimate of the number of people killed by nuclear accidents was off by one million. Radiation from Chernobyl will kill, at most, 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile Island will kill zero people.

It’s a long read, but an excellent one…

…whose conclusions show that any “Green New Deal” that doesn’t include nuclear power, isn’t about saving the environment.

Settled Science

Whenever someone refers to “settled science”, I can be almost certain I’m talking with someone who doesn’t understand how science works.

Whenever I talk with someone who tries to apply the concept to psychology, I know that, beyond a profound lack of understanding of the discipline, I’m dealing with someone who has never had the faintest twitch of curiosity about the history of the field.

I pondered that last night as I listened to this piece, about how sixty years ago, the elite of contemporary psychology believed that showing inordinate affection and love to ones’ children would damage them profoundly.

Tide Pod Evita Does Science

I have concerns about the climate, and about man’s involvement in them.

I have bigger concerns about being logrolled.

I have nothing to say about Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’ “Green New Deal” (which got disappeared after it was revealed to be something a spoiled sixth-grader could have, and may have, written) y abou that David French at National Review doesn’t say better.

Read the whole thing. I add emphasis:

Nobody has to be a progressive to be concerned about the environment. Nobody has to be a progressive to respond to climate change. Any proposal that conditions response to climate change on the adoption of the full progressive platform is not only doomed to fail, but it raises the question of whether the declared climate emergency is more pretext than crisis. There’s a need for a serious discussion about our climate. The Green New Deal is not serious.

Did you miss it before it got disappeared yesterday? Have no fear, people glommed onto it. And David Harsanyi found the 11 bits you really needed in the first place.

She’s So Cold

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools are closed today.  I’m getting old, my memory isn’t what it was.  I remember looking forward to snow days, but did we get cold days off school?  My sister claims there were a couple of occasions when the country kids didn’t have to come in, only the town kids, but I wonder if that was due to bad roads for the school busses more than low temperatures?
I’m having trouble squaring school closures for cold, record setting cold in Chicago, freezing temperatures for  75% of the nation, with The New Hotness’ claim global warming will destroy the world in 12 years.  
Although if it does, I suppose women and minorities will be hardest hit, so I’ve got that going for me.

It’s science, because shut up.

“What’s The Difference Between The GOP And Democrats?”

The short answer: whille the GOP on the national level capitulates on spending and allow all sorts of government scope creep the chips are down, the Democrats take the gas pedal of power and jam it to the firewall:

Democrats are increasingly lining up to support a “Green New Deal,” which, while vague on details, could end up being the largest expansion of government in decades.
As it stands, the “Green New Deal” is more aspirational than actual policy. Indeed, it takes its name from the New Deal of the 1930s, and its main backer, incoming Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, compared it to the Great Society of the 1960s.
More than 40 Democratic lawmakers support the “Green New Deal” as part of a broad plan to fight global warming and bring about what they see as “economic, social and racial justice.” A poll found most Americans supported the deal, but knew little about it.
But the big question is when Americans find out what’s in the “Green New Deal,” will they be willing to pay for it?

After a few months or years of media alarmism and emotional logrolling from an in-the-bag media?

Is that even a serious question?

Serious

Joe Doakes from Como Park notes that if we’re really serious about climate change…:

Climate scientists insist we must stop driving petroleum powered vehicles.  Public health officials are worried about an epidemic of childhood obesity.  Cities want heavy vehicles off the streets to reduce wear.

Seems to me there is one common solution.

Ban school busses.

And we should ameliorate schools’ huge carbon footprints by making homeschooling mandatory…

…oops.  Went too far.

A Satirical Proposal. Probably.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

If Democrats honestly believe in global warming, they should insidt we declare war on Canada so we can shift our citizens Northward to survive the Deluge.
 If Republicans honestly believe in global cooling, they should insist we declare war on Venezuela to shift our citizen Southward to escape the glacier.
Bonus. Both have lots of oil to maintain our lifestyle.  This is what a resilience officers ought to be working on.
Or just invade New York, DC and California to curb the efflux of hot air.

Science, Unsettled

A study that claimed that the oceans are warming 60% faster than the IPCC’s prediction turns out to have had a bit of an issue:

“The findings of the … paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”

Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

A correction has been submitted to the journal Nature.

Of course, to the crowd that thinks “I Heart Neil DeGrasse Tyson” is “science”, the narrative is already set.

Michael Savage Was Wrong

Syndicated talk show host Michael Savage once had a huge hit with the book “Liberalism Is A Mental Illness”.

The implication was inflammatory – as Savage fully intended, being Michael Savage.

But science shows he was incorrect; new evidence shows it may be more a matter of brain damage:

A joint team of American and British scientists have discovered that powerful magnetic pulses to the brain can temporarily change people’s feelings on a variety of subjects…researchers have now found that by targeting the part of the brain that deals with threats, they can temporarily change people’s beliefs and views…

Amongst those who received the strong magnetic dose, 32.8 per cent fewer had decreased beliefs in God, angels and heaven compared to the control group who received no dose.

And 25.8 per cent more of those who had received TMS [Transcranial magnetic stimulation – magnetism applied to parts of the brain] had a more positive response to the immigrant who had written a negative letter about their country.

What this nation needs is commonsense magnetism control.

Can’t Make This Bulb Much Dimmer

I’m gonna take a wild guess that if you asked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez how precisely it was that the US defeated Naziism, “turbocharging the industrial base and floating the whole thing on a sea of oil and a mountain of coal, to back up a complete national militarization” isn’t what she’s thinking.

I think she’s thinking it was all about Rosie the Riveter.

As They Say, Not As They Do

A study shows that global warming skeptics’ actual behavior is more environmentally responsible than Warmists’, and that enviro-weenies feel they are entitled to do a little polloting:

The study, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, followed more than 400 Americans for a full year. On seven occasions—roughly once every eight weeks—participants revealed their climate change beliefs, and their level of support for policies such as gasoline taxes and fuel economy standards.

They also noted how frequently they engaged in four environmentally friendly behaviors: recycling, using public transportation, buying “green” products, and using reusable shopping bags.

The researchers found participants broke down into three groups, which they labeled “skeptical,” “cautiously worried,” and “highly concerned.” While policy preferences of group members tracked with their beliefs, their behaviors largely did not: Skeptics reported using public transportation, buying eco-friendly products, and using reusable bags more often than those in the other two categories.

This pattern was found consistently through the year, leading the researchers to conclude that “belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior.”

It’s more important to signal virtue than to actually be virtuous.

Evolutionary Programming

If you are a hack social science researcher who dabbles badly in pseudo-science and fatuous wrenchings of correlation into causation, you are living in a golden age.  Even Scientific American is running your drivel, and paying for it, with a straight face.

As we see in this piece – which attributes (white) men “stockpiling” guns to…

…well, pick your threadbare feminist trope:

The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male—but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile.

These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated. For the most part, they don’t appear to be religious—and, suggests one study, faith seems to reduce their attachment to guns. In fact, stockpiling guns seems to be a symptom of a much deeper crisis in meaning and purpose in their lives. Taken together, these studies describe a population that is struggling to find a new story—one in which they are once again the heroes.

Of course, we’re in the post-logic era – where the last thing you should look for in Scientific Ameircan is “Science”.

Turn, instead, to actual science – the evolutionary science that so many on the left chant their fealty to when it’s time to vent their two minutes’ hate against Christian fundamentalists, but which nearly none of them supports when it comes down to the many areas where evolution kills and dresses out their sacred political cows.

American men – especially American men in the Red States – are buying guns because it fulfills the evolutionary imperative to protect what is yours, and those who depend on you – and a rational person sees that a gun is a useful tool toward that end.

Scientific American’s not going to pay for that insight, though.

Lit

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

LED lights use less electricity, which is good for the environment because it means power plants burn less coal, emitting less carbon dioxide and creating less acid rain and global warming.
LED lights allow us to light up more places for the same money, which is bad for the environment because it means fewer pitch-dark places for wildlife and star-gazing, plus the bluish tint of all-night reflected LED light fools our bodies into thinking it’s daytime and messes with our health.
It’s always something with Luddites.

Joe Doakes

I wonder if Whole Foods has reverted to natural wax candles yet?