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…

33 thoughts on “Heads You Lose. Tails Shut Up.

  1. A new definition of fiddling while Rome burns.

    There are still too many people who don’t watch the news or read broadsheets or quality periodicals.

    It’s not even climate change denial, it’s complete ignorance of the problem.

  2. So true, JD. Ever notice how all the problems that really “concern” the left always involve demands on normal people to give up their money and their freedom?

  3. There are still too many people who don’t watch the news or read broadsheets or quality periodicals.

    Riiiiiiiight…. So where do most people get their “climate” information? More often than not from a 26 year old media intern, who views themselves as an activist rather than a reporter – and believes it is their job to recycle NGO press releases as facts.

    I divide climate science into The Good, The Bad, The Ugly and The Utterly Hideous.

    The good is the physics. It is rock solid. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and releasing it by burning fossil fuels will warm the earth. We have known for well over a century that a doubling of CO2 over pre-industrial levels will increase the earth’s temperature by 2C.

    We seem to be on track for that.

    The bad, is temperature records and paleo-temperature reconstructions. Whenever you hear “this year was the warmest year since….”, what is actually being said is, “according to the least accurate measure of global temperature, there is a 30% chance that this year is 2/1000th of a degree warmer than our estimate of….”

    The ugly is climate models. When you dig down into the thicket of footnotes in the IPCC reports, you learn that climate model projects are constructed from an ensemble of climate model projections. Included in those ensembles are models that have been falsified or are not designed for purpose. So why are they being used? The answer is obvious.

    The Utterly Hideous is anything having to do with sea level rise in the short term (our lifetimes). Most news organizations cannot or will not distinguish between sinking land and rising sea level. Florida is sinking, the south and east coast of the US is sinking, much of this has to do with the depletion of ground water and some is due to glacial (isostatic) rebound.

    Think of glacial rebound like this…. Two kids are balanced on a teeter-totter and one jumps off. The empty side (where the glaciers once were) springs upward and the other (loaded) side sinks.

    This is about 3mm a year, the thickness of two pennies. About two feet per century. Coincidentally, global annual sea rise is about 3mm.

    So let’s do a little math. Add glacial rebound to average annual sea level rise and you get about four feet of (perceived) sea level rise per century. Given that half of the average annual sea level rise has been happening for centuries, we cannot attribute that to the actions of man…. So of the four foot of rise per century, only one foot “could” be attributed to mankind and three feet are scientifically attributable to natural processes.

    So how to stop the natural (perceived) rise of the oceans? Elect Democrats and build windmills.

  4. ” We have known for well over a century that a doubling of CO2 over pre-industrial levels will increase the earth’s temperature by 2C.”

    Actually, there is no such correlation, let alone causation. CO2 has increased by about 40%. Temperatures have barely changed. Recent trends show temperatures not increasing at all, despite continued rise in CO2. And most of all, because 400,000 years of history tells us that CO2 rises BECAUSE of temperature, not the other way around. The whole, entire fearmongering about “manmade climate change” is not only false, but backwards! We should immediately stop any effort to control that which we do not control.

    Do the math, ASSUMING a linear response of temp based on CO2, and you find that humans might be able to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by 4 parts per million. Therefore temperatures will go down 4 parts per million, or .001 degrees C. Do you have a category called “ridiculous”?

  5. Leftists have rendered public confidence in scientific research moot, and for good reason; they’ve weaponized science.

    Look at the insane drivel the American Psychological Association publishes to facilitate the feminization of men:

    “Socialization for conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental health and physical health.”

    The DSM5 says of kiddy m0lesters: “[pedophilia] refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality,”

    It’s an orientation, guize; it’s fine!…look for the addition of “P” to the alphabet of acceptable sexual deviancies any day now.

    The AMA is completely pozzed:

    “AMA Says Transgender People Shouldn’t Require Surgery to Change Their Birth Certificate”

    With climate “science” we have two corrupting influences working in concert. First, to protect this scam, the left has made publishing critical analysis virtually impossible through peer review by simply refusing to review it. And of course, there is always the go-to doxxing to keep people in line.

    The AMA calls firearm possession classified a pubic health threat, but HIV/AIDS, which kills thousands more every year is just something we need to de-stigmatize and spend more money on to fix.

    Then there is the money. If you want grant money to fund your research, you’ll toe the line, boy.

    The left has thoroughly corrupted science, but take note; only areas of scientific inquiry that provide product that can be used politically. We don’t see anyone arguing about Hawking Radiation, but research into human biology gets sucked directly into the hose for the left to hose down the pubic with disinformation and pseudo-scientific papspew.

    My point is this. Along with the destruction of the American public school system, the left’s infiltration of scientific research stands as their most insidious crimes against humanity.

    And now, let’s watch Mitch’s ModBot lose it’s mind with all those links….

  6. You know what you never see discussed regarding our ever changing climate? The good things that may well come of it.

    Greenland is melting? Super! More arable land to feed the world.

    And how about more commercial fishing?

    Higher temps = lower fuel use in winter.

    Plants *love* areas with high CO2 concentrations. Crops that absorb more CO2 grow bigger, faster & have increased yields. Want to reforest the Amazon, lefty? Buy a Yukon.

    And hey, anyone up for a Northwest passage?

    People *love* warm weather; especially when they get old.

  7. 2019 is the worst year for climate, ever. We know this for certain – we’re not relying on unreliable proxies like Bristlecone pine tree rings that we’ve manually adjusted to better fit the model. No, we know this for certain because Mr. Peabody took Sherman back in time to make extremely accurate temperature readings from space, in the oceans, at the poles, and that proves conclusively that people are bad and should pay more taxes.

    It’s science. You’re no a science denier, are you?

  8. ALGORE always records atmospheric data whenever he takes the Gulfstream GV to collect awards and bask in the love of believers.

    It’s stored in the wine cellar a special climate controlled vault in the basement of his beachfront California pied-à-terre, with backups stored in the Great House in Nashville. ALGORE has poured over the data, using the scientific method of course, and he says the record is pointing to a catastrophic future; everyone that matters agrees completely.

  9. Look at the Climate alarmists of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 00’s; here’s a classic from the first Earth Day back in the 70’s, why should we believe any of these people predicting doom?

    Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

    1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

    2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

    3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

    4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

    5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

    6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

    7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

    8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

    9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

    10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

    11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

    12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

    13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

    14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

    15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

    16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

    17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

    18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

    And thats just a small sample

  10. And another 10 here…

    But similar past predictions – even by the most prestigious experts – have failed to pan out. Here are 10 of the biggest doomsday prediction failures:


    In 1989, the Associated Press relayed a warning from a U.N. official:

    “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

    The official was Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, who added: “Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands.”

    Instead, U.S. and global farm production rose, and more than 1 billion people worldwide rose out of extreme poverty due to economic growth.

    No nations were “wiped off the face of the Earth” as of 2019.

    However, those worried about warming caution that the U.N. official’s prediction was nuanced.

    “He is not saying that entire nations are going to be wiped off the face of the earth by the year 2000,” Joe Romm, a senior fellow at American Progress, told Fox News.

    “He is saying that if we don’t dramatically reverse emissions by the year 2000 — then we are not going to be able to avoid future flooding,” Romm said.

    “It now seems inevitable that a number of island nations will be wiped off the face of the earth because we didn’t act in time,” he added.

    According to NASA, global sea levels rose 3.5 inches in the 25 years since 1993, when it began reporting satellite data on sea levels.

    The world’s lowest-lying country is the Maldives, a collection of Pacific islands with a population of just over 400,000, where the highest point in the country is 7.9 feet above sea level, with much of it below 3 feet.


    In 1967, a best-selling book came out called “Famine 1975! America’s Decision: Who Will Survive?”

    It predicted mass starvation around the developing world due to increasing population. “Today’s crisis can move in only one direction – toward catastrophe,” it warned.

    Some experts praised the book and ridiculed doubters.


    “All serious students of the plight of the underdeveloped nations agree that famine… is inevitable,” Cal Tech biology professor Peter Bonner wrote in a 1967 review of the book in the prestigious journal Science.

    The exact opposite of the book’s prediction happened. Famine deaths plunged dramatically as farming technology improved, communist countries began allowing private property again, and the globe became further connected.

    According to a dataset put together by Our World in Data, more people died of famine in the single decade prior to the book’s release than in all 52 years since it was published.

    Yet the book got widespread praise from experts. Ecologist Paul Ehrlich, now President of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, said in 1968 that the book “may be remembered as one of the most important books of our age.”


    Global cooling was once a worry to many, such as University of California at Davis professor Kenneth Watt, who warned that present trends would make the world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 … about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

    British science writer Nigel Calder was just as worried. “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” Calder warned in International Wildlife magazine in 1975.


    That quote was dug up by George Mason University economist Walter E. Williams, who argues that there are so many apocalyptic predictions because “they have an agenda for more government control … fear about the environment is a way to gain government control,” Williams told Fox News.

    “Communism and socialism have lost respectability, so it’s been repackaged as environmentalism,” he added.

    “It’s like watermelons — green on the outside, red on the inside.”


    The same U.N. official who predicted the loss of entire nations by the year 2000 also claimed: “the most conservative scientific estimate [is] that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years.”

    But looking back from 2019, the temperature rose about half of a degree Celsius since 1989, according to NASA.


    Romm says that, regardless of what that U.N. official may have said, the projections issued in the U.N.’s official reports have been good.

    “All of the major scientific assessments of global warming have become more dire over time because greenhouse gas emissions have until very recently kept rising at a worst-case scenario rate,” Romm said.

    Many who worry about global warming acknowledge that some past predictions have been overblown, but say they hope that doesn’t distract people from the reality that the earth is warming due to man – if more slowly and less catastrophically than some have predicted.

    “There have been predictions that have turned out not to come true,” John P. Abraham, a Professor at the University of St. Thomas who has published papers on climate change, told Fox News. “But … the majority of climate science was proven right.”


    In 2006, while promoting his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore said that humanity had only 10 years left before the world would reach a point of no return.

    Gore’s movie also featured animations of water inundating Manhattan and Florida.


    Yet Gore’s critics point out that just a few years later, he bought an $8 million beach-front property near Los Angeles.

    “I wish the climate catastrophists practiced what they preached and sold me their beachfront property at a steep discount,” Alex Epstein, author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” told Fox News.


    In 1982, U.N. official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program, warned:

    “By the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.”


    No such disaster occurred.


    In 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisc., – often considered the “father of Earth Day” – cited the secretary of the Smithsonian, who “believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

    That did not happen.


    A 2011 notice from the National Science Foundation quotes researcher Anthony Barnosky at UC Berkeley, who said: “So far, only 1 to 2 percent of all species have gone extinct in the groups we can look at clearly, so by those numbers it looks like we are not far down the road to extinction.”

    Barnosky still expressed concern over a long time horizon, saying that 75 percent of species could go extinct “in as little as 3 to 22 centuries.”


    Scientist Harrison Brown predicted in Scientific American that lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver deposits would be fully depleted before 1990.


    But mining companies found new technologies and reserves, such that by 2019, none of those minerals were near depletion.


    Economist Walter E. Williams says environmentalists have occasionally tipped their hand about what motivates their predictions.

    “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have,” Stephen Schneider, a professor of Biology at Stanford University, said to Discover magazine in 1989. “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”


    Williams also cites Sen. Timothy Wirth, a Democrat from Colorado, who said in 1988: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

    Williams finds the exaggerated predictions of some environmentalists unacceptable.

    “Lying is never OK. To mislead people is never OK,” he told Fox News.

    “You can mislead kids and tell them there is Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. But don’t treat adults as children.”

  11. ^^ The basic physics of greenhouse gases has been well-established, along with the fact that human activity has generated billions of tons of greenhouse gases, makes your argument untenable.

  12. Curious…

    Warming cultists say the END OF THE WORLD IS NEIGH, because we’re living too damn good. They say its probably too late for Polar Bears and cute baby Harp Seals, but maybe not if we give up our cars, eat bugs and grass and pay more taxes.

    If that’s true, if we’re all gonna die, and if all we need to do to save the baby Harp Seals is stop burning the devil oil, why aren’t warming cultists demanding we start a crash course on building nuclear power plants?


  13. ALGORE: “Every penny that I have made, I have put right into a non-profit deal, Alliance For Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge. And Congresswomen, if your, if, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you do not know me.”

    Non-profit, rubes…Every. Penny.

  14. Isn’t it obvious?
    Central economic planning was shown to be a failure when the Chinese abandoned Marxism-Leninism in the 1980s and the USSR, which refused to make free market reforms, collapsed in the early 90s.
    The wannabe central planners decided that the people had wised up. No more socialism!
    So they decided to build a meta-economy on top of the wealth economy. How do you create wealth? Burn fossil fuels! And now the same cretinous elites who thought socialism was a grand idea have decided they want to control and direct the creation of wealth by controlling the burning of fossil fuels.
    The Paris accord?
    It allows developing nations to burn lots of fossil fuels. India and China are building hundreds of coal fired power plants. Developed nations, especially the US, have to reduce their burning of fossil fuels.
    There a many global threats to life. An impact with a relatively small asteroid or comet would all the higher forms of life on earth in a blink of an eye. A big solar flare would knock us back to pre-electricity technology. Hundreds of millions would die. Our interconnected world fosters the spread of plague.
    But we are supposed to turn over the keys of wealth creation to the elites because of a possible 2 deg. C rise in global temp in a century? And their models have been shown to be crap?
    It ain’t about the “science of global warming.” It’s about money, politics, and power.

  15. Emery, the trick is that the greenhouse effect does not take into account what else happens when “greenhouse gas” concentrations rise. Does higher carbon dioxide concentration (in a certain range) change the patterns of vegetation? Does it change cloud cover? etc., etc., etc.. Everything looks guilty under a proper “ceterus parabus” (all else the same) assault until one looks at the data and finds out that all else is not, in fact, the same.

    One thing I learned about 20 years back (a few “revisions” of historical temperature data ago, of course) was that as a rule, the “effect” of higher temperature predated the “causes” of higher greenhouse gas concentrations–a reality not predicted, to put it mildly, by the standard theory. Another part of the theory was clearly bound up in a tautology. Finally, every solution to the problem involved giving more money and power to government in socialist programs, the same thing that made the old Warsaw Pact nations look like a giant Superfund site.

    There is a certain point where you say “ya know, maybe the hypothesis needs a little work and a little humility on its endorsers”, and climatology passed that point decades ago.

  16. Do the math, ASSUMING a linear response of temp based on CO2, and you find that humans might be able to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by 4 parts per million. Therefore temperatures will go down 4 parts per million, or .001 degrees C. – J Ewing

    Every good general from Hannibal to Robert E Lee and beyond knows that the first rule warfare is to pick good ground.

    Arguing about the atmospheric effect of CO2 is not good ground. Any competent 7th grader could replicate the calculations that Svante Arrhenius did in 1896.

    So why isn’t the greenhouse effect of CO2 linear? Well, like they say in romantic comedies, “it’s complicated.” There are clouds that warm the earth and clouds that cool. There are aerosols and that cool and water vapor that warms – but the underlying physics of the CO2 greenhouse effect is about provable as gravity.

    The basic physics of greenhouse gases has been well-established, along with the fact that human activity has generated billions of tons of greenhouse gases, makes your argument untenable – Emery

    Hold up there, buckaroo.

    You don’t know what the f… you are talking about. NO ONE BUT NO ONE (and that includes the IPCC) is saying that CO2 alone will lead to damaging global warming.

    Everything depends on two words WATER VAPOR

    I refer to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Chapter 3.4.2 titled Water Vapour. It begins

    Water vapour is a key climate variable. In the lower troposphere, condensation of water vapour into precipitation provides latent heating which dominates the structure of tropospheric diabatic heating (Trenberth and Stepaniak, 2003a,b). Water vapour is also the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997), and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change (Held and Soden, 2000).

    The theory of catastrophic climate change works like this:

    Think of climate change like a firearm. Human industrial activity is the firing mechanism which ignites the primer. The primer is CO2. Without the powder, the primer blast would barely move the projectile down the barrel. In theory, water vapor in the upper troposphere in the mid-latitudes (otherwise called ‘the hot spot’) is the metaphorical gunpowder that will drive world temperature beyond Arrhenius’ 2C increase per doubling of CO2.

    If you do not understand that, move along because everything revolves around it.

    Sadly for the climatistas, despite 10’s of thousands of weather balloon launched over the last several decades and countless satellite measurements, no one has documented proof of ‘the hot spot’.

    Though every climate model and every activist press release is based upon it.

  17. We need some comedy.

    Prince Harry flew to Amsterdam to give a speech about the need to fly less. Apparently Royals don’t do Skype.

  18. A big solar flare would knock us back to pre-electricity technology. Hundreds of millions would die.

    I believe that if our electric grid went black, 2/3 of the population would die within 5 years. Our planet cannot sustain our present population without the technological supports that allow us to grow and, more importantly, distribute enough food. Modern, urban dwelling people have no idea how to make even the basic things needed to sustain themselves. They’d cut down all of the trees close enough to drag away for firewood. They’d kill all of the animals, wild and domestic.

    Heck, 25% would kill one another within the first 2 years.

  19. You have a point there, Swiftee.

    I don’t know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember The Whole Earth Catalog. Yeah, yeah, but aside from all the hippie sh*t, the basic idea was self-sufficiency and not being a serf to our corporate DFL overlords.

    Back then, things like solar energy and windmills were a way of disconnecting ourselves from the grid. Now days, our region has been carpet bombed with windmills and 360 degrees of the night sky pulsates with blinky red lights that say, “send us your money, you ignorant peasants.”

    We used to be a little suspicious of ‘Ready Kilowat’, the NSP mascot who promised us more power but always seemed to keep a little extra for himself.

    Now the greedy bastard lives in Crocus Hill and fills his Tesla on pumkin spice lattes at Caribo.

  20. If there is a civilization-level collapse we probably won’t see it coming. We know an awful lot about the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, but there is no consensus on its cause. The bad effects were primarily a drop in trade caused by the end of central control of the Roman army (the European dark age political dynasties were, essentially, begun by Christian Roman generals of barbarian ancestry). We know less about the bronze age civilization-level collapse (c 1200 BC), but we know that its bad effects, declining population and technology, resulted from a lack of trade.
    Maybe both collapses were caused by a lack of imagination? When the Roman Empire became too unwieldy to be governed by a single man, rather than devolve control back to its people, the Romans chose instead to split it in half.

  21. “CO2 hit record levels in May..”. CO2 levels were 10-15 times higher earlier in earth’s history with no “tipping point” or whatever scare term is being used at the time.

  22. One of the ugly secrets of the vast, highly funded, government sponsored climate change industry is that there is no clear corelation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature in the climate record. You can’t say “at this point in the earth’s history, atmospheric CO2 was was x, so you can find the global temperature at that time with f of x.”

  23. The youth are waking up to the fact that climate change is a tax that they will have to pay — while their parents and grandparents free ride on their future.

  24. “The youth are waking up to the fact that climate change is a tax that they will have to pay — while their parents and grandparents free ride on their future.”
    The only people demanding taxes are the global warming believers.

  25. It would be great if the yutes were able to recognize that the most effective way to fight global warming is not to cross the Atlantic on a high-tech “greeen” sailing yacht.
    It is the yutes who will suffer the tax of sustained low and no growth economic policies devised to accommodate a “green new deal.”
    I get a kick out of all the NPR/MPR commercials that claim the sponsor is working towards “sustainability.” Nothing is sustainable in this world, pal. Your own life ain’t “sustainable.” Demographics alone make the idea of a “sustainable” economy a joke. You gonna sustain those hundreds of millions of poor people in poverty?
    What they mean by “sustainable” is an economy managed by corruptocrats for the benefit of themselves and their friends.

  26. Dear young (yutes) people:

    You can’t live in a house like your parents, or probably near them either; you can’t have free tuition like them; you can’t have a secure DB pension like them; oh and we are slowly taking away free healthcare, reducing public places by selling them off, and expect you to continue working long after your parents retired.

    We will however let you have a smartphone which will gather all your data so we can bombard you with adverts and spam emails.

    Keep voting for this system, its the best possible one!

  27. Car in the parking lot next to mine has a fancy label on the door: Zero Emissions. Wonderful! Glad it’s not an electric car that produces emissions at the coal plant in the countryside.

    Weirdly, I couldn’t find the hole in the roof where they insert the mast to support the jib sail. Wonder how they do that?

  28. “You can’t live in a house like your parents, or probably near them either; you can’t have free tuition like them; you can’t have a secure DB pension like them; oh and we are slowly taking away free healthcare, reducing public places by selling them off, and expect you to continue working long after your parents retired.”

    Dear tear squirting, leftist reprobate; you poor thing.

    No one gets “free tuition”. California had free community college tuition for a few years; it wasn’t sustainable. Some people, like me for instance, paid for their tuition through military service; we earned every damned penny. Others have parents that saved for their kids tuition, or, again like me, some worked while going to school to pay-as-you-go; some take out bank loans.

    “Free healthcare”…that’s what border jumpers, wards of the state, prison convicts and elected politicians get. But it’s not free; I pay for theirs.

    The only thing reducing public places is the ever increasing cost government puts on being allowed entrance. Your public parks ain’t “free” either.

    My kids can live in any house they want. They are saving and investing their money for their retirement; we don’t rely on crooked union pensions, we don’t trust social security and we don’t mooch. It’s the spawn of reprobate leftists that are f*cked, too bad but not my monkeys, not my circus.

    Go cry somewhere else, reprobate.

  29. Emery, let me suggest a book for you to read: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It’s a combination philosophy tract, economics primer and military/diplomatic handbooks.

  30. JD unlike me and others on the right Emery wont read anything that goes against his thinking/dogma.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.