Warning: Coronavirus Is Real, Panic Is Orchestrated

Some journalists and analysts are figuring out that while coronavirus is real enough, the panic response to it is manufactured and eerily similar to climate alarmism. As TN has just discovered, this is exactly the case. ⁃ TN Editor

I’m not worried about the guy coughing next to me. I’m worried about the ones who seem to be looking for Jim Jones.

Jones was the charismatic founder of the cult-like People’s Temple. Through fear-based control, he took his followers’ money and ran their lives. He isolated them in Guyana where he convinced over 900 of them to commit suicide by drinking cyanide-laced grape Kool Aid. Frightened people can be made to do anything. They just need a Jim Jones.

So it is more than a little scary that media zampolit Rick Wilson wrote to his 753,000 Twitter followers: “People who sank into their fear of Trump, who defended every outrage, who put him before what they knew was right, and pretended this chaos and corruption was a glorious new age will pay a terrible price. They deserve it.” The tweet was liked over 82,000 times.

The New York Times claims that “the specter of death speeds across the globe, ‘Appointment in Samara’-style, ever faster, culling the most vulnerable.” Others are claiming Trump will cancel the election to rule as a Jim Jones. “Every viewer who trusts the words of Earhardt or Hannity or Regan could well become a walking, breathing, droplet-spewing threat to the public,” opined the Washington Post. Drink the damn Kool Aid and join in the panic en route to Guyana.

The grocery store in Manhattan, just after the announcement of the national state of emergency, was pure panic. I saw a fight break out after an employee brought out paper towels to restock the shelf and someone grabbed the whole carton for himself. The police were called. One cop had to stay behind to oversee the lines at the registers and maintain order. To their credit, the NYPD were cool about it. I heard them talk down one of the fighters, saying, “You wanna go to jail over Fruit Loops? Get a hold of yourself.” Outside New York, sales of weapons and ammunition spiked.

Panic seems to be something we turn on and off, or moderate in different ways. Understanding that helps reveal what is really going on.

No need for history. Right now, in real time, behind the backs of the coronavirus, is the every-year, plain-old influenza. Some 12,000 people have died, with over 13 million infected from influenza just between October 2019 and February 2020. The death toll is screamingly higher (as of this writing, coronavirus has infected 60,653 and killed 819 Americans). Bluntly: more people have already died of influenza in the U.S. than from the coronavirus in China, Iran, and Italy combined. Double in fact. To be even blunter, no one really cares, even though a large number of bodies are piling up. Why?

The first cases of the swine flu, H1N1, appeared in April 2009. By the time Obama finally declared a national emergency seven months later, the CDC was reporting that 50 million Americans, one in six people, had been infected, and 10,000 Americans had died. In the early months, Obama had no HHS secretary or appointees to the department’s 19 key posts, as well as no commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, no surgeon general, no CDC director. The vacancy at the CDC was especially important because in the early days of the crisis, only they could test for the virus (sound familiar?). Yet some 66 percent of Americans thought the president was protecting them. There was no panic. Why?

Of course, Trump isn’t Obama. But if you really think it is that black and white, that one man makes that much difference in the multi-leveled response of the vast federal government, you don’t know much about bureaucracy. Most of the people who handled the swine flu are now working the coronavirus, from the rank and file at CDC, HHS, and DHS to headliners like Drs. Andrew Fauci (in government since 1968, worked ebola) and Deborah Brix (in government since 1985, prior to corona was an Obama AIDS appointee).

Maybe the most salient example is 9/11. Those who lived through it remember it well, the color threat alerts, the jihadi cells around every corner, the sense of learned/taught helplessness. The enemy could be anywhere, everywhere, and we had no way to fight back. But because the Dems and Repubs were saying the same thing, there was a patina of camaraderie to it (led by Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg, where are they now?), not discord. But the panic was still very real.

Read full story here…




Imperial College (UK) Found As Sole Agent Of Panic Over Coronavirus

The world has apparently been ‘punked’ by Imperial College London into a global panic over the coronavirus. Imperial has long been associated with global warming studies using disputed data that have promoted climate alarmism.

Now that we see who jump-started the panic, we can better understand the agenda, the strategy and the outcome. It was never about protecting people’s lives but rather about shutting down the world’s economic system that is seen as the primary agent of global warming.

Also see: Behind the Virus Report That Jarred the U.S. and the U.K. to Action ⁃ TN Editor

The entire political focus of yesterday’s news cycle was the legislative imbroglio between Republicans and Democrats over the coronavirus rescue package. Republicans believe we should presuppose and even continue encouraging an indefinite shutdown while spending trillions to treat it. Democrats believe the same thing and also want to add all their other extraneous progressive policies too. But nobody is asking: Do we really need to intensify the shutdown before we understand the data and projections of the actual virus itself?

Given that the virus was discovered in Wuhan on November 17 (at the latest), when did coronavirus really begin in this country? Roughly how many cases do we think occurred before we began testing during the first week in March, and how many fatalities occurred? How many of the presumed flu deaths, and particularly the presumed pneumonia deaths during what was thought of as a bad flu season, were really due to coronavirus?

These are not mere academic questions. They should determine our public policy response. Knowing when the virus began and what we think occurred in January and February (and perhaps even December) will help determine not only how severe this virus is, but how far along we are into the epidemic. If we really had hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of cases, along with several thousand more fatalities prior to testing, that would mean that the mortality rate is even lower than the 1.2% post-testing average so far. It would also mean we are farther along in the epidemic and that many have already been exposed to it, thereby making a categorical and nationwide lockdown counterintuitive at this point.

What led our government and the governments of many other countries into panic was a single Imperial College of U.K. study, funded by global warming activists, that predicted 2.2 million deaths if we didn’t lock down the country. In addition, the reported 8-9% death rate in Italy scared us into thinking there was some other mutation of this virus that they got, which might have come here. Together with the fact that we were finally testing and had the ability to actually report new cases, we thought we were headed for a death spiral. But again, as my colleague Steve Deace pointed out, we can’t flatten a curve if we don’t know when the curve started.

Take this chart from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, for example.

You see an insanely dangerous trajectory of cases taking off in March. But what exactly happened in March? The virus was introduced in Wuhan in November. And even without testing, we did detect a handful of cases here, the first known case being on January 21. So why would we suddenly experience the outbreak in March? It’s quite evident that the culprit for the spike in the chart is simply because that is when the testing began because Trump dropped the FDA regulation barring private testing after the government testing didn’t work.

Thus, we know with certainty that people were clearly contracting coronavirus and were likely dying some time before March, but we’re still not sure how long before or how many people. Given the overlap with the general flu and pneumonia season, we really have no way of knowing that the January 21 case of the individual flying from Wuhan to Spokane, Washington, was the first active case – patient zero.

It’s truly inconceivable that it would take so long for the virus to come here after it broke out in China in November. We likely had hundreds of thousands of travelers coming here and countless tens of thousands of Chinese nationals flying back even before Customs and Border Protection introduced any health care screening per CDC guidance on January 17. There are roughly 3.4 million Chinese admissions every year, not counting the numerous Americans who fly there and back. If we divide that by six to account for a two-month period before Trump shut off travel but after the virus had developed in Wuhan, that would be nearly 600,000 Chinese nationals.

It’s safe to say that as January wore on, the numbers likely dropped a lot from the Chinese side, but it’s still a statistical improbability that the virus wasn’t brought in earlier and in greater numbers than CDC has thus far detected and documented. Moreover, Chinese students in particular, including those from Wuhan, traveled back in mid-January for the new semester.

As Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of Trump’s coronavirus response task force, said yesterday of the spread in New York City, “Clearly the virus had to have been circulating for a number of weeks in order to have this level of penetrance in the community.”

Read full story here…




Greta Thunberg

Eco-Anxiety: Children Distressed Over Climate Change

Greta Thunberg and her adult handlers are destroying a generation of youth by inducing anxiety, sleeplessness and nightmares over climate change. Likely nobody will ever be held accountable for this form of mass child abuse. ⁃ TN Editor

A growing number of children are being affected by eco-anxiety – concern about ecological disasters – new research suggests.

In order to find out more about how children feel about climate changeBBC Newsround conducted a survey of 2,000 eight to 16-year-olds.

The poll showed that young people are feeling frustrated and anxious about the state of the planet with 80 per cent saying the problem of climate change was important to them, and more than a third saying it was very important.

Nearly three quarters (73 per cent) added that they were worried about the state of the planet right now, including 22 per cent who say they were “very worried”.

When asked about their futures, almost three in five (58 per cent) children said that they are concerned about the impact that climate change will have on their lives, with many admitting these worries often come out in unusual ways.

Nearly one in five (19 per cent) of the children surveyed admitted to having a bad dream about the climate crisis, while 17 per cent said they have had their sleeping and eating habits affected by their concerns.

When questioned about the action being taken by grown-ups to tackle the problem, a large number of children said they feel frustrated about the progress being made.

More than half (59 per cent) of participants said they don’t think their voices are being heard on climate change, while nearly two thirds (64 per cent) don’t believe people in power are listening to them enough when they do talk about it.

What’s more, 41 per cent said they don’t trust adults to tackle the challenges that climate change presents.

Emma Citron, a consultant clinical child psychologist, said that young people often find it difficult to come to terms with the scale of the problem of climate changes and what often seems like a lack of response shown by governments and world leaders.

Read full story here…




UNESCO: Climate Denial To Be Criminalized And Prosecuted

The Technocrat tango is shifting into high gear to force the world to dump Capitalism and Free Enterprise and adopt Sustainable Development in its place. Global warming deniers would face penalties comparable to war crimes.

When climate alarmist Al Gore said in 2015 that “deniers deserve to be punished” everybody chuckled. Well, chuckle no more. Under this proposal, President Trump could be prosecuted for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord; leaders of “Conservative think-tanks” and other activist organizations that question climate science would be included; widely-read journalists who influence the public to question phony climate science would be individually prosecuted – that would ostensibly include Technocracy News & Trends and its publisher, Patrick Wood.

This proposal is pointedly directed at the United States, but I can also see Australia and Brazil in the cross-hairs as well. Technocrats know that their plan for global Technocracy will NOT WORK until the US is neutralized, which is why we are under a full spectrum attack by climate fanatics.

This is a deadly serious matter that should immediately rejected by national leaders. Readers are strongly urged to read my books, Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order and Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.

Note that the article below appears on the official UNESCO website but the author is not writing as an employee of UNESCO. A tiny Disclaimer link in the footer of the UNESCO page states, “UNESCO does not warrant that the information, documents and materials contained in its website is complete and correct and shall not be liable whatsoever for any damages incurred as a result of its use.” ⁃ TN Editor

Climate denial has increased the risk of catastrophic global change. Should international criminal law be used against those who promote this dangerous trend? Economic and political leaders can no longer pretend it is business as usual. Whether they actively induce environmental harm or just ignore the existential threat against the survival of the human species, states and corporations must be held accountable for their actions or inaction regarding climate change.

A fire has started in the theatre, from which there are no exits. Unchecked, the fire will kill and injure many in the theatre, starting with those in the cheapest seats. Many people can smell the smoke, but some others have not noticed it yet. Some people are trying to warn everyone so that the fire can be contained before it spreads out of control. Another group – sitting mainly in the most expensive seats – is trying to shout loudly that there is no fire, or that it is not serious, or that there is plenty of time left to put it out. This group uses emotive language and insists that the other group is not to be trusted.

Many people in the theatre are confused by these conflicting messages or convinced by the fire-deniers. There are enough people in this combined set to significantly slow down the efforts of those listening to the accurate warnings, those who are trying to put out the fire. In this scenario, those shouting “No fire!” ought to be silenced, because there is a fire that requires urgent and immediate action to prevent it from spreading and becoming uncontrollable. But the fire is not being tackled properly because many of the people in the theatre do not know whom to believe.

Can we compare those who deny the reality of climate change to the group that occupies the best seats in the theatre? The answer seems obvious: yes.

Accelerating the extinction of humanity

Criminal sanctions are the most potent tools we have to mark out conduct that lies beyond all limits of toleration. Criminal conduct violates basic rights and destroys human security. We reserve the hard treatment of punishment for conduct that damages the things we hold most fundamentally valuable. Climate change is causing precisely such damage.

Over the last 250 years or so, we have burned fossil fuels for cheap energy, destroyed carbon sinks, grown the global population, and failed to halt the malign influence of corporate interests on political action that could have made mitigation manageable. Now, we have a window of just ten years or less to avoid using up the carbon budget for 1.5 ℃(link is external), according to the 2018 Special Report(link is external) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). If we continue on our current trajectory of emissions without aggressive mitigation, we could see warming in the range of 4–6.1 ℃ above pre-industrial averages by 2100. Even if all countries meet their current mitigation targets under the Paris Agreement 2015(link is external) (COP21), we are likely to see warming of at least 2.6 ℃ by 2100(link is external).

A 4–6.1 ℃ rise in temperature by 2100 would be catastrophic. Large areas of the earth would become uninhabitable as sea levels rise and temperatures soar. Severe weather events, crop failure, and conflict in the face of mass migration never before seen in human history, would place intense pressure on remaining habitable places. In these fragile and febrile conditions, positive feedback from warming could put humanity at risk of extinction(link is external), according to the journal, Futures, September 2018. This feedback occurs when tipping points are passed in the climate system, causing processes to be unleashed that exacerbate warming. For example, the transformation of the Amazon forest from the world’s largest carbon sink to a carbon source; or, the massive retreat of polar ice, which reduces the planet’s reflectivity, leading it to warm at a greater speed(link is external). These tipping points are described in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) as a critical threshold at which global or regional climate changes from a stable state to another stable state.

Temperature rises of 4–6.1 ℃ are not likely, but they are not science fiction either. Each year that passes without aggressive mitigation to reach net zero emissions by 2050 makes this existential threat more real. Even if the Paris Agreement aggressively ratchets up mitigation ambition to close the emissions gap by 2030, it remains the case that we have already reached 1 ℃ of warming. Given the time lag between emissions and the warming they induce(link is external) – due to the long lifetime of carbon molecules in the atmosphere – further increases are to be expected.

Between irresponsible behaviour …

Should we use criminal law to tackle climate change? The current generation of people alive in the Anthropocene is capable of damaging and degrading the environment in ways that could make humanity go extinct. Postericide is a morally required response to humanity’s changed circumstances in the Anthropocene. The scope of international criminal law makes it the right site to address the existential threats created by climate change. International criminal law aims to protect the entire human community irrespective of national borders, now and into the future. International criminal law expresses the values that bind the human community together across time. It asserts the condemnation of  “unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity(link is external)” – as stipulated in the Rome Statute(link is external) of the International Criminal Court (ICC(link is external)) of 17 July 1998, which defines, inter alia, the international crimes over which the ICC has jurisdiction.

For there to be a crime, there must be a criminal. The death and suffering caused by climate impacts is deeply shocking, but this is not enough to prompt prosecution under international criminal law. Death and suffering are caused by volcanic eruptions, yet there are no culpable agents in these cases.

The current climate crisis has been caused by human activity over the last two and a half centuries or so, leading to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The crisis is in large part an unintended consequence of action across history that has led to the destruction of carbon sinks, increased carbon flows, and concentrated carbon stocks. Most of this conduct is beyond the legitimate reach of international criminal law, not least because the relevant people are dead. Most, but not all.

… and postericide

I have proposed that international criminal law should be expanded to include a new criminal offence that I call postericide (link is external). It is committed by intentional or reckless conduct fit to bring about the extinction of humanity. Postericide is committed when humanity is put at risk of extinction by conduct performed either with the intention of making humanity go extinct, or with the knowledge that the conduct is fit to have this effect. When a person knows that their conduct will impose an impermissible risk on another and acts anyway, they are reckless. It is in the domain of reckless conduct, making climate change worse, that we should look for postericidal conduct.

No one person’s emissions are fit to bring about human extinction as a result of climate impacts – the many private jets and oil wells they own can do so, however. But individual people in their roles as political and corporate leaders can exert extensive control over how much worse climate change becomes as a result of their executive action. A country’s president can withdraw an entire state from a global agreement on mitigation; a Chief Executive Officer can authorize the withholding of information about the progress and impacts of climate change because it threatens the corporation’s bottom line.

Individuals often have control over conduct they do not perform themselves – for example, by giving direct orders to subordinates, or by virtue of the special relationship in which they stand to others whose conduct causes harm. This means that we can assign vicarious liability to individuals of power, authority and influence within groups that, as collectives, worsen climate change in ways fit to make humanity go extinct. Just as international criminal law holds military leaders to account for genocide committed by their troops, it should hold political and economic leaders to account for postericide committed under their authority. These leaders should go to trial at the ICC and be held to account at the bar of the human community’s fundamental shared values.

Who should be prosecuted for postericide? We could start by examining the established international network of well-funded organizations devoted to organized climate denial (link is external) (For more on this subject, read “Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt”, in the journal Global Environmental Change, Volume 36, January 2016).  The epicentre of this activity is in the United States. A set of Conservative think-tanks has deliberately deceived the public and policymakers about the realities of climate change. Their ideologically-driven climate denial has been heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry; which include, for example, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. This climate denial has had a significant impact on public opinion and has impeded legislation to tackle climate change.

Vicarious criminal liability

Should Rex Tillerson [the former CEO of ExxonMobil, who also served as US Secretary of State from February 2017 to March 2018] Charles Koch and David Koch [the owners of Koch Industries] be tried for the crime of postericide at the ICC? Their vicarious criminal liability would be generated by their authorization of multiple acts of climate denial by others, without which early aggressive political action on climate change would have been more likely.

Climate denial has seriously impeded aggressive mitigation efforts that could have averted our present climate emergency. It has magnified the risk that humanity locks in to catastrophic global climate change. The people in positions of authority in states, or industrial groups whose lies have put us and our descendants in peril, should be held accountable. The damage that climate deniers do is heinous, and they have no excuses. The time has come to prosecute them for postericide.

Read full story here…




The Looming Collision Between Electric Vehicles And Green Energy

Like in America and Europe, Australian leaders are dancing with the same green fairies who sprinkle the angel dust of delusion, bad science and bad judgement over the whole land. It’s going to end poorly for all of us. ⁃ TN Editor

Two green-dream fantasies are heading for a massive and costly collision.

Firstly they dream of generating all grid power from wind/solar propped up by battery storage (such as lots of giant Tesla batteries and pumped hydro).

Secondly they dream of replacing all petrol/diesel/gas cars, trucks and buses with electric vehicles, powered by more batteries.

But wind farms do well if they can average about 35% of their rated capacity with low predictability, while solar panels average just 25% of their capacity, produced intermittently. To generate zero emissions energy for Australia, we would need hills covered with turbines, flats covered with solar panels, the countryside spider-webbed with access roads and transmission lines, and much more hydro.

To stabilise a green energy system without using hydrocarbons will require an eye-watering quantity of batteries, costing as much as 200 times the cost of any wind/solar facility needing backup. Every home will need a battery in the basement (and sensible ones will also have a diesel in the shed).

Add to this battery bonanza millions of batteries will be needed to electrify and replace our fleet of petrol/diesel vehicles.

No wonder cynical mining companies like BHP are going green – they smell a jackpot from the coming green boom in demand for steel, aluminium, lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, cobalt, rare earths and nuclear fuels. And no wonder Tesla supports green energy – the total annual output of the world’s biggest battery factory in Nevada would store less than five minutes of annual US electricity demand. And they also see booming demand for electric vehicle batteries. No wonder Tesla shares have gone ballistic (the boom before the crash?).

The carbon dioxide emitted by all the extra mining, transport, manufacture and disposal of green energy generators and batteries would far exceed the CO2 allegedly saved by the threatened green upheaval.

All Australians rely on trucks to deliver their daily food to towns and cities – in road trains, semi-trailers, refrigerated trucks and electric trains, almost all powered by diesel, coal or gas. If they were all-electric and powered by batteries, where will the electricity come from to recharge all of these batteries? In tomorrow’s Australia it must come from an unreliable wind/solar grid, hydro power or diesel generators.

Even if they just focus on forcing electrification of private cars where does the real power come from every night when most of them plug in to re-charge? If it is a still night, ZERO electricity will be coming from wind and solar. That leaves coal, gas, batteries, pumped-hydro, rationing, load-shedding or blackouts to close the gap.

Forget energy-wasting nonsense like capture and burial of CO2, and the energy-consuming roundabout of generating and then burning hydrogen. The zero-emissions delusion is impossible without nuclear power, but this can only happen if people can be reassured on nuclear safety and waste disposal. Are the Greens going to lead that education process?

And if we get global cooling instead of global warming, what will keep us warm on long still winter nights? Any state or country reaching for these impossible green dreams is destined for blackouts and energy riots on the streets.

It’s time for Australian politicians to stop frolicking with green fairies around the zero emissions maypole. Green energy will never power a conversion to electric vehicles. They must remove all barriers and climate taxes on safe, reliable, trusted energy sources – coal, gas and oil.

We need more reliable cheap power for jobs and industry and more CO2 in the atmosphere to make green plants grow faster with less water.

Read full story here…




Bezos

Bezos To Save Earth From Global Warming With $10 Billion Fund

The Bezos Earth Fund will dole out $10 billion to universities, NGOs and other groups fighting global warming, further demonstrating Bezos’ deeply-held Technocrat philosophy. ⁃ TN Editor

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who with a net worth of $130 billion is currently the world’s richest man, announced that he was creating the Bezos Earth Fund on Monday. The fund is a $10 billion global initiative that aims to fund “any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world.”

Bezos unveiled his new initiative in an Instagram post Monday, in which he said that climate change is the biggest threat to the planet. The Amazon CEO stated that he wanted to work with others to “amplify known ways and explore new ways” to combat the devastating impact of climate change. According to the announcement, the Bezos Earth Fund will fund scientists, activists, NGOs and other efforts. It will start issuing grants this summer.

“We can save Earth. It’s going to take collective action from big companies, small companies, nation states, global organizations, and individuals,” Bezos said.

Read full story here…




Mars colony

Technocrat Billionaires Plot Leaving ‘Dying’ Earth

The very same Technocrats who are running society and the physical world into the ground are the first ones who want to get off the planet as it dies from climate change, overpopulation, disease, etc. We would have less problems if they would oblige.

The desire to reach the heavens is as old as the Tower of Babel, and has been depicted in art and literature for hundreds of years. Now that the technology exists to actually do it, Technocrats are doing it. Mars is more inhospitable than the Sahara Desert in the middle of summer, yet they deceive themselves that Mars is preferable to living on earth. ⁃ TN Editor

Coronavirus, climate change, overpopulation, rising sea levels, and the ever-present threat of nuclear war. Lots of people would leave this planet if they possibly could.

And maybe a few people can.

A number of multi-billionaires – notably Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson and Yuri Milner – have poured huge chunks of their fortunes into space travel.

Maybe they’re just squandering their unimaginable wealth on rockets in the same way that mere millionaires might buy yachts.

But some people are speculating that the mega-rich might be planning to flee off-planet.

In a New York Times article entitled The Rich Are Planning to Leave This Wretched Planet, Michael Suffredini, who is spearheading the creation of a new “luxury” space station called Axiom, revealed the details of his designer orbital habitat.

He predicted that a holiday on Axiom would cost $55million, and not only had he recruited world-famous French designer Philippe Starck to create the station’s interior but he was close to doing a deal with a major European fashion house to provide custom-made space suits.

He said that three people had already signed up even though the space station had not yet launched. The station is slated to receive its first guests in 2022.

Elon Musk has made no secret of his plan to establish a permanent settlement on Mars. He has stressed the importance of ensuring that humanity is a multi-planet species so that there will be seem of us left behind if the worst should happen.

Musk says: “Last century, we had two massive world wars, three if you count the Cold War.”

While the PayPal billionaire isn’t predicting a global conflict any time soon, he says: ”I think it’s unlikely that we’ll never have another world war again.”

But noted American media theorist Douglas Rushkoff has written that the overall direction of technological development was about creating an escape route for the super-rich.

He pointed out that combat robots would serve very well to guard the bolt-holes of billionaires remaining on Earth once climate change reached its end-game and described Elon Musk’s planned Mars colony as “less a continuation of the human diaspora than a lifeboat for the elite.”

Read full story here…




The Great Academic Purge Of Skeptical Climate Scientists

A left-wing Australian advocacy teamed up with the elitist Center for American Progress in the U.S. to destroy the reputation of climate skeptics who dared to debunk faulty global warming science.

Dissent is simply not tolerated. These attacks have been vicious but persistent and well-funded.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded by Trilateral Commission member John Podesta, a left-wing ideologue who almost single-handedly crafted global warming and environmental policies for the Clinton and Obama administrations. Podesta was a central figure in forming the Obama campaign and administration, and was Hilary Clinton’s campaign manager in the during the 2016 elections. 

CAP’s largest financial donors include the Ford Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and the Schwab Charitable Fund. ⁃ TN Editor

A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”

That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry, formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable.

But there is nothing funny about Skeptical Science. Today, Curry should be a senior statesperson in the atmospheric sciences community. Instead, she is out of academia. She attributes that, at least in part, to being placed on the Skeptical Science blacklist and its use, as expressed by Nuccitelli, to make her “unhirable.”

I asked Professor Curry about this situation. She explained, “In 2012 I was informed by my Dean that the administration wanted me to step down as Chair. While there were several reasons for this, one obvious reason was extreme displeasure by several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to the Dean.”

So Curry stepped down and started looking for administrative positions at other universities, “At the time, I was getting numerous inquiries from academic headhunters encouraging me to apply for major administration positions, ranging from Dean to Vice Chancellor for Research. I applied for several of these, and actually interviewed for two of them. I did not make it to the final short list.”

The headhunter gave Curry the following feedback from the universities: “They thought I was an outstanding candidate, looked excellent on paper, articulated a strong vision, and interviewed very well in person. The show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate, as evidenced by a simple Google search.”

Indeed, in my own Google search of “Judy Curry,” and confirmed by others on my Twitter timeline, the Skeptical Science blacklist page for her appears on the first page of Google results, and for me it was the top listing.

How can it be that a website, founded by an Australian cartoonist named John Cook and run mainly by volunteer non-academics and amateur scientists, can rise to the position of not just claiming to arbitrate who is and who is not an appropriate hire for universities, but actually fulfilling that role?

Skeptical Science emerged in 2007, the peak of the climate blogging era. It was also a time when the pursuit of “climate skeptics” (or “deniers”) really took off. The website soon found a large audience and was promoted as an ally in the battle against climate skeptics and deniers. For instance, according to Wikipedia, “The Washington Post has praised it as the “most prominent and detailed” website to counter arguments by global warming deniers.”

But the main legitimizing factor in the rise of Skeptical Science as a powerful climate advocacy group was its endorsement by prominent scientists, such as by widely-known climate scientists Michael Mann of Penn State University and Katherine Hayhoe, of Texas Tech. Like Skeptical Science, Mann and Hayhoe focus much of their advocacy efforts on identifying and denigrating so-called climate skeptics or deniers.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a leading scientific association that includes many climate scientists, has routinely endorsed Skeptical Science. The AGU has even invoked the Skeptical Science blacklist, as recently as last December, when one of its writers dismissed an Australian academic by observing simply that he “has his own page on John Cook’s Skeptical Science site.” The mere fact of being listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist appears to be sufficient to be dismissed on the official website of the AGU, where Curry was elected a Fellow.

But what has happened to Curry is just the tip of the iceberg.

Upon discussing on Twitter the Skeptical Science claim that their “debunking” of Curry should make her “unhirable in academia,” a follower of mine pointed to a trove of hacked internal discussions among the Skeptical Science team. In those discussions from around 2010-2012, my father, Roger Pielke, Sr. — also a prominent atmospheric scientist — was mentioned some 3,700 times. Correspondingly, my father is also listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist.

I have read those internal discussions and what I saw is incredibly disturbing, for academic freedom and for simple human decency.

Let me take a step back and explain why I believe that it is appropriate to discuss the content of these hacked discussions. (Note: These hacked discussions are different than the Photoshopped imagery found in 2013 on an unprotected Skeptical Science website showing several Skeptical Science team members with their faces super imposed upon Nazi soldiers, with John Cook as Heinrich Himmler. According to Rob Honeycutt of Skeptical Science, those images were prepared as an in-group joke to make fun of a climate skeptic who appears on another of their lists, and were not intended for the public.)

The discussions in the hacked conversations – like those in the Wikileaks releases, those of President Emanuel Macron’s hacked conversations, or even the Climategate emails – are legitimately in the public interest.

There are at least three reasons for this. One, the hacked forum reveals that Skeptical Science – a foreign advocacy group — in collaboration with the Center for American Progress (a DC-based progressive advocacy group), improperly obtained Congressional testimony in advance from several U.S. scientists and were engaged to help Democrats in the House to impeach the testimony of these scientists. Second, the leaked discussions reveal a coordinated effort to lobby U.S. elected officials by a foreign-based entity.

Read full story here…




Boris Johnson Unleashes Green Hell On Post-Brexit Britain

As feared, Techno-populism is soaring in Britain as Boris Johnson is taking a swan dive off the 10-meter board straight into climate change hysteria and a Green New Deal for England.

Techno-populism is the blending of populism with Technocracy and has been officially recognized throughout Europe. Now that the fight Brexit is over, Boris is establishing himself as the most ‘green’ PM that Britain has ever had. ⁃ TN Editor

Boris Johnson’s Brexit administration has got off to a terrible start.

To appreciate just how bad things are, here’s a thought experiment: imagine if you had been told that the price of Brexit was the wholesale reordering of the UK economy on eco-socialistic grounds, as outlined in my book Watermelons.

  • Your countryside would be trashed by a massively expensive, economically unviable white elephant project — HS2 — whose only functions were a) to cover the government’s embarrassment at having squandered so much already and b) to enrich crony capitalist engineering companies and project managers and c) pacify the leftist Civil Service
  • You’d have to strip out your gas cooker and your gas boiler and replace them with new, much more expensive electric versions
  • You’d end up with a Chancellor who suddenly revealed himself to be as bad as, if not worse than, Philip Hammond — only one who is entirely unsackable, because he pushes all the appropriate racial/religious minority buttons.
  • You had a Prime Minister so bedazzled by greenery that he actually chose to share a platform with Deep Green, Malthusian purveyor of outrageous alarmist propaganda Sir David Attenborough and spew all manner of scientifically illiterate guff about the beneficial trace gas CO2 sitting menacingly over the planet like some malign tea cosy
  • You were expected to give up your petrol or diesel-powered car
  • Your coastline was defaced with yet more whale-bothering, utter-tosser-enriching, stupidly expensive bird-choppers
  • Your country was entered into a green experiment far more radical and transformative (and insane) than anything anywhere within the European Union — including, even, Germany’s economically ruinous Energiewende
  • The minister administering this scheme, instead of being your usual Commie deadbeat apparatchik, was so able and forceful you’d almost imagine him to be a Conservative — if it weren’t for his extremely dodgy eco-socialist Weltanschauung
  • None of this had been costed, not remotely. But we’re talking trillions of your money
  • The difference any of this will make to climate change is precisely zilch, not least because the growth of China’s fossil fuel economy is now entirely outstripping any reductions the West suicidally and unilaterally makes for green virtue-signalling purposes
  • To rub salt into the wound, your new Prime Minister made a speech singing the praises of free markets – as if to taunt you with what might have been if only you had elected an actual Conservative government. [See Matt Ridley’s tweet below]

The fantasy:

The massively disappointing reality (NB – this is not what remotely what Smith, Ricardo or Cobden had in mind…)

Would you still have voted for Brexit under those circumstances?

I’m not sure that I would — not least because everything I have just outlined above is actually worse for Britain than almost anything we experienced during those long decades under the yoke of the EU.

Many readers will no doubt say: “I told you so! Boris was always a squishy centrist.”

Well, maybe, but first, I would still maintain that he was the only hope of breaking that three-year post-referendum deadlock which nearly saw Brexit being cancelled; and second, I had rather hoped — especially under the guidance of an advisor like Dominic Cummings — that his pragmatism would come to the fore and he would have realised that the ONLY way of delivering on his promises for a revitalised post-Brexit Britain, for the working classes especially, was to ditch the green crap.

That bullet-pointed horror show I’ve just outlined above: it’s like a fantasy wish-list come true for all the things that people who voted Remain would have liked to happen to Britain but would never have dared hope could happen.

Read full story here…




As Sun ‘Hibernates’, Mini Ice-Age Is Coming

Global warming alarmists will live on in denial of the sun’s role in shaping climate on earth. Nevertheless, they are fully committed to the transition to a green economy and Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

Sunspot activity on the surface of the Sun follows a well-known but little understood 11 year cycle. Activity rises and falls creating the so-called solar maximum and then solar minimum. During a solar maximum, the Sun is more powerful and is littered with sunspots.

Conversely when the Sun enters a solar minimum – which it did about two years ago – energy from our host star begins to lessen.

However, one expert has warned that the Sun will enter a period of “hibernation” this year, in what as known as a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM).

Prof Valentina Zharkova, from the department of mathematics, physics and electrical engineering at Northumbria University, warned this could cause global temperatures to drop by one degrees Celsius.

While that sounds like an insignificant drop, it could have major ramifications for the planet, including a slow down in agricultural production.

The expert added the Sun’s hibernation period could last for three decades, which will lead to wetter and colder summers.

Prof Zharkova told The Sun: “The Sun is approaching a hibernation period.

“Less sunspots will be formed on the solar surface and thus less energy and radiation will be emitted towards the planets and the Earth.”

“The reduction in temperature will result in cold weathers on Earth, wet and cold summers, cold and wet winters.”

“We will possibly get big frosts as is happening now in Canada where they see [temperatures] of -50C.

“But this is only the start of GSM, there is more to come in the next 33 years.”

The last GSM, which comes around roughly every 400 years, came in the 17th century.

Research produced by NASA indicated during this last prolonged solar minimum the cooling temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were indeed exacerbated by that Maunder minimum.

In 2006, NASA said: “From 1650 to 1710, temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum.

Read full story here…