Pen as Sword - Social Commentary

I have no trunk …

Long time writers have a trunk to fall back on in times of drought. I have no trunk so must dredge up old non-issues to fill my thoughts and prime things, so to speak.

With a nod and a wink to a friend of mine who refuses to believe in God but absolutely believes in anthropogenic global warming as a world killer, please consider this a prod with a sharp stick just to get the chatterers frothing.  Why do I do this you might ask – just a throwback to my mis-spent youth when I used to stealthily attack the neighbor’s geese with a homemade bow and arrow.

So the subject of today’s harangue is James Hansen (and his ilk),  the unlamented EX Nasa employee and self proclaimed “Saviour of the Planet”, who is one of the most extreme purveyors of “Global Warming is killing us” religion, as well as his rabid co-coreligionists of the Lurid Left.

He (Hansen) actually managed an appearance on our tax payer funded liberal propaganda ministry (aka the CBC or Mother Corp) a while ago, hosted by Evan Soloman (not hauled into court for sexual abuse yet) where he had the nerve to pose as an expert on how CO2 and Global Warming will cause oceans to rise 10’s of meters and drown the whole bloody planet!

Very similar in style to that other “Saviour of the Planet Saint David Suzuki’s horrendous screeching about how humans are to blame for all Mother Earth’s illnesses, this guy Hansen has been disgraced in almost every single blog that supports scientific, peer reviewed studies proving Global Warming is nothing more than a fraudulent attempt by Governments and their pet academics to bleed their working people of their hard earned dollars! (vampires anyone?)

WAIT!!!!  There can’t be TWO “Saviours of the Planet” can there? And what about Jesus? Wasn’t he THE Saviour. RIGHT!  I forgot, Suzuki, and Hansen, and my atheist friend global warmist don’t believe in God. But they sure do know exactly what they don’t believe in, funny about that. Good thing for them God still believes in them.

So in that vein we discover that yet again, the vocal left resorts to “Ad Hominum” when unable to produce any credible  proof of their position. Just for the record I see credible proof as consisting of information backed up by real data collected using replicable peer reviewed double blind studies, and climate models which actually could model the actual climate we experience. AND, which even a person of reasonably normal intelligence without a PHD in obfuscation and techno-babble could understand without appeal to authority.

By that standard the entire global warming religion has never produced a single iota of credible evidence of anything except their absolute certainty that they are superior “brights” and they know best and they should be running the world.  WAAAAHHHH!!!!   They simply have declared that the question is now “Officially” settled. They are right. Any one who disagrees with them is of course a “DENIER!”. Oh, and while you’re at it you also have to vote for Hillary or there will be repercussions!

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the “scientific consensus” on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for “commercial or ideological” reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. I guess if we dissagree with the “settled” science we cannot claim to be skeptics anymore, we are “deniers”, so we don’t count. This is all in Wikipedia so it MUST be true, right?

Climate change denial “has been associated” (dramatic orchestral chords here) with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. Some commentators describe climate change denial as a “particular form of denialism” – must be especially perverted, eh?

Although there is a “scientific consensus” that humans are warming the climate system, the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming “in the pipeline” due to past emissions.

Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming. Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires “secretly donated” nearly $120 million (£77 million) (OOOOHHHHH!!!  of their own dollars, imagine that)  via two trusts (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.

Where is the list of organizations and information showing that these 100 organizations actually exist AND spent all their time and resources on fabricating anti-global warming propaganda?  No evidence.  Who cares!  They are deniers!  They are evil! We are good. High Five!

Meanwhile what are the High Priests of the Global Warming Religion protecting?  Back at the ranch the current cost of grants and spending for  “Global Warming Research” recently reviewed:

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share.”

lets see:  120,000,000.00 … hmmm

now look at: 106,000,000,000.00 …  see what I mean?

I think the second number MUST be bigger, right? Of course I am not a “Bright”. What do I know.

This little example doesn’t add in the 100 billion a year in “green” aid, and billions of dollars for assorted other “environmentally friendly” projects, and the $1.8 trillion annual spending on energy regulation in the U.S. alone.

Really folks, compared to that COSMIC Boondoggly Pork Barrel the Koch brothers spending 120million of their own money as they want is really really really small beer.

No wonder they are falling all over themselves to discredit us “deniers”. This is the biggest gravy train for Takers in the history of the planet.

And so on and so forth … as in everything in life, context is important … and folks are easy to lead if you can convince them that the sky is falling.

Notice how millions from private interests who made their own money by working for it is evil, but billions in handouts from governments (eg. looted tax dollars from workers) is just dandy IF, if it is spent on global warming religionists. Is that what we call selective interpretation of data?

Throughout all of history, the “Takers” , now colloquially known as the “Left” never has a problem with taking other people’s stuff. Why work when you can just steal what you need from the “Makers” and discredit the victims in the process.

What do I believe? Well, I think there is more evidence for God than for anthropogenic global warming.

I think history supports that folks will believe whatever they feel like believing regardless of the facts and the impact of reality and they will make up magical stuff to account for the discrepancies. Especially if they have billions of dollars in grants to protect. Nothing motivates takers like self interest.

I continue to believe that real scientists will admit that they have no models that cover all the data, (see climate models mentioned above) and know that our understanding of climate is insufficient to justify recommending expensive measures to compensate when we do not yet know whether to expect warming (and how much) or a new ice age.

I believe that the Sun is a variable star. How variable we do not know, and it might be worth knowing such things. The oceans have warming and cooling cycles (El Nino and La Nina) that we can’t predict with any accuracy but which have enormous climate consequences.

I continue to believe that we need to know more and we ought to be spending more money to find it out; and those multi-million dollar taxpayer funded grants and studies ought NOT to be supervised by people like Hansen and Suzuki who have already made up their minds and will not spend a dime on gathering evidence that doesn’t support their positions.

Thank God that humans eventually expire. It is a bit of a shame that they only have an inferred best-before-date. The Pinocchio phenomenon might be a useful telltale.  If only …

Well!  Feel better now … hope it lasts for a while.




Disclaimer for nitpickers: We take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately


2 thoughts on “I have no trunk …

  1. Pingback: The Anthropic Principle … | Not My First Rodeo

  2. Pingback: Environmentalism as Religion … Religion as Environmentalism | Not My First Rodeo

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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