Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Fabulous! Press Celebrates Latest Fear-Based “Climate” Study

Fabulous! Press Celebrates Latest Fear-Based “Climate” Study

Report blames humanity for “Sixth Mass Extinction Event”

There are moments when I read the American press that my eyes roll so far back into my head, I can see my brains.

Take, for example, the gleeful report in the Washington Post chortling over Pope Francis’ eco-encyclical. The article happily derides the efforts of those who challenge its premises as a epic defeat:

…Yet the battle lost over climate change also suggests how hard it may be for critics to blunt the power of a man who has become something of a juggernaut in an institution where change tends to unfold over decades, even centuries. More than anything, to those who doubt the human impact of global warming, the position staked out by Francis in his papal document, known as an encyclical, means a major defeat.

“This was their Waterloo,” said Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, who has been tracking ­climate-change deniers for years. “They wanted the encyclical not to happen. And it happened.”

I find the term “climate-change denier” a classic example of intentional media mislabeling. Not one of my fellow climate-expert skeptics deny climate change occurs. We deny the accuracy of the models and assertions that humanity causes environmental impacts on a global scale.

The latest climate-change related “study” to be trotted out is particularly irksome, especially to those knowledgeable about history on a geologic scale. The questionable report asserts that the Earth is entering its….sixth mass extinction event:

Earth has entered its sixth mass extinction with animals now dying out at 100 times the normal rate, scientists have warned.

Humans have created a toxic mix of habitat loss, pollution and climate change, which has already led to the loss of at least 77 species of mammals, 140 types of bird since and 34 amphibians since 1500.

…Scientists at Stanford University in the US claim it is the biggest loss of species since the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

Before the politicized science of “climate change”, rational scientists noted that only one in a thousand species that have ever lived survives today. In other words, the other 99.9 percent are extinct…and with only a few exceptions, the loss of these species had nothing to do with man.

Before going “Team Survivor”, it is worthwhile reviewing what actually happened during the other 5 Mass Extinction Events. To do so, I am going to discuss what real global climate change looks like.

Besides the famous asteroid strike killing the dinosaurs, perhaps the most compelling geologic period centers on the Permian extinction (about 250 million years ago). This extinction event saw the largest loss of life on a planetary scale, as 95% of all species were wiped out!

The global deaths occurred in two separate episodes:  One which took out the land animals and the other that killed off marine life. The period  is often referred to as “The Great Dying”.

There are several possible explanations: Asteroid strike, a massive eruption of lava that formed the enormous Siberian Traps, and the release methane from the methane-hydrate formations deep under the ocean. The following “Animal Armageddon” special details this dark era in our planetary history.

I will simply note that the fossils hadn’t even been made into fuel at that point. And the closest thing to a human was a small, rat-like creature that survived because it was a burrower that could live on decaying matter.

The Ordovician Extinction was a little less horrendous, occurring 440 million years ago and only wiping out 80% of lifeforms. The root cause? Massive glaciation!

Yes, global cooling kills.

If people really want to worry about a life-threatening climate change event, I recommend worrying about supervolcanos. When Toba erupted 74,000 years ago, it nearly caused the extinction of our species:

Of course some progressives think that this is a wonderful possibility. From the comment section of this video: “Need another one of those to curb the runaway double exponential growth of the most destructive species…..homo sapiens.”

I do not want to diminish the loss of any species. For example, the destruction of the Northern White Rhino because of poaching is a horrendous tragedy. However, implementing the energy policies proposed by climate change advocates is more likely to harm Africa’s regional economy and prevent the development of career options outside of the slaughter of rare animals for profit.

Fantasies such as the “Sixth Extinction Event” harm the good efforts of those who have sensible, reasoned approaches to addressing the problems causing localized extinction events.

So while the press is stoking fear related to politicized science, ISIS continues to create the extinction of non-Muslims and the high level of global unemployment makes it difficult for families to survive. I guess the real news is too difficult to report!

As the press continues to promote the idea that humanity is at the center of the current planetary crisis, I will remind its members and the progressives who are embracing the latest encyclical about what Pope Francis said about humanity:

In his new encyclical on the environment, Pope Francis slams attacks against human life such as abortion, embryonic experimentation and population control – saying that respect for creation and human dignity go hand in hand.

The Pope explained that “a sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings.”

In conclusion, the only thing in danger of extinction in climate change reporting is common sense.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

A group of “scientists” but “led by Paul Erhlich”? I don’t think so. That jerk has been wrong in every disaster prediction he’s made in the last 50 years, and he’s made a lot of them.

According to Ehrlich, we would have degenerated into roving bands of marauding survivors scavenging for food by . . . 1975. Or 1990. Or 2000. It really depends on which apocalypse he’s predicting.

Anyone who gives this fool a nanosecond of attention should be labelled a blithering idiot and ridiculed until they exile themselves from polite society.

A few random thoughts…

Francis The Red is rapidly marginalizing his papacy. He’s becoming the “useful idiot” for the Collective, worldwide, and he hasn’t the wit to see it happening. They will pick and choose what he says like a menu at a Chinese restaurant, and he will ineffectively protest while providing them more material. His own bishops will mount the only effective response.

There is a clear, empirical model showing that poverty is best addressed and defeated by capitalism. The last several decades have proven this around the world. Perhaps the greatest single event in destroying poverty in any nation…including the U.S….has been the coming of a reliable, affordable national electrification program. Western Collectivist elites, including now the Pope, are the single greatest threat to the spread of this blessing that the Enlightenment (good science and applied technology) has given mankind.

The Collective at its core has a deep, dark misanthropy. The Collectivist elite HATE the rest of humanity and hold them in glowing contempt.

“Science” has been subverted on an unknown scale by the Collective. It will take several decades for the field to recover, which may be just as well. “Scientists” are no less foibled than any other group of humans. NOT trusting them may be a great benefit coming out of this dark era.

Species come and they go. Note the COME part. Look up CoyWolf. Nature is not static…any more than the climate…and is CREATIVE as well as destructive of life-forms who either adapt or disappear. We can’t change that, nor should we really try too hard.

IF you want to preserve something like the White Rhino, make them subject to private ownership. They will flourish. Think “cows”.

    NeoConScum in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2015 at 7:12 pm

    Rags: Amen. Francis is showing himself more each month as a Marxian “Liberation Theologian” shill and now a Climate Nutter. What’s next do’ya suppose…Sending dissenting Cardinals, Bishops and Priests to a Gulag in Magadan, Vorkuta or Kolyma for…eerrrrrr…getting right with the planet?? CANNOT possibly make this s*** up…But, the Pontiff and Rev. Wright do.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2015 at 11:46 am

    Hey now, not all scientists are created equal!

      healthguyfsu in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 22, 2015 at 11:50 am

      What we really need is a scientific revolution and we need the help of the public since my kind are too few.

      A revolt needs to overthrow the pervasive collectivism of science that sees anyone out of lock-step marginalized. If your rep gets around, then you are less likely to be funded or published and are silenced in this way.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    Oh my! Did ya’ll just call the pope a po’op ? Sounds like it!

The humanistic neo-Malthusian climate change ‘theory’ seeks to limit humans to non-human functions such as “don’t live large, live in sanctioned poverty” so that government will be the sole source of patronization.

So, the people who despise the Church and mock it for being anti-science and for standing for traditional morality are suddenly citing the Pope as the infallible voice of science when it comes to weather.

I was really disappointed when the pope didn’t appoint Father Guido Sarducci to oversee the Vatican global warming department. I believe he would be able to convey the seriousness of the situation.

I read a detailed article just yesterday about how a provision in Dodd-Frank to require byzantine regulatory accounting to prove that particular metals used in manufacturing cell phones from the Congo, which has rich mineral resources by African standards, has led to companies throwing up their hands and abandoning the country altogether… leading to a tsunami of poverty and hunger wracking mining regions of Congo. Actual militia-allied mining groups are still able to get their minerals out – for instance, to China – but the colossal poverty implies that China isn’t exactly paying what American companies would.

I recall it’s a standard feature of all climate proposals to exempt “poor” countries from them (including China and India, which sort of ruins the point doesn’t it?), and I have heard the Pope’s is no exception to this rule. If, by some chance, economic sanctions against poor countries were implemented in the name of fighting global warming, we would likely see results similar to in Congo, with the human condition deteriorating dramatically as a result of modern religious doctrine.

    Spiny Norman in reply to JBourque. | June 21, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    I will believe the Climate Alarmists are serious when China and India are subject to the same rules and restrictions as North America and Western Europe.

    I won’t be holding my breath because it will never happen.

      Estragon in reply to Spiny Norman. | June 21, 2015 at 7:26 pm

      None of the developing economies because none of them would comply, nor should they. They are still worried about supplying their people with the basics, including potable water and electricity.

      History has shown and statistics always verify the degree of environmental care and protection any nation undertakes is almost directly related to per capita income. The only exceptions are the totalitarian and Marxist countries, which spend little or nothing no matter their wealth.

      Want to protect the environment? Enable cheap coal power to create wealth around the world.

      But the “movement” isn’t about the environment, it is about power and control.

I’ve been spending spare time in the past 6-months catching up on educating myself on the AGW/Climate Change grift. Some excellent sources for critical thinking, evidence based science and weighing the Facts..(As in FACTS..): Climate Change: The Facts, Edited by Alan Moran(2015 Public Affairs); The Age of Global Warming: A History, By Rupert Darwall(2013 London-Boston); Climategate By Brian Sussman(2010 Wash.D.C.); The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming By Garth Partridge(2010 London/Maryland); Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming By Bjorn Lomborg(2007 New York). Vastly enlightening, scholarly, methodical and amazing as to the workings of the “consensus”, “settled science”, bullying of scientific dissent, shutdown of truth tellers and general Infantile Defiance by very nimble reality denying people from Obama to Francis to UN-Everything, etc.

    Ragspierre in reply to NeoConScum. | June 21, 2015 at 8:30 pm

    A really excellent little book, if you can manage to find a copy, and a very pleasant surprise…”Trashing The Planet” by Dixie Lee Ray. Wonderful early common-sense destruction of “green goo”, as I call it.

Maybe after the Sixth Mass Extinction, these clowns will be gone.

Henry Hawkins | June 22, 2015 at 11:43 am

AGW = Wealth redistribution on the global scale, nothing more, nothing less. It has zero to do with climate. AGW is a made up means to an end.

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 22, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    While that is largely true, it doesn’t fully cover the intent.

    It…like “government health care”…is intended to allow control of individuals on the micro level. It is intended to force us into a MUCH reduced standard of living.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2015 at 3:57 pm

      Who do you mean with the pronoun ‘us’? I’m guessing Americans, because boatloads of American money will be going to very poor nations if we act as fully as the UN would want the world to act on AGW. I wouldn’t expect a lot of money redistributed from Somalia to the US, for example. So, wealthy westerners will lose money by my assertion, while poor nations will gain – minus a sizable cut for those who organize the redistribution, of course. Massive new regulations – job killers – are assumed.

      My assertion covers your loss of standard of living, i.e., we agree.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2015 at 9:13 pm

      We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.
      Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam409126.html#U2WXOSQh7Oom7sGw.99

      He wasn’t talking about not being able to afford to do it. He was talking about not being able to do it at all…at any price. That’s where we’re headed if the Collective wins.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 22, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    “Wealth redistribution on the global scale” but only to corrupt politicians.

healthguyfsu | June 22, 2015 at 11:54 am

For a minute, let’s accept the dubious premise that rising CO2 levels are the cause of “climate change” in the political sense and that they are caused by humans.

Over a lifetime, the largest producer of CO2 would be humans themselves since all engines are not always running and there are many, many more humans than engines.

The political hypocrisy of this movement is exposed by the unwillingness to even present this revelation; no one in the collective will go near it with a ten foot pole.

    Ragspierre in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 22, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    Sorry, but there is a HUGE flaw in your train of thinking.

    Engines “metabolize” (to use a term you’ll recognize) immense amounts of fuel by comparison to human metabolism during a given hour of both “running”.

    It goes back to stoichiometry. Humans are “fractional horsepower” producers.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | June 22, 2015 at 3:55 pm

      I totally get that. However, does a tortoise and hare situation come at all into play here? The worldwide population is much larger than the number of engines worldwide.

      I searched the net and couldn’t find a figure giving the difference between artificial man-made CO2 from machines and CO2 produced biologically by the human population. It seemed pretty conspicuous that they were always lumped under the same umbrella and not separated. Do you have a figure for that?

So, it’s official, even if unsurprising.

Warmunism is a religion.

Good, that clarifies things.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend