It’s sad. Very sad. You can see why it has gone viral and been all over the media from the Mail (“soul-crushing footage”) to CBCto the Washington Post(“we stood there crying”).
It’s the kind of sad thing you want to share it with your friends so they can wallow in the same pool of helpless misery you’re wallowing in.
For example, that bit where the emaciated bear reaches with his sad paw into that rusting trash can in search of something, anything, to eat. As you watch, you want so desperately to help him….
The footage was filmed on Baffin Island in Canada. Surely, if you or I had been there, we could have found something edible to push that stricken bear’s way: maybe a visiting delegation of performance poets, abstract artists and avant-garde musicians who arrived by antique sailing ship on a Rockefeller-Foundation-funded arts project to “raise awareness” of melting icecaps; or a group of Greenpeace activists(aren’t bears attracted by strong smells?) on a No To Arctic Drilling protest; or one of the plethora of explorers on another of those deep and meaningful eco-expeditions, sponsored by one of those big reinsurance companies whose business model largely depends on scaring potential clients into thinking global warming is a serious problem.
OK, perhaps I shouldn’t be so flippant. Watching a once-mighty beast in its death throes is never a pretty sight.
I’ll tell you what’s a lot uglier, though: the way that polar bear’s death has been completely misrepresented for political ends by the usual suspects in the climate alarmism lobby.
And I’ll tell you what’s uglier even than that: all the old people – not bears but actual humans – who’ve died equally miserable deaths in fuel poverty brought about by precisely the kind of environmentalist propagandizing we’ve seen in the cynical, manipulative promotion of this video.
‘Fish prefer plastic to food,’ claimed a paper published in Sciencelast year. It was the environmental horror story du jour.
The billions of tons of plastics that we release into the environment for the most part do not biodegrade. But they do degrade, breaking into ever smaller particles that end up in the oceans. Lönnstedt et al. show that the impacts of these microplastics are multifold (see the Perspective by Rochman). Eurasian perch larvae exposed to microplastics were less active, less responsive to predator cues, more likely to be eaten, and less likely to thrive—preferring to eat plastic rather than their natural prey.
Naturally, this news was seized on by the mainstream media as further proof of the damage man’s selfishness, greed and refusal to amend his lifestyle was causing to the planet.
The study, by Swedish researchers, seemed to confirm everyone’s worst suspicions about plastic pollution of the oceans. Of especial concern in this case were the plastic microbeads used by the cosmetics industry in skincare products. These microbeads have been madeillegal in the U.S. under legislation introduced during the last days of the Obama administration, with the European Union considering a similar ban.
President Trump has offended pretty much the entirety of Britain’s political and media establishment up to and including the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury. As a result, the Special Relationship is once more in jeopardy, and Trump has decided to cancel a planned working visit to the United Kingdom.
In a moment I shall explain why the president is right and his critics are wrong. But first a brief recap of what the fuss is all about.
Trump’s critics objected violently – or so they have publicly claimed – to three of his Twitter retweets.
These retweets showed videos, purportedly of members of the Religion of Peace (TM) behaving less than peacefully.
One depicted a bearded Muslim destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary.
One showed an Islamist mob pushing a teenage boy off a roof and then beating him to death.
One showed a white Dutch boy on crutches being gratuitously beaten up by a man described in the video caption as a “Muslim migrant”.
Prime Minister Theresa May; Mayor of London Sadiq Khan; and many other politicians professed themselves to be appalled by this. As was BBC news, which made this horror its lead story.
But it wasn’t the sadistic brutality on any of the videos that bothered them. It was the fact that the person whose tweets the President had retweeted, Jayda Fransen, is the deputy of a nationalistic, anti-immigration political party highly critical of Islam called Britain First
A bunch of alarmist holdovers from the Obama era released a report insisting that climate change is still just about the worst thing ever.
The Federal Climate Science Special Report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program – to give it its full grandiose title – was seized on by the liberal media as proof that President Trump is wrong on climate and that the “science” still supports all those greens, Democrats, RINOs and other pondlife demanding more action be taken to combat global warming.
Needless to say the report is bull from start to finish.
In a moment I shall thoroughly debunk it. (If you’re impatient, you can cut to the chase and skip straight to the paragraph below beginning “Here is why it cannot be trusted…”)
But first, if you don’t mind, I want to have a bit of fun at the expense of all those prize pillocks who for the last few days have been making hay with this alarmist propaganda.
Here is how the liberal media reported it. You can almost hear the trickle of their drool as they salivate over just how wrong and anti-science President Trump is.
Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.
Maybe the biggest of all the lies put out by the global warming scaremongers is that the science is on their side. No it isn’t. And if you’re in any doubt at all you should read this interview with the brilliant scientist István Markó. It tells you all you need to know about the science of global warming.
Dr. Markó, who sadly died earlier this year aged only 61, was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium’s largest French-speaking university. More importantly for the purposes of this interview, he was one of the world’s most outspoken and well-informed climate skeptics, who contributed to several articles on the subject for Breitbart News.
Before he died, he gave an extensive interview to the French journalist Grégoire Canlorbe. Here are highlights of the English translation. As you’ll see, he doesn’t pull his punches.
CO2 is not – and has never been a poison
Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths, emits an astronomical quantity of CO2proportionate to that in the atmosphere (some >40,000 ppm); and it is very clear that the air we expire does not kill anyone standing in front of us. What must be understood, besides, is that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Without CO2 there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans.
Plants love CO2. That’s why the planet is greening
Plants need CO2, water, and daylight. These are the mechanisms of photosynthesis, to generate the sugars that will provide them with staple food and building blocks. That fundamental fact of botany is one of the primary reasons why anyone who is sincerely committed to the preservation of the “natural world” should abstain from demonizing CO2. Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet’s vegetation has grown by about 20 percent. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As I predicted, my piece “400 Scientific Papers in 2017 say ‘Global Warming’ is a Myth”, is causing greenie heads to explode like watermelons struck by hollow-point bullets.
Here is an email I got shortly afterwards from a guy at the completely unbiased and apolitical (lol) fact-checking organization Snopes.
I’m a science writer for the fact checking website Snopes.com reporting on your ‘400 studies say climate change is a myth’ exposé. I had a couple of questions about your process:
Did you read all (or a fraction) of the 400 studies listed in that post personally or talk to any of the scientists involved?
How long did it take to research this piece?
Were you able to get an early look at the No Tricks Zone post from 23 October before it was published?
This Alex is an impertinent pup, isn’t he?
Since I make it my business not to respond to snarky little tics asking irrelevant questions designed to smear and belittle rather than enlighten, I thought I’d instead deal with the issues he raises here at Breitbart.
I do this for two reasons.
First because publicly humiliating one’s enemies is always fun.
Second, because these climate alarmists use the same old tricks again and again to prop up their junk science scam. It’s always a good idea to expose these tricks, to show the guy behind the curtain pulling all the levers, because once you know what these people’s game is, their dark magic loses its power.
After the (Democrat) Harvey Weinstein scandal and the (Democrat) George Clooney scandal and the (Democrat) Ben Affleck scandal and the (Democrat) Roy Price scandal and the (Democrat) Oliver Stone scandal and the (Labour) Sam Krissscandal, progressives everywhere have sought high and low for an equivalent conservative villain…
….someone, anyone, who is guilty of vaguely inappropriate sexual behavior, but who isn’t either a registered Democrat or a card-carrying socialist.
Finally, they think they have found one.
His name is Rupert Myers, a self-claimed “conservative”, sacked as Political Editor of British GQ after what the publisher Conde Nast euphemistically calls “some allegations.”
If you’re interested in the grubby details you’ll find them here. (Nothing anywhere near in the Weinstein league. Just general pestering, while drunk, at parties and so on, pursued with perhaps a bit too much fly-like persistence.)
Personally, though, I’m much more interested in defending the conservative movement from the outrageous slur that Rupert Tentacle Hands is, or ever has been, one of us.
From the School of Really Dumb Climate Change Solutions, a novel proposal from Lisa Feldman Barrett – a professor of psychology at Northeastern University:
The next time a city like Las Vegas has a record heat wave, as it did in June of this year (117 degrees F), we could petition President Trump to travel there. Perhaps a three-day stay at Trump International Hotel — with the air conditioning turned off — would be swelteringly educational. Or shall we ask Vice President Pence to visit Nuatambu, one of the Solomon Islands northeast of Australia, where rising ocean levels have washed away half the habitable land and forced families to flee? Let him live there for a month or two. Or maybe Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, should survive on minimal drinking water for a few days, so he can understand viscerally what a drought feels like.
Apparently, the scientific rationale behind this is that the human imagination is not nearly as good at empathising with future pain as it is with future pleasure.
The vultures of climate alarmism are just loving this run of hurricane disasters.
Whatever the spin the goal is always the same: to exploit the personal tragedies of the disaster victims for political gain by dishonestly pretending that natural extreme weather events are somehow connected with “man-made climate change.”
Some are more blatant about it than others.
This scientist from German’s hard-left, climate-alarmism-promoting Potsdam Institute, for example, knows that there is no credible link between hurricane activity and climate change. So instead, plays the “climate change made it worse” game. Which, of course, is more than good enough for Bloomberg…
The next head of NASA is likely to be an ex-Navy fighter pilot turned Republican congressman who believes strongly in space exploration but is skeptical about man-made climate change.
What’s not to like about about Trump’s nomination of Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Oklahoma) for the job of NASA’s administrator?
Everything, if you’re a liberal.
According to New York Daily News columnist Linda Stasi, Trump just blew the perfect chance to change his “presidency from the chaotic mess of threats, bitterness and bilious paranoia to one of rationality and reasonableness.”
Apparently, the job should have gone to a fully-fledged climate alarmist.
There is no denying that our weather is getting more severe, that the oceans are rising, the Arctic ice is melting and hurricanes are wreaking ever-more havoc each time one pummels another part of the country.
Harvey has officially brought the most destructive rainfall in our nation’s history — more than 51 inches in some areas of Houston. As many as 42,399 humans are in shelters.
Yet in the face of all this, you, Mr. President, have chosen to nominate a climate change-denying partisan politician, Republican Rep. Jim Bridenstine, to head NASA. How can you even think of such a man.
As this planet heats up, we have to look to space. That won’t be done if the man heading NASA denies the science and looks down on the truth of what’s happening in our atmosphere.
It would be nice to dismiss this as the merely the deranged frothings of a rent-an-opinion, left-wing columnist who has bizarrely chosen to borrow her surname from that of the secret police in former Communist East Germany. Unfortunately, she’s by no means the exception. Most liberals think as she does.