Here is what the Chancellor of Britain’s University of Kent thinks about Breitbart.
Völkischer Beobachter was, of course, the house newspaper in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s of the NSDAP – aka the Nazi party. So what Esler is doing here in his not-so-subtle way is accusing Breitbart of being a Nazi publication.
Yes, part of me thinks: so what? Angry leftists are forever accusing people who disagree with them of being Nazis; and of course in Breitbart’s case the charge is especially absurd given that Breitbart’s founder and CEO (together with several senior editors) is Jewish, that the site is pro-Israel, pro-freedom-of-speech, pro-property-rights, pro-free-markets, pro-civil-liberties, pro-democracy – none of which policies would have found much favor with the Nazis.
Bill Nye has a new nickname. It’s not as snappy as his old one, “the Science Guy,” but it’s a lot more accurate. Nye wants all the old people to die, preferably sooner rather than later, because they stand in the way of his holy mission to save the planet from climate change.
Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It’s generational. So we’re just going to have to wait for those people to “age out,” as they say. “Age out” is a euphemism for “die.” But it’ll happen, I guarantee you — that’ll happen.
Perhaps he could have some help from his zany colleague Marcello Arguello, a stand-up comedian who writes scripts for his Emmy-nominated [lol] show Bill Nye Saves The World.
Arguello apparently shares his enthusiasm for some kind of old peoples’ cull, as she recently confided to her friends on Twitter in the wake of the Congressional baseball shootings.
She subsequently deleted the tweet but expressed no regrets for the sentiment.
Elsewhere in his LA Times interview, Nye was given space to rehearse many of his favorite straw men arguments about climate change.
Like the one about climate skepticism being the same as not believing in the moon landings:
Those of you out here who want to deny humans landing on the moon, if you’re into that — look at the amount of paper NASA generated. You couldn’t afford to fake that much paper! I’m not kidding, you guys. It’d be prohibitively expensive. There’s warehouses full of documents, of specifications and drawings and engineering drawings and so on — just that alone would overwhelm you as a faker.
And the one about people who aren’t “experts” being incapable of forming an intelligent opinion about climate change:
Dunkirk is a great movie but there aren’t enough “women” or “people of color” in it, according to a review in USA Today.
The movie – with a cast including Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, and former One Direction singer Harry Styles – has been given a slew of five-star reviews for its vivid, nail-biting depiction of the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk in 1940.
But though USA Today’s reviewer praised it too, he couldn’t resist giving it a little rap on the knuckles about its shameful lack of diversity and equality:
The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way.
Yes, it’s true that Dunkirk’s leading roles are indeed dominated by white European males.
But one possible reason for this is that Dunkirk was an actual historical event which director Christopher Nolan has gone to considerable trouble to recreate as accurately as possible.
It’s clear that global warming, caused largely by burning fossil fuels and agricultural practices, is contributing to the broader destabilization of Antarctica, said Eric Rignot, professor of Earth systems sciences at the University of California, Irvine, and a senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
“This break-up signals that the ice shelf got too thin,” Rignot said in an email. “It got thinner because climate has been warming, over decades; the ice shelf will eventually collapse in the coming decades. This is absolutely related to climate warming.
The New York Times goes for the “even though this has nothing to do with global warming, it kinda sorta does really” approach:
Some climate scientists believe the warming in the region was at least in part a consequence of human-caused climate change, while others have disputed that, seeing a large role for natural variability — and noting that icebergs have been breaking away from ice shelves for many millions of years. But the two camps agree that the breakup of ice shelves in the peninsula region may be a preview of what is in store for the main part of Antarctica as the world continues heating up as a result of human activity.
Meanwhile the Guardian – clearly frustrated that the scientists it consulted refuse to play this game – throws in this random paragraph:
New York Magazine has just broken the world record for the scariest, most catastrophic, hysterical exercise in extravagant climate doom-mongering in the history of the universe.
Here are just some of the horrors that await us, according to David Wallace-Wells in his 7,000 word compendium of climate terror, titled The Uninhabitable Earth.
No more Bangladesh – or even Miami!
Most people talk as if Miami and Bangladesh still have a chance of surviving; most of the scientists I spoke with assume we’ll lose them within the century, even if we stop burning fossil fuel in the next decade.
A sixth mass extinction killing about 97 percent of us, probably…
In fact, all but the one that killed the dinosaurs were caused by climate change produced by greenhouse gas. The most notorious was 252 million years ago; it began when carbon warmed the planet by five degrees, accelerated when that warming triggered the release of methane in the Arctic, and ended with 97 percent of all life on Earth dead. We are currently adding carbon to the atmosphere at a considerably faster rate; by most estimates, at least ten times faster. The rate is accelerating. This is what Stephen Hawking had in mind when he said, this spring, that the species needs to colonize other planets in the next century to survive, and what drove Elon Musk, last month, to unveil his plans to build a Mars habitat in 40 to 100 years.
Pretty much everywhere hotter than the Middle East is now.
As Joseph Romm has put it in his authoritative primer Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know, heat stress in New York City would exceed that of present-day Bahrain, one of the planet’s hottest spots, and the temperature in Bahrain “would induce hyperthermia in even sleeping humans.” The high-end IPCC estimate, remember, is two degrees warmer still. By the end of the century, the World Bank has estimated, the coolest months in tropical South America, Africa, and the Pacific are likely to be warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century.
Mass kidney failure [no really!]
In the sugarcane region of El Salvador, as much as one-fifth of the population has chronic kidney disease, including over a quarter of the men, the presumed result of dehydration from working the fields they were able to comfortably harvest as recently as two decades ago. With dialysis, which is expensive, those with kidney failure can expect to live five years; without it, life expectancy is in the weeks.
No more hamburgers…
It takes 16 calories of grain to produce just a single calorie of hamburger meat, butchered from a cow that spent its life polluting the climate with methane farts.
#CNNBlackmail is the best thing to have happened to the world since the election of Donald Trump. Indeed, it may be one of the greatest moments in the history of the internet.
Sure, on one level it resulted in weapons-grade trolling and a few deliciously funny memes; but in bigger picture terms it was something much more significant than that – a pivotal moment in the Culture Wars akin to the Persian defeat at Salamis or the German defeat at Stalingrad or the French defeat at Trafalgar.
Or maybe a better analogy would be the one I used on Sirius XM: the moment during the Second World War when, under the command of the brilliant Bill Slim, the ill-equipped, neglected British Fourteenth Army realized that the only way to beat the Japanese was to fight with the same aggression, cunning, and mobility of the Japanese. In other words, to use the enemy’s tactics against them.
Just like CNN, just like Antifa, just like the left generally, the Japanese were a horrible enemy to fight: utterly without scruples, fanatically convinced of the justice of their wicked cause, terrifying in the swiftness with which they swarmed and overran your position. By the time you knew what had hit you, you’d either be dead — if you were lucky — or tied, wounded, to a tree while the enemy got ready to use you for bayonet practice.
In the early stages of the war, the British and their fellow Allies were invariably on the back foot: how could they possibly defeat an enemy that didn’t play by the rules, that showed no weakness, that seemed more demonic than human?
Anyone who has ever seen action against the SJWs will know the feeling.
They hunt in packs; they swarm; they move as one as if controlled by some sinister hive mind; they are immune to reason; they are completely without mercy.
I give you, as but one example among many, the case of poor Sir Tim Hunt — the Nobel-prize-winning scientist whose career was all but destroyed for no better reason than the SJW hive mind demanded fresh blood.
The truth (that Hunt was the victim of outrageous misreporting by a dodgy hack pursuing a militant feminist agenda) was no defense. Nor were any mitigating circumstances taken into account — like, say, the fact that this alleged sexist Prof ha, in fact, spent his entire career bending over backward to help and encourage female scientists. Nor was the fact that he apologized for his non-crime.
All that mattered as far as the SJWs were concerned was that here was another scalp for the taking. So take it they did.
To experience these terror tactics is a demoralizing and frightening thing.
Too often the response of the right has been to feel a bit sorry for itself because it’s all so unfair. And then persuade itself that if only it keeps on making the same arguments as before then eventually logic and truth will prevail because, after all, the facts of life are conservative.
There’s at least one major problem with this response: the left isn’t interested in logic and facts — and hasn’t been for quite some time.
That was what James O’Keefe recently uncovered — not that we couldn’t have guessed anyway — with his recent sting on CNN. Here is an organization which affects the demeanor of a responsible, politically-neutral, internationally-respected news outlet with reporters and newscasters who look exactly like real ones on grown up TV channels. But underneath, its entire raison d’etre and business model is churning out leftist fake news propaganda.
If conservative media outlets like Breitbart took the same liberties with the truth as leftist media outlets like CNN (and Vox and Slate and Salon and Huffpost and the rest…) they would be crucified. But it’s no use bleating about this: we just have to accept that this is the way the world works and just get on with the business of winning.
#CNNBlackmail, make no mistake, was a pivotal #winning moment.
Why and how did we win? Partly by using the enemy’s tactics against them; partly by exploiting a few strengths of our own.
Some economically-illiterate moron just hijacked Joseph Stiglitz’s email, submitted a really embarrassing article on the economics of Trump’s departure from the Paris Agreement, and actually got it published under his name.
Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the United States took another major step toward establishing itself as a rogue state on June 1, when it withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. For years, Trump has indulged the strange conspiracy theory that, as he put it in 2012, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.” But this was not the reason Trump advanced for withdrawing the US from the Paris accord. Rather, the agreement, he alleged, was bad for the US and implicitly unfair to it.
While fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, Trump’s claim is difficult to justify. On the contrary, the Paris accord is very good for America, and it is the US that continues to impose an unfair burden on others.
Clearly only a sub-literate political activist could have written such hysterical, tendentious, reality-denying drivel.
But if I’m wrong and it really is the work of yer actual Professor Joseph Stiglitz then I think it’s time the Nobel academy asked for the return of the prize they gave him for economics in 2001. I’m not an economics major myself, let alone a feted, Nobel prizewinning professor at Columbia University, but even I can see his line of argument is nonsense.
Where it really falls down is when Stiglitz attempts to make the claim that the Paris Agreement was good for America.
In fact, far more jobs are being created in solar panel installation than are being lost in coal. More generally, moving to a green economy would increase US income today and economic growth in the future. In this, as in so many things, Trump is hopelessly mired in the past.
Truly it is astonishing to read a Nobel-prize-winning economist make such an obviously specious point.
Yes, it’s true – as Paul Homewood notes – that the “solar now bigger than coal” has become a popular meme circulated ad nauseam by climate alarmists and green activists — and celebrated by the credulous:
But as a fellow journalist I feel about as much sympathy for him as I do for all those idiot jihadists who go out to fight in Raqqa and Mosul, lured by the cool videos of the beards, black flags, and AKs with the wailing soundtrack. Did they seriously imagine when they joined ISIS/CNN that it was all just going to be about the glamour and the hot chicks and the purity of the noble cause?
And I’m really not being high minded here. It just seems to me that one of the most basic, entry-level precepts that any serious news organization ought to be observe – and that CNN most patently never has observed, or not for a very, very long time – is this:
Facts are sacred. The truth always makes the best story. You do not make shit up.
Not only ought this stuff to be obvious, but it ought to come instinctively. Isn’t the whole attraction of joining an unglamorous, overworked, underpaid trade like journalism that you want to discover the truth about the world: all the stuff that they would rather you didn’t know?
That’s certainly been my own experience in the last few years covering the climate change/enviro-lunacy beat. I’ve never much enjoyed all the flak I’ve got from the left-wing media; still less have I liked being rejected by so many friends. But the thing that has kept me going through the hard times is that I know I’m doing good and making a real difference: there are some devious bastards out there doing terrible stuff and I’m exposing their knavery and holding them to account.
For any self-respecting journalist, I’d call that “job done.”
Sometimes I get asked by people on the other side of the argument: “What if you’re wrong?”
Here’s the first thing I’ll do if I’m wrong about climate change. I’ll write a big piece explaining why I’m wrong. Then I’ll find someone who is prepared to pay me for writing the opposite of what I do now.
This isn’t because I’m a moral paragon. It’s because I’m lazy and because I prefer the easier life: writing journalism where you have to keep making up your “facts” is much, much harder than doing what I do now, which is basically, copying out true facts and then adding a few nice adjectives and thinking up a snarky final sentence.
That said, I would have to concede that this is much easier to do if you’re politically on the right rather than on the left.
Margaret Thatcher once said “The facts of life are conservative.” And as in so many things, she was absolutely spot on. This, as you can imagine, makes life very, very difficult for people in the overcrowded left-wing media. (It’s overcrowded because so many journalists think they’re left wing).
Every day, they wake up to a world where: Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East with the best human rights record; socialism is failing everywhere it is being tried from Venezuela to North Korea; the worst, most fascistic acts of violence and intolerance are being committed by left-wing people calling themselves “anti-fascists”; Islam is not a “religion of peace”; Trump is doing a great job as president — way, way better than his predecessor Obama; man-made climate change is the biggest scam in the history of science, politics, or economics…
And somehow they’ve got to construct stories demonstrating the opposite because it’s what their dumb-assed audiences want to hear.
How, if you’re running a left-wing media organization, do you reconcile this yawning gulf between the facts on the ground and your preferred political narrative?
Simple: you remake the world so that black is white and white is black; you create your own facts.
FBI via AP
Gosh what could possibly have been the motivation of Alexandria shooter James Hodgkinson, the Bernie-Sanders-loving, Russia-collusion-obsessed liberal activist whose Facebook page boasts about his participation in the Climate March on DC, celebrates the wisdom of Neil Degrasse Tyson, “likes” a cartoon showing Steve Scalise to be in league with the Ku Klux Klan, thinks the U.S. is secretly run by the Koch Brothers, and who signed a petition with the left wing online pressure group Change.org claiming that “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time To Destroy Trump & Co”?Unfortunately, he left so few clues that we may never know. And it’s not just me who’s puzzled. So too is one of America’s most respected veteran news analysts, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer:
Absolutely. But suppose we were to hazard a wild flying guess, here’s what I think. I think it might possibly be the case that those guys practicing baseball were targeted because they were Republicans.
What’s more, I suspect that one of the reasons Hodgkinson found himself able to take out what one witness called an “AK-47-type weapon” and aim upwards of 50 rounds at a group of unarmed men playing a ball game is that he didn’t think of them as viable human beings. To him, they were just a form of vermin to be exterminated; they were a threat to the U.S and, as far as the gunman was concerned, he was doing his country a favor.
Where did he get this idea? I cannot imagine. But here are some things I found being circulated on social media by impeccable liberal types recently.
This one is from a fairly famous Irish comedy scriptwriter called Graham Linehan, responsible for such lighthearted cult comedy series as Father Ted and The IT Crowd.
If there’s a thing the climate alarmists loathe more than almost anything, it’s being schooled on science by an English major who last used a bunsen burner in anger around the time Kajagoogoo were in the Billboard Hot 100, was always really quite crap at growing copper sulphate crystals, and who, in any case, doesn’t take any of the PhDs who bang on about “global warming” nearly as seriously as they’d like to be taken because he thinks they’re a bunch of liars, incompetents, green activists, money grubbers and grant troughers on the make who have about as much to do with the scientific method as Bill Nye’s left testicle.
So naturally, whenever I come up with another hugely popular (over 32,000 Facebook shares; over 10,000 comments) science-based demolition of the climate scam, the Greenies get angry. Incredible Hulk, angry. What they’d like to do, ideally, is come up with some kind of widely-read uber-rebuttal which proves once and for all that James Delingpole is the lyingest liar that ever lied about science and that Breitbart is totally evil and irresponsible (and lying, obviously) for publishing his mendacious dross.
Tragically, about the best they can ever manage is stuff like this.
It comes from a site called Climate Feedback, an entity set up last year at the height of the left’s “fake news” witch hunt, hosted and primarily funded by the University of California Merced’s Center for Climate For Communication – ie your tax dollar at work… – and describing itself as a “Signatory” of something called “International Fact-Checking Network.”
It purports to be a thoroughgoing and damning scientific rebuttal to my Breitbart piece, written by expert PhDs.
There’s just one problem with it.
It doesn’t actually rebut anything I said in my piece.
This is why I ignored the politely passive-aggressive message I got from Climate Feedback requesting that I “issue a correction” to my article. Well sure. I’d love to oblige since you ask so nicely. But how exactly do you issue a correction to an article which doesn’t actually contain any errors?
Jessop has done what the Climate Feedback PhDs should have done but so signally failed to do: she actually read my piece.
She understood that my headline was a bit naughty – ‘Global Warming’ Is A Myth Say Scientific Papers In 2017 – not because it was untrue but because it is heavily dependent on a very specific definition of the phrase ‘Global Warming.’
This I proceeded to explain in the body of the piece:
By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.
Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.
What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
Actually there is one mistake in the piece. Carried away by the flow of my invective, I spelt “huckster” wrong. But apart from that it’s bang on the money. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory really is a busted flush – and has been for many years. Almost all the scientific evidence indicates that this is so.
Let me reiterate why very simply in a way you really don’t need a PhD to understand.
We know that since about 1850 global mean temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C. According to anthropogenic global warming theory, a significant proportion of this has been caused by industrial – ie man-made CO2 – and we should be worried about this because man has never been able to influence climate in such a way before.
But we also know that there have been times throughout history – both in the fairly well-documented last two millennia, and also much further back – when temperatures rose and fell by at least this much, sometimes in a shorter space of time.
Given that this is so, how can we be sure that the most recent rise is down to man-made CO2 when all the previous ones in history weren’t?
This is one of the key planks in the argument used by climate skeptics when criticizing man-made global warming theory. It’s not that they doubt the possibility that man-made CO2 might be a factor in global warming. Rather, it’s simply that they have yet to see convincing evidence that proves beyond all doubt that this is the case, let alone that these modest recent increases in global temperature represent any kind of problem.