Jerry Brown thinks climate change is as serious as WWII

Outgoing California governor Jerry Brown thinks fighting climate change is as important as fighting the Nazis in World War II.  A few snippets from his Meet the Press interview:

California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown warned that America and the rest of the world are falling behind in the fight against climate change and likened the challenge to fighting the Nazis in World War II.

In an interview for Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” the outgoing governor called on President Donald Trump to take the lead in addressing the issue. “Instead of worrying about tariffs, I’d like to see the president and the Congress invest tens of billions in renewable energy, in more-efficient batteries, to get us off fossil fuel as quickly as we can,” Brown said.

“I would point to the fact that it took Roosevelt many, many years to get America willing to go into World War II and fight the Nazis. Well, we have an enemy, though different, but perhaps, very much devastating in a similar way. And we’ve got to fight climate change. And the president’s got to lead on that.”

And further:

Trump’s lack of urgency on the issue exemplifies the partisan divide on climate change. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released this month found that more than 70 percent of Democrats believe climate change is both “serious” and requires “immediate action,” but that just 15 percent of Republicans felt the same way.

Overall, people are growing more and more convinced of the urgency of the issue—45 percent of all Americans said they eel that sense of urgency, the highest since the poll started to ask the question in 1999.

Do you think maybe more people are being convinced of the urgency of the issue because you, the mainstream media, sensationalize and exaggerate?  Because you use fear-mongering to push your agenda?  Do you think maybe that has something to do with it?  Check out some of the #climate change posts to see how out of control their lying is.  The reality is they have no idea how good or bad the climate really is.  Their models are consistently wrong.

Think about how absurd and utterly despicable it is to compare climate change to the events of World War II.  Think about the hubris and/or utter disregard for the reactions of people to these BS statements.  It’s downright evil to peddle this line of thinking.  It is pure fear-mongering to even suggest this is as bad as that time more than 60 or so MILLION people died.  He’s essentially asking us to destroy our economy by investing billions of dollars to combat an alleged problem we’re not even sure we have.  And sorry, polling Republicans and Democrats doesn’t make the problem all of a sudden appear or disappear.  It really does not matter what anyone thinks…it does not change whether there is a problem or not.

If the Democrats really, truly, cared about climate change, they would immediately curb all immigration to first world countries.  If the “carbon footprint” thing is still the way they’re measuring our effects (it will probably change when they realize this doesn’t really help their case as much as they hope) then why would you import more people into 1st world countries, where the carbon footprint is vastly bigger?  The sooner one realizes that today’s liberals contradict themselves on nearly every issue, the sooner one can quit wasting their time arguing with them…arguments where facts don’t matter because they fall on deaf ears or because they only understand rhetoric.

High profile climate change paper issues retraction…I wonder how many will see the correction

Climate science is difficult.  Incredibly difficult.  The argument from most rational, level-headed people regarding climate change and humanity’s impact on it is that we do not know the full extent to how we contribute.  Like anything else in nature, there is a contribution.  How much is the question.  We have doubt.  We take it slow.  Admit it is complicated and need to consider as best as possible.  I think this is where the divide comes in with hardcore environmentalists and liberals.  They want us to take it as concrete fact.  The media then sensationalizes claims and drums up fear and hysteria to make the problem (if it even is a problem) seem far more immediate and catastrophic than it really is.  That’s how we get pulled into crap like the Paris Climate Agreement and we’re told we need to spend TRILLIONS of dollars over x amount of years to lower the temperature by a few fractions of 1 degree.

Recently a high profile paper published in Nature on ocean warming was reviewed by someone outside the field and spotted major errors in their calculation.  Via sciencemag.org:

Scientists behind a major study on ocean warming this month are acknowledging errors in their calculations and say conclusions are not as certain as first reported.

The research, published in the journal Nature, said oceans are warming much faster than previously estimated and are taking up more energy than projected by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [Climatewire, Nov. 1].

After a blog post flagged some discrepancies in the study, the authors, from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and Princeton University in New Jersey, said they would submit a correction to the journal.

The overall conclusion that oceans are trapping more and more heat mirrors other studies and is not inaccurate, but the margin of error in the study is larger than originally thought, said Ralph Keeling, a professor of geosciences at Scripps and co-author of the paper.

And further down:

The errors were pointed out by British researcher Nic Lewis on the blog of Judith Curry, a former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences who has questioned the accuracy of some climate models.

“Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations,” Lewis wrote.

The study suggested greenhouse gas emissions may need to be cut much faster than anticipated to meet climate targets, because of more aggressive ocean warming calculated in a new model. The team examined changes in atmospheric ocean and carbon dioxide levels to assess how the ocean’s heat content has changed over time.

Keeling said the team incorrectly assessed oxygen measurements. Ocean warming likely is still greater than IPCC estimates, but the range of probability is more in line with previous studies.

“The more important message is that our study lacks the accuracy to narrow the range of previous estimates of ocean uptake,” Keeling said in an email. He thanked Lewis for pointing out the anomaly.

And this really highlights the underlying problem.  The left wants us to believe that the Earth as we know it is about to have such drastic changes that all of humanity will die and cities will be underwater tomorrow and that we need to take insanely drastic measures to prevent this from happening.  The problem is reality does not play out with what they’re telling us.  And with that in mind at what point do we just stop listening?  Al Gore promised over a decade ago many of our cities would be underwater by now.  We were told the ice caps would be completely gone when in reality they’ve grown.  Some know they are wrong and have peddled lies.  Notice how they stopped calling it global warming and now call it climate change?  As if anyone is debating that the climate is changing.  IT IS ALWAYS CHANGING.

The second problem is these people never get called out on their BS when it is shown they were lying or were wrong.  This retraction will be seen by a fraction of the people who read the story in the NY Times or Washington Post.  Do you think those who accused Kavanaugh of gang rape felt any consequences or were called out on their BS when it was shown several of the accusers were flat out lying?  Or when they cry for YEARS about Trump colluding with Russia…do you think any of them feel any sort of regret or remorse for drumming up hysteria and hate when in fact he did absolutely nothing with Russia to win the election?  Of course not.  We let them off every single time.  That is part of the problem.

A separate issue from this is the absolutely staggering amount of issues, problems, oversights, and lack of reproducibility in peer-reviewed scientific papers being released these days.  This paper was peer reviewed.  Literally someone who writes on a blog was the one who spotted the error.  And as the quote above shows apparently it wasn’t even a difficult one to spot.  And science should be continually checked, scrutinized, and corrected.  The issue is when it is taken as indisputable fact in some realms when in fact it’s anything but.  Climate science in particular, arguably one of the most complex systems to model and predict, we’re told to obey the elites on their word that it is an open and shut case.  It is not.  And on a more sinister note, how many of these papers are purposely deceptive, maybe numbers exaggerated or skewed to make it appear a certain outcome is inevitable to drum up special interest money?  Do not assume that scientists, like anyone else, cannot be influenced by powerful and rich groups that have their own agenda to make money off of the results.

Do not be bullied into silencing your opinions on this.  That is what they always try to do; shame people into silence rather than put their ideas and theories up for scrutiny and debate.

YouTube is Dying

And they’re doing it to themselves.  At one point in time I thought YouTube was more about cash flows for Google via advertising, but these days it seems more to be their propaganda arm.  In the latest of things YouTube is now doing that nobody asked for, they will be adding “fact checks” to videos on topics they think spread scientific misinformation, according to BuzzFeed.

YouTube is now adding fact checks to videos that question climate change, BuzzFeed News has confirmed, as a part of its ongoing effort to combat the rampant misinformation and conspiratorial fodder on its platform.

On July 9, the company added a blurb of text underneath some videos about climate change, which provided a scientifically accurate explainer. The text comes from the Wikipedia entry for global warming and states that “multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.”

This new feature follows YouTube’s announcement in March that it would place descriptions from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica next to videos on topics that spur conspiracy theories, such as the moon landing and the Oklahoma City bombing. In doing the same for climate videos, the company seems to be wading into more fraught and complex intellectual territory.

Great.  Because Wikipedia is such a reliable source as well.  Is this the world we really want to live in?  Is this the kind of Internet that we want?  Forget whatever side of the climate debate you may be on.  Do we really want everything put through YouTube’s filter with what they think we should or should not be viewing?  How Orwellian can they get?

The Internet at its core is what free speech is supposed to be about.  You should be able to watch whatever the hell you want without being force fed garbage.  And it should be noted that climate science is a HIGHLY variable science.  Hell, most climate models ever created have been wrong.  This article from 2013 goes into how wrong.  The bottom line is whether you think it’s all humans doing or just MAYBE have a little skepticism about how much we are contributing or how badly things are, you should be able to watch whatever the hell you want without additional (mis)information being peddled to you.

The screws continue to be turned on our liberties.  As I wrote about earlier today YouTube is already starting to heavily censor or just plain deplatform views they do not agree with.  They’re becoming bolder in their moves, and thankfully it will also be their demise.  New platforms like BitChute are starting to grow at a huge pace now in part thanks to YouTube’s Draconian policies.  See the video below from Razorfist as he had a great take on it today.  And lastly, if you’re looking for a Wikipedia like website, give Infogalactic a try.  A much more honest version of Wikipedia.

Santa Barbara to ban….plastic straws

In a move to make California coastal elites feel good about themselves the city of Santa Barbara is moving to ban plastic straws, with JAIL TIME as a potential sentence for repeat offenders.  Via Fox News:

A California coastal city has become the latest municipality to ban plastic straws, enacting what is potentially the strictest plastic prohibition in the country.

Santa Barbara earlier this month passed the ordinance authorizing hefty fines and even a possible jail sentence for violators who dole out plastic straws at restaurants, bars and other food establishments.

According to the ordinance, violators on their first offense will be given a written warning notice. But the second time a purveyor of plastic straws defies the ban is when the heavy hand of the law could clamp down.

In that case, the ordinance cites penalties from the city’s municipal code for a “fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months.”

In comparison, Seattle, which in the beginning of July became the first major city in the U.S. to ban plastic straws, only fines businesses $250 per offense.

Not that I’d expect anything less from the Communists running this state.  This isn’t the first time California has passed stupid plastic rules.  In 2014, California voted to add a 10 cent fee for every plastic bag purchased in stores.  For various reasons it didn’t go into effect until years later in some cities.  It went into effect in 2016 in San Diego and due to this homeless people began defecating in the streets rather than into what used to be free plastic bags.  This led to a hepatitis A outbreak in San Diego.  Quite the virtue signal backfire.

Further down in the article:

On Tuesday, the board of supervisors in California’s second-largest city, San Francisco, gave unanimous approval to a measure banning plastic straws alongside carryout containers and wrappers treated with fluorinated chemicals.

Supervisor Katy Tang called the negative environmental impact of single-use plastics astronomical.

“San Francisco has been a pioneer of environmental change, and it’s time for us to find alternatives to the plastic that is choking our marine ecosystems and littering our streets,” she said in a statement.

The legislation requires a second approval, which is expected next week, and the ban would go into effect July 1, 2019, along with a new requirement to make napkins, utensils and other to-go accessories available only upon request, unless a self-serve station is available where people can take what they need.

California has a lot of problems.  Plastic straws is not one of them.  It’s hard not to chuckle at San Francisco being “a pioneer of environmental change” given their massive shit problem at the moment.  Probably not the environmental change they’re dreaming about.

30 Years of Failed Climate Predictions

This is a great video that talks about one aspect of how much bullshit and misinformation is spread about climate change (formerly global warming).  Climate change is one of the few topics you will be summarily ridiculed if you even hint that you may have the slightest ounce of skepticism about what we’re being told about our role in climate change.  As with most topics of this nature, they rely on bullying and shame to try and obfuscate the facts and prevent a real conversation about this important subject.  It’s time we no longer hide about what is a very healthy skepticism.  Things will devolve to war very quickly if we make it verboten to even discuss the possibility of dissent from the official narrative.

If people were willing to keep an open mind you may find a not so surprising motivator behind all the climate change hysteria nonsense.  From United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Rare is the occasion a globalist will tell you what their true intentions are so bluntly.  Though maybe coming from the UN, a ruling body that from the ground up was created in part by confirmed Communists and sympathizers, this shouldn’t surprise us.  Never take what they say at face value.  They do not care about the environment nearly as much (if at all) as they say they do.  The same goes for human rights, fiscal responsibility, etc etc.  Environmentalism is yet another topic that has reached near religious fanaticism levels among its supporters.  The facts simply do not line up with what they or the MSM are telling you.  Don’t be afraid to question the official narrative, and have some facts handy for when they start slinging their BS at you.  And just for posterity’s sake, a post of the 45 Stated Goals of Communism as was put on official Congressional record in 1963.  The UN features prominently in there.