Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
It's worth remembering that it was Nic Lewis -- another contrarian in the Tony Heller mode -- who caught the major errors last year in a paper on ocean warming that had made it through the climate research world's so-called "peer review" process.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/
The Tony Heller chart was shown to be the worst example of cherry picking we've seen here.
And you really should pay attention to the news.
On land, Australia's rising heat is 'apocalyptic'; in the ocean, it's even worse
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/a...at-is-apocalyptic-in-the-ocean-its-even-worse
The amount the oceans are warming is quite shocking, even higher than predicted.
The Weather Channel claims the Arctic was near record warm in 2019.
The Danish Meteorological Institute shows that winter temperatures near the North Pole were 5-10C cooler than 2016, and that summer temperatures were below the 1968-2002 mean.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2016.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2019.png
The Arctic sea ice edge is very close to the 1981-2010 median.
Temperatures are extremely cold in the Bering Sea and the wind is blowing out of the North. This will bring the ice edge near or past the median in the next few days.
A Google search for Arctic sea ice says ice cover is at an alarming low, and will vanish sooner than we thought
The Danish Meteorological Institute shows that winter temperatures near the North Pole were 5-10C cooler than 2016, and that summer temperatures were below the 1968-2002 mean.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2016.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2019.png
The Arctic sea ice edge is very close to the 1981-2010 median.
Temperatures are extremely cold in the Bering Sea and the wind is blowing out of the North. This will bring the ice edge near or past the median in the next few days.
A Google search for Arctic sea ice says ice cover is at an alarming low, and will vanish sooner than we thought
Bronx wind turbine’s blades fly off, smashing car and billboard
A shoddy wind turbine fell apart in the Bronx on Monday when it couldn’t handle its own power source — gusty winds.
The blade damaged a nearby car and an illuminated billboard when it flew off the 250-foot structure in Baychester at about 1:20 p.m., police said.
There were no injuries reported.
Local politicians rushed to the scene and blasted the “hastily” constructed alternative-energy source.
The turbine started spinning on Dec. 17, providing power to nearby buildings, according to the Bronx Times.
“This shouldn’t have been put up so hastily,” said state Sen. Jamaal Bailey. “A wind turbine should not be able to be taken down by the wind.”
Assemblyman Mike Benedetto claimed the monopole turbine was erected quickly “in order to try and make a buck.”
He called on the city Department of Buildings to “make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.”
https://nypost.com/2019/12/30/bronx-wind-turbines-blades-fly-off-smashing-car-and-billboard/
A shoddy wind turbine fell apart in the Bronx on Monday when it couldn’t handle its own power source — gusty winds.
The blade damaged a nearby car and an illuminated billboard when it flew off the 250-foot structure in Baychester at about 1:20 p.m., police said.
There were no injuries reported.
Local politicians rushed to the scene and blasted the “hastily” constructed alternative-energy source.
The turbine started spinning on Dec. 17, providing power to nearby buildings, according to the Bronx Times.
“This shouldn’t have been put up so hastily,” said state Sen. Jamaal Bailey. “A wind turbine should not be able to be taken down by the wind.”
Assemblyman Mike Benedetto claimed the monopole turbine was erected quickly “in order to try and make a buck.”
He called on the city Department of Buildings to “make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.”
https://nypost.com/2019/12/30/bronx-wind-turbines-blades-fly-off-smashing-car-and-billboard/
Check this out -- Joe Biden has embraced the Extinction Rebellion malarkey, saying that if we continue to use fossil fuels, "we're all dead."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ossil-fuel-executives-environment-damage.html
Everyone will want to ensure their wills are up to date, since we will be continuing to use fossil fuels. :thumb:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ossil-fuel-executives-environment-damage.html
Everyone will want to ensure their wills are up to date, since we will be continuing to use fossil fuels. :thumb:
Still claiming that the planet won't even hit 0.83ºC, moviefan?
Your predictions aren't worth the pixels on my screen.
Meanwhile.
UK's clean energy outstrips fossil fuels for 1st time in 2019
Zero-carbon sources generated more electricity in the UK than fossil fuels last year, said National Grid.
https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/...ssil-fuels-1st-time-2019-200101011628611.html
While CM is so engrossed in combing through old newspaper clippings in order to avoid discussing the reality today, you're still stuck on your own faulty predictions.
Franky theclimate cultist hate newspaper clipping because he wants to hide 40 years of false climate predictions and 200 years of historical climate and temp records all of which are documented here in this thread and other places on Terb. cults like to hide historical facts
examples
JWs won't tell you that their founder's Uncle started he Skull and Bones Society on Yale University and is apart of of an elite occultic familly line (Russel Family)
Mormons won't tell you their so called founder a prophet was fraudster and a scam artist and have criminal records and marry underage girls
the trans/ gender ideology/gender pronoun movement won't tell you about John Money and company who were pedophile activists who invented gender ideology and "gender is a social construct" stuff
etc etc
the climate change cult is no different
examples
JWs won't tell you that their founder's Uncle started he Skull and Bones Society on Yale University and is apart of of an elite occultic familly line (Russel Family)
Mormons won't tell you their so called founder a prophet was fraudster and a scam artist and have criminal records and marry underage girls
the trans/ gender ideology/gender pronoun movement won't tell you about John Money and company who were pedophile activists who invented gender ideology and "gender is a social construct" stuff
etc etc
the climate change cult is no different
That's some crazy conspiracy shit you're pushing CM.
Makes big sleazy's vaxxer shit look normal.
There are multiple facts you refuse to even address, but lets just go one for now.
In the 80's both Exxon and Shell's own internal scientists did their own oil funded research and they came up with the same predictions as the IPCC.
So how can those findings be biased?
Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings
Newly found documents from the 1980s show that fossil fuel companies privately predicted the global damage that would be caused by their products.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
this is why are on multiple ignore lists. all you do is post propaganda and anti-smeitic stuff which got you banned 3 times you never post anything related to sex work and escorts. and attack anybody who won't follow you are your climate change cultThat's some crazy conspiracy shit you're pushing CM.
Makes big sleazy's vaxxer shit look normal.
There are multiple facts you refuse to even address, but lets just go one for now.
In the 80's both Exxon and Shell's own internal scientists did their own oil funded research and they came up with the same predictions as the IPCC.
So how can those findings be biased?
Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings
Newly found documents from the 1980s show that fossil fuel companies privately predicted the global damage that would be caused by their products.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
enjoy being the only poster here on multipe ignore lists
climate change cult indoctrination is making young people depressed and taking antidepressants.
Antidepressants increase the risk of suicide, violence and homicide at all ages
https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3697/rr-4
BP boss reveals some of his daughter's friends in California are taking antidepressants because they are so worried about climate change
Bob Dudley, 64, said he hated seeing 'young people so unhappy, so anxious'
He revealed his daughter asked him how he could work for a fossil fuel company
BP produces the equivalent of 3.7 million barrels of oil a day, and is directly and indirectly responsible for up to 491 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...riends-California-taking-antidepressants.html
Psychologists Warn Parents, Climate Change Alarmists Against Causing 'Eco-Anxiety' in Children
https://www.newsweek.com/eco-anxiet...ren-global-warming-depression-effects-1459731
Antidepressants increase the risk of suicide, violence and homicide at all ages
https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3697/rr-4
BP boss reveals some of his daughter's friends in California are taking antidepressants because they are so worried about climate change
Bob Dudley, 64, said he hated seeing 'young people so unhappy, so anxious'
He revealed his daughter asked him how he could work for a fossil fuel company
BP produces the equivalent of 3.7 million barrels of oil a day, and is directly and indirectly responsible for up to 491 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...riends-California-taking-antidepressants.html
Psychologists Warn Parents, Climate Change Alarmists Against Causing 'Eco-Anxiety' in Children
https://www.newsweek.com/eco-anxiet...ren-global-warming-depression-effects-1459731
I'm proud to be ignored by the racists like phil, and fools like you, CM.
People who can't argue their position so have to hide away and pretend they weren't shown to full of crap.
Speaking of which, you still can't answer to why Exxon and Shell came up with the same findings as the IPCC, can you?
ignoring franky and his climate cult and moving on
https://reaction.life/the-bbc-bob-ward-and-the-climate-catastrophists-attack-on-dissent/
The BBC, Bob Ward & The Climate Catastrophists’ Attack On Dissent
What readers of newspapers and listeners to the radio do not see is the sustained and deliberate pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line on climate change.
I was asked to appear on the Today programme on Saturday 28 December by the guest editor, Charles Moore, and made the case that the BBC’s coverage of climate change is unbalanced. Despite a lot of interruption by Nick Robinson I just about got across the point that the BBC uncritically relays any old rubbish about the environment so long as it is alarmist, even if it comes from an uninformed source like the leader of Extinction Rebellion or falls well outside the range of the scientific consensus that we are on course for a warming of 1-4 degrees this century. But the Corporation has strict rules about letting guests on who might say that the climate change threat is being exaggerated, even if their view and their facts fall within that consensus range.
The BBC now has a rule that if by some oversight a lukewarmer or sceptic does get on the air, he or she must be followed by a corrective interview from a scientist, setting the record straight. Sure enough I was followed by Sir David King, former government chief science advisor. (He’s a qualified chemist, while I am a qualified biologist.)
I sat there open-mouthed as he beautifully demonstrated my point with one exaggeration after another. He said that Europe’s dash for diesel had nothing to do with greens, when green pressure groups pushed actively for it. He said that we will see 1-2 metres of sea level rise this century, when the current rate of rise is 3.4 millimetres a year with no acceleration (or 0.3 metres per century). He said that all of Greenland’s ice cap might melt and could cause 5-6 metres of sea level rise, though at current rates of melting, Greenland’s ice cap will be 99% intact in 2100. He said that wild fires were being caused by trees dying out because of rising temperatures, rather than a failure to manage increasingly luxuriant vegetation in fire-risk areas leading to a build up of tinder. He said scientists are agreed that Calcutta will have to be moved, when the Ganges delta is actually expanding in area, not shrinking.
What readers of newspapers and listeners to the radio do not see is the sustained and deliberate pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line on climate change. Take Bob Ward, who works at the London School of Economics, where his salary is paid by a billionaire, Jeremy Grantham. Ward is not employed to do research, but to “communicate” climate science. He chooses to interpret this as a duty to put pressure on the media to censor people like me. He complains to the Times almost every time I mention climate change, often getting his facts wrong, and kicked up a huge fuss when the Times, after publishing half a dozen of his letters declined to publish another one.
Recently he has taken to complaining to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Whenever Charles Moore, James Delingpole, David Rose, the late Christopher Booker, I or any other journalist writes an article arguing against exaggerated climate alarmism in one of the newspapers self-regulated by IPSO, he sends in a detailed and lengthy complaint. He never complains about the myriad alarmist mistakes that appear all the time like articles saying that “the science” tells us six billion people are going to die soon because of climate change.
IPSO was invented, remember, to give redress for people whose private lives were invaded by journalists, yet Ward is never complaining on his own behalf (though he probably will after this piece). To give one example, I wrote an article in the Times in 2017 about a scientist whistleblower in the United States who said his colleagues had deliberately distorted a data set to make climate change look more alarming.
Although all of this took place in America and had nothing to do with British scientists, let alone Ward himself, and although the scientist in question was happy with my article, Ward sent IPSO 11 separate lengthy complaints about supposed inaccuracies in my article. I responded with a very lengthy reply, which took two weeks to compile. IPSO asked him to respond to my response, which he did at great length. He raised several new issues that had not been in the original article. IPSO asked me to respond. I did so, at great length and effort. Ward responded a third time. (Remember: this is his day job.) This time, six months into the argument, I and the Times refused to reply and instead asked IPSO to rule on the matter. They did so and quickly found in my favour, dismissing all 11 of Mr Ward’s complaints. Every single one.
In 2019 he tried it again over an article of mine in the Telegraph about how giving up meat would make little difference to emissions, but this time IPSO rejected all of his complaints without even asking me for a response.
Let me give you a flavour of the sort of thing he says in a complaint. My article had said “A study in rural Kenya found that eating eggs made children grow five per cent faster.” Ward complained that “although the study did find that ‘a child who ate eggs once per day during the recall period grew 5% more in height than a child who ate no eggs’”, Ward thought the “claim was misleading because the study was not making a comparison with children on vegan diet”. But I had not claimed that it was. This is a very clear example of somebody being purely vexatious, not even expecting to win the point, just to waste my time.
Indeed Ward’s aim seems to be never to win the point – that would be a bonus – but to tie us down in a time-consuming process of defending ourselves, in the hope that it deters us from offering similar articles to editors in the future, and deters editors from commissioning them. It works. He has frightened away some journalists and editors from the vital topic of climate change, leaving the catastrophists with a clear field to scare children to their hearts content.
Not surprisingly some on the other side of the argument have now learned to emulate this tactic. Though with nothing like the resources of Mr Ward’s employer, the Global Warming Policy Forum has complained about mistakes in BBC programmes and newspapers in recent years, but in this case ones that exaggerate climate problems rather than underplay them. Unlike Ward, the GWPF keeps winning its cases. It got the BBC to correct an absurd claim that flooding had grown 15 times worse in ten years and another that reindeer were in steep decline due to climate change. It pointed out that a David Attenborough programme called “Climate Change: the facts” claimed that floods and storms are getting worse – contradicting what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says. It got the BBC to admit that Lord Deben (John Gummer) was guilty of misleading Today Programme listeners that there was a “ban” on onshore wind. And so on.
It turns out that calling out catastrophists on the media is a much more target-rich environment than calling out sceptics. But the BBC and others have such a cosy relationship with the alarmist green pressure groups (the fraternisation on Twitter is in plain sight) that they keep making mistakes.
https://reaction.life/the-bbc-bob-ward-and-the-climate-catastrophists-attack-on-dissent/
The BBC, Bob Ward & The Climate Catastrophists’ Attack On Dissent
What readers of newspapers and listeners to the radio do not see is the sustained and deliberate pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line on climate change.
I was asked to appear on the Today programme on Saturday 28 December by the guest editor, Charles Moore, and made the case that the BBC’s coverage of climate change is unbalanced. Despite a lot of interruption by Nick Robinson I just about got across the point that the BBC uncritically relays any old rubbish about the environment so long as it is alarmist, even if it comes from an uninformed source like the leader of Extinction Rebellion or falls well outside the range of the scientific consensus that we are on course for a warming of 1-4 degrees this century. But the Corporation has strict rules about letting guests on who might say that the climate change threat is being exaggerated, even if their view and their facts fall within that consensus range.
The BBC now has a rule that if by some oversight a lukewarmer or sceptic does get on the air, he or she must be followed by a corrective interview from a scientist, setting the record straight. Sure enough I was followed by Sir David King, former government chief science advisor. (He’s a qualified chemist, while I am a qualified biologist.)
I sat there open-mouthed as he beautifully demonstrated my point with one exaggeration after another. He said that Europe’s dash for diesel had nothing to do with greens, when green pressure groups pushed actively for it. He said that we will see 1-2 metres of sea level rise this century, when the current rate of rise is 3.4 millimetres a year with no acceleration (or 0.3 metres per century). He said that all of Greenland’s ice cap might melt and could cause 5-6 metres of sea level rise, though at current rates of melting, Greenland’s ice cap will be 99% intact in 2100. He said that wild fires were being caused by trees dying out because of rising temperatures, rather than a failure to manage increasingly luxuriant vegetation in fire-risk areas leading to a build up of tinder. He said scientists are agreed that Calcutta will have to be moved, when the Ganges delta is actually expanding in area, not shrinking.
What readers of newspapers and listeners to the radio do not see is the sustained and deliberate pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line on climate change. Take Bob Ward, who works at the London School of Economics, where his salary is paid by a billionaire, Jeremy Grantham. Ward is not employed to do research, but to “communicate” climate science. He chooses to interpret this as a duty to put pressure on the media to censor people like me. He complains to the Times almost every time I mention climate change, often getting his facts wrong, and kicked up a huge fuss when the Times, after publishing half a dozen of his letters declined to publish another one.
Recently he has taken to complaining to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Whenever Charles Moore, James Delingpole, David Rose, the late Christopher Booker, I or any other journalist writes an article arguing against exaggerated climate alarmism in one of the newspapers self-regulated by IPSO, he sends in a detailed and lengthy complaint. He never complains about the myriad alarmist mistakes that appear all the time like articles saying that “the science” tells us six billion people are going to die soon because of climate change.
IPSO was invented, remember, to give redress for people whose private lives were invaded by journalists, yet Ward is never complaining on his own behalf (though he probably will after this piece). To give one example, I wrote an article in the Times in 2017 about a scientist whistleblower in the United States who said his colleagues had deliberately distorted a data set to make climate change look more alarming.
Although all of this took place in America and had nothing to do with British scientists, let alone Ward himself, and although the scientist in question was happy with my article, Ward sent IPSO 11 separate lengthy complaints about supposed inaccuracies in my article. I responded with a very lengthy reply, which took two weeks to compile. IPSO asked him to respond to my response, which he did at great length. He raised several new issues that had not been in the original article. IPSO asked me to respond. I did so, at great length and effort. Ward responded a third time. (Remember: this is his day job.) This time, six months into the argument, I and the Times refused to reply and instead asked IPSO to rule on the matter. They did so and quickly found in my favour, dismissing all 11 of Mr Ward’s complaints. Every single one.
In 2019 he tried it again over an article of mine in the Telegraph about how giving up meat would make little difference to emissions, but this time IPSO rejected all of his complaints without even asking me for a response.
Let me give you a flavour of the sort of thing he says in a complaint. My article had said “A study in rural Kenya found that eating eggs made children grow five per cent faster.” Ward complained that “although the study did find that ‘a child who ate eggs once per day during the recall period grew 5% more in height than a child who ate no eggs’”, Ward thought the “claim was misleading because the study was not making a comparison with children on vegan diet”. But I had not claimed that it was. This is a very clear example of somebody being purely vexatious, not even expecting to win the point, just to waste my time.
Indeed Ward’s aim seems to be never to win the point – that would be a bonus – but to tie us down in a time-consuming process of defending ourselves, in the hope that it deters us from offering similar articles to editors in the future, and deters editors from commissioning them. It works. He has frightened away some journalists and editors from the vital topic of climate change, leaving the catastrophists with a clear field to scare children to their hearts content.
Not surprisingly some on the other side of the argument have now learned to emulate this tactic. Though with nothing like the resources of Mr Ward’s employer, the Global Warming Policy Forum has complained about mistakes in BBC programmes and newspapers in recent years, but in this case ones that exaggerate climate problems rather than underplay them. Unlike Ward, the GWPF keeps winning its cases. It got the BBC to correct an absurd claim that flooding had grown 15 times worse in ten years and another that reindeer were in steep decline due to climate change. It pointed out that a David Attenborough programme called “Climate Change: the facts” claimed that floods and storms are getting worse – contradicting what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says. It got the BBC to admit that Lord Deben (John Gummer) was guilty of misleading Today Programme listeners that there was a “ban” on onshore wind. And so on.
It turns out that calling out catastrophists on the media is a much more target-rich environment than calling out sceptics. But the BBC and others have such a cosy relationship with the alarmist green pressure groups (the fraternisation on Twitter is in plain sight) that they keep making mistakes.
I thought I was on ignore, does that mean you're bullshitting about that as well?
The question Canada Man refuses or can't answer:
In the 80's both Exxon and Shell's own internal scientists did their own oil funded research and they came up with the same predictions as the IPCC.
So how can those findings be biased?
Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings
Newly found documents from the 1980s show that fossil fuel companies privately predicted the global damage that would be caused by their products.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
Greta Thunberg: A Living Explanation of the Left
It is not easy to understand what the left -- as opposed to liberals -- stands for. If you ask a Christian what to read to learn the basics of Christianity, you will be told the Bible. If you ask a (religious) Jew, you will be told the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. If you ask a Mormon, you will be told the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Ask a Muslim and you will be told the Quran.
But if you ask a leftist what one or two books you should read to understand leftism, every leftist will give you a different answer -- or need some time to think it over. Few, if any, will suggest Marx's "Das Kapital" because almost no leftists have read it and because you will either not finish the book or reject it as incoherent.
So, then, how is one to understand what leftism stands for?
The truth is it is almost impossible. What leftist in history would have ever imagined that to be a leftist, one would have to believe that men give birth or men have periods, or that it is fair to women to have to compete in sports with biological males who identify as females?
There are two primary reasons it is so difficult, if not impossible, to define leftism. One is that it ultimately stands for chaos:
-- Open borders.
-- "Nonbinary" genders.
-- Nonsensical and scatological "art."
-- "Music" without tonality, melody or harmony.
-- Drag Queen Story Hour for 5-year-olds.
-- Rejection of the concept of better or worse civilizations.
-- Rejection of the concept of better or worse art.
-- Removal of Shakespeare's picture from a university English department because he was a white male.
-- The end of all use of fossil fuels -- even in transportation (as per the recent recommendation by the head of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization).
-- The dismantling of capitalism, the economic engine that has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty.
And much more.
The other major reason it is impossible to define leftism is that it is emotion-based. Leftism consists of causes that give those who otherwise lack meaning something to cling to for meaning.
Two things about Greta Thunberg, Time magazine's 2019 person of the year, embody these explanations.
With regard to chaos, here is what Greta Thunberg wrote at the beginning of the month: "The climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice and of political will. Colonial, racist and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fuelled it. We need to dismantle them all."
Greta Thunberg, like all leftists, seeks to dismantle just about everything. As former President Barack Obama said five days before the 2008 election, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
As regards emotion and meaning, the Guardian reports, this is what Thunberg's father just told the BBC: "Greta Thunberg's father has opened up about how activism helped his daughter out of depression ... how activism had changed the outlook of the teenager, who suffered from depression for 'three or four years' before she began her school strike protest outside the Swedish parliament. She was now 'very happy', he said ... 'She stopped talking ... she stopped going to school,' he said of her illness."
The post-Judeo-Christian world the left has created has left a vast number of the West's citizens, especially more and more young people, with no meaning. This Grand-Canyon-sized hole is filled by leftist causes.
The fact is life is better, safer and more affluent, and offers more opportunities for more people, than ever before in history. Just about all emotionally stable, mature people should be walking around the West almost delirious at their good fortune. Americans in particular should feel this way. But leftists (again, as opposed to many liberals) are not usually emotionally stable and are certainly not mature. That is why depression among young Americans (and perhaps Swedes) is at the highest levels ever recorded. So, like Greta, they look to left-wing causes to find meaning and emotional fulfillment. Until she embraced climate crisis activism -- a chance, as she sees it, to literally save the world -- Greta Thunberg was so depressed "she stopped talking." But thanks to climate activism and other left-wing activism, she is now "very happy" (an assessment I suspect many observers find hard to believe).
Feminism and "fighting patriarchy" (in an age when American women have more opportunities than ever before and more opportunities than women almost anywhere else in the world), fighting racism (in the least racist multiracial society in history), fighting white supremacy (which has almost disappeared from American life) and fighting on behalf of myriad other leftist causes -- in other words, fundamentally transforming society -- gives meaning to people with no meaning.
None of that is morally or rationally coherent. But it is very emotionally satisfying. Just ask Greta Thunberg's dad.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is "The Rational Bible," a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, "No Safe Spaces," comes to theaters fall 2019. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/greta-thunberg-a-living-explanation-of-the-left/
It is not easy to understand what the left -- as opposed to liberals -- stands for. If you ask a Christian what to read to learn the basics of Christianity, you will be told the Bible. If you ask a (religious) Jew, you will be told the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. If you ask a Mormon, you will be told the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Ask a Muslim and you will be told the Quran.
But if you ask a leftist what one or two books you should read to understand leftism, every leftist will give you a different answer -- or need some time to think it over. Few, if any, will suggest Marx's "Das Kapital" because almost no leftists have read it and because you will either not finish the book or reject it as incoherent.
So, then, how is one to understand what leftism stands for?
The truth is it is almost impossible. What leftist in history would have ever imagined that to be a leftist, one would have to believe that men give birth or men have periods, or that it is fair to women to have to compete in sports with biological males who identify as females?
There are two primary reasons it is so difficult, if not impossible, to define leftism. One is that it ultimately stands for chaos:
-- Open borders.
-- "Nonbinary" genders.
-- Nonsensical and scatological "art."
-- "Music" without tonality, melody or harmony.
-- Drag Queen Story Hour for 5-year-olds.
-- Rejection of the concept of better or worse civilizations.
-- Rejection of the concept of better or worse art.
-- Removal of Shakespeare's picture from a university English department because he was a white male.
-- The end of all use of fossil fuels -- even in transportation (as per the recent recommendation by the head of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization).
-- The dismantling of capitalism, the economic engine that has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty.
And much more.
The other major reason it is impossible to define leftism is that it is emotion-based. Leftism consists of causes that give those who otherwise lack meaning something to cling to for meaning.
Two things about Greta Thunberg, Time magazine's 2019 person of the year, embody these explanations.
With regard to chaos, here is what Greta Thunberg wrote at the beginning of the month: "The climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice and of political will. Colonial, racist and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fuelled it. We need to dismantle them all."
Greta Thunberg, like all leftists, seeks to dismantle just about everything. As former President Barack Obama said five days before the 2008 election, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
As regards emotion and meaning, the Guardian reports, this is what Thunberg's father just told the BBC: "Greta Thunberg's father has opened up about how activism helped his daughter out of depression ... how activism had changed the outlook of the teenager, who suffered from depression for 'three or four years' before she began her school strike protest outside the Swedish parliament. She was now 'very happy', he said ... 'She stopped talking ... she stopped going to school,' he said of her illness."
The post-Judeo-Christian world the left has created has left a vast number of the West's citizens, especially more and more young people, with no meaning. This Grand-Canyon-sized hole is filled by leftist causes.
The fact is life is better, safer and more affluent, and offers more opportunities for more people, than ever before in history. Just about all emotionally stable, mature people should be walking around the West almost delirious at their good fortune. Americans in particular should feel this way. But leftists (again, as opposed to many liberals) are not usually emotionally stable and are certainly not mature. That is why depression among young Americans (and perhaps Swedes) is at the highest levels ever recorded. So, like Greta, they look to left-wing causes to find meaning and emotional fulfillment. Until she embraced climate crisis activism -- a chance, as she sees it, to literally save the world -- Greta Thunberg was so depressed "she stopped talking." But thanks to climate activism and other left-wing activism, she is now "very happy" (an assessment I suspect many observers find hard to believe).
Feminism and "fighting patriarchy" (in an age when American women have more opportunities than ever before and more opportunities than women almost anywhere else in the world), fighting racism (in the least racist multiracial society in history), fighting white supremacy (which has almost disappeared from American life) and fighting on behalf of myriad other leftist causes -- in other words, fundamentally transforming society -- gives meaning to people with no meaning.
None of that is morally or rationally coherent. But it is very emotionally satisfying. Just ask Greta Thunberg's dad.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is "The Rational Bible," a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, "No Safe Spaces," comes to theaters fall 2019. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/greta-thunberg-a-living-explanation-of-the-left/
The question Canada Man refuses or can't answer:
In the 80's both Exxon and Shell's own internal scientists did their own oil funded research and they came up with the same predictions as the IPCC.
So how can those findings be biased?
Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings
Newly found documents from the 1980s show that fossil fuel companies privately predicted the global damage that would be caused by their products.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
So tell us, Frankfooter: Do you agree with Joe Biden that "we're all dead" if we continue to use fossil fuels?
Please give us a direct answer, rather than the usual Frankfooter B.S. where I have to repeat the same question five times before we come anywhere close to a response.
No, we're not all dead.
If we burn what's in the ground and in production we're likely to raise the global temp to the point where a thermal maximum is possible. Then most of those born then would end up dead, as the end of the anthropocene and 6th great mass extinction. But that's not likely to happen for more than 100 years, though what happens as we hit more tipping points makes the timing unclear.
Just most of your children (though I expect that with all your 'movie' watching you're not able to actually breed) or their kids would be mostly all dead.
Nobody really knows what the carrying capacity of the planet would be through a thermal maximum.
Throughout Glacier National Park, visitors were met with signs, brochures and messages proclaiming that all of the Park's glaciers were expected to melt away by 2020. But by 2019 NOT EVEN ONE of the glaciers had disappeared. During the winter of 2018-2019--while the St. Mary Visitor Center was closed to the public--the government quietly altered the 'Gone by 2020' signs. And they would have gotten away with it if not for Roger Roots of Lysander Spooner University.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXmJU-9Zkrk&feature=emb_title
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXmJU-9Zkrk&feature=emb_title
