Thursday, May 09, 2019

CNN Moving To Hudson Yards Proves They Know Global Warming’s A Hoax

If CNN believes Global Warming is a real and an imminent threat, why did the far-left network agree to move much of its broadcasting operations to a location … right on the water?

Outside of the basement-rated outlet axing more than a hundred jobs on Monday, the big media news this week is CNN’s move to Hudson Yards, which sits right on the coast, right on the Hudson River.

In other words,  CNN has moved to the water’s edge of Manhattan, the very same Manhattan that will be underwater as soon as 2015.

Oops, sorry, that was an old scientific prediction. Obviously, 2015 has passed without Manhattan flooding. But Manhattan will be underwater as soon as 2018, which can only mean that–

Oh. Sorry again, that was another prediction our global warming scientific experts got wrong. But soon, very soon Manhattan will be underwater because the scientists CNN takes very, very seriously say so.

As recently as seven months ago, and without a hint of skepticism, CNN warned that if nothing is done by 2030, in 11 short years, “the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.”

Floods, y’all, floods.

Again, with only fealty and not a hint of skepticism, CNN spread around this statement by a “lecturer in climate science:”

“This is concerning because we know there are so many more problems if we exceed 1.5 degrees C global warming, including more heatwaves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and, for many parts of the world, worse droughts and rainfall extremes.”

Greater sea level rise, y’all, greater sea level rise.

Did CNN not read this very important and 100 percent factual, pro-science report that predicts flooding in New York during the 2020s, so as soon as next year?

What kind of monsters moves their employees into that kind of danger?

So what do we have here…? Isn’t it obvious…?

What we have is a national news organization spreading alarmism about flooding and rising sea levels on one hand while on the other it moves a large part of its base of operations to the edge of the shoreline, and not only to the shoreline but to the shoreline of Manhattan which was supposed to be underwater four years ago.

CNN regularly and relentlessly abuses its broadcast megaphone to spread fear about Global Warming, to demand we all change our lifestyles, give up our freedoms, vote for Democrats, pay higher taxes, turn our lives over to central planners, and publicly testify to our belief in global warming lest we be denounced as “climate deniers.”

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, CNN commits the ultimate (and expensive) act of climate denialism by moving a large part of its multi-million dollar headquarters to very area we are told will soon be the ground zero of Global Warming flooding.

CNN’s move to the Manhattan waterline is the ultimate act of faith that Global Warming is a hoax, is the ultimate proof CNN knows it’s a hoax, even as it spends billions and billions of corporate dollars to spread this hoax, to scare the rest of us into voting a certain way.

No one who believes in Global Warming spends piles of money to move its operations into a danger zone. No one. What’s more, CNN already had an inland headquarters. What could be safer than Atlanta?

But under CNN chief Jeff Zucker, CNN has been moving much of its broadcasting base out of Atlanta and into the danger zone of Manhattan and… Under Jeff Zucker, CNN has ramped up its Global Warming propaganda against us skeptics in a big way.

So the next time CNN launches its next Hate Campaign against President Trump over his healthy skepticism, remember CNN’s long-planned and very expensive move into the danger zone, remember its ultimate act of faith that Global Warming is pure horseshit.


Voters Worldwide Are Becoming Much More Skeptical

From Alberta to Australia, from Finland to France and beyond, voters are increasingly showing their displeasure with expensive energy policies imposed by politicians in an inane effort to fight purported human-caused climate change.

Skepticism about whether humans are causing dangerous climate change has always been higher in the United States than in most industrialized countries.

As a result, governments in Europe, Canada, and in other developed countries are much farther along the energy-rationing path that cutting carbon dioxide emissions requires than in the United States.

Residents in these countries have begun to revolt against the higher energy costs they suffer under as a result of ever-increasing taxes on fossil fuels and government mandates to use expensive renewable energy.

For instance, in France in late 2018, protesters donning yellow vests took to the streets—and have stayed there ever since—in large part to protest scheduled increases in fuel taxes, electricity prices, and stricter vehicle emissions controls, which French President Emmanuel Macron claimed were necessary to meet the country’s greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Paris climate agreement.

After the first four weeks of protest, Macron’s government canceled his climate action plan.

Also in 2018, in part as a backlash against Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate policies, global warming skeptic Doug Ford was elected as premier of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province.

Ford announced he would end energy taxes imposed by Ontario’s previous premier and would join Saskatchewan’s premiere in a legal fight against Trudeau’s federal carbon dioxide tax.

In August 2018, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was forced to resign over carbon dioxide restrictions he’d planned to impose to meet the country’s Paris climate commitments.

His successor, Scott Morrison, announced reducing energy prices and improving reliability, not fighting climate change, would be the government’s primary energy goals going forward.

Subsequently, Australia’s deputy prime minister and its environment minister announced the country would continue using coal for electricity and expand coal mining and exports.

The changes in 2018 were just a prelude for the political climate revolt of 2019.

In mid-March, the Forum for Democracy (FvD), a fledgling political party just three years old, tied for the largest number of seats, 12, in the divided Dutch Senate in the 2019 elections.

FvD takes a decidedly skeptical stance on climate change. On the campaign trail, Thierry Baudet, FvD’s leader, said the government should stop funding programs to meet the country’s commitments to international climate change agreements, saying such efforts are driven by “climate-change hysteria.”

On April 14 in Finland, where climate change policies became the dominant issue in the election, support for climate skepticism surged.

Whereas all the other parties proposed plans to raise energy prices and limit people’s energy use, the Finns Party, which made the fight against expensive climate policies the central part of its platform, gained the second-highest number of seats in the Parliament, just one seat behind the Social Democratic Party’s 40.

The second-place finish was a big win for the Finns Party and its skeptical stance: just two months before the election, polls showed its support was below 10 percent.

After the Finns Party made battling alarmist climate policies its main goal, its popularity soared. The New York Times credited the Finns Party’s electoral surge, in large part, to its expressed climate skepticism.

In Alberta, Canada, where the economy declined after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate policies took hold, voters on April 16 replaced Premier Rachel Notley and her New Democratic Party (NDP), which supports the federal climate policies, with the United Conservative Party, headed by newly elected Premier Jason Kenney, who vowed to scrap the province’s carbon tax and every other policy in NDP’s climate action plan.

Among the other climate policies, Kenny said he will reverse in an effort to revive the economy are NDP’s plans to accelerate the closure of the province’s coal power plants, and its plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions from the region’s oil sands.

In addition, Kenny says he will challenge the federal government’s climate impositions in court and streamline regulations hampering Alberta’s critical oil and gas industry, including restrictions preventing pipeline construction imposed by NDP.

Even as daily headlines in the lamestream media become ever shriller, hyping climate fears based on projections made by unverified climate models, the public, especially the voting public, is becoming increasingly wary of the Chicken Little claims of impending climate doom.

Voters in developed countries are saying “enough is enough” to high energy prices which punish the most vulnerable people in society and do nothing to regulate climate change.


UN Officially Relegates Climate Change To A Second-Tier Threat

The BBC has just reported on the newly published Summary for Policy Makers of the as yet unpublished UN 1,800-page global assessment of nature compiled by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

The two-day-old ‘climate crisis’, so recently [not] declared by the British government has already been knocked off the top spot as far as existential crises are concerned and officially languishes in third place, in the Second Division.

Land use change is now Premier Division. However, unlike action on the ‘climate crisis’, which has become a $1.5 trillion industry, action on land use change has been negligible to non-existent.

Even hunting (legal and non-legal) and the direct exploitation of wildlife is one division above climate change in terms of the threat to biodiversity.

Bugger all has been done to address these threats too, relatively speaking, during the last three decades, whereas trillions have been thrown at ineffective, and socially, economically and environmentally damaging attempts to limit global warming to 2C (and latterly 1.5C). I warned about this three years ago.

They just expect us to ignore this devastating indictment of international policy, shrug our shoulders and now accept the new recommendations for ‘saving the planet’ (eating less meat and getting rid of your dog!).

It’s not going to happen. People will be angry – very angry – at being so dreadfully misled for so long by finger-in-the-pie climate doom merchants and they are going to be even more skeptical about the claims of imminent catastrophe now being advanced by the new merchants of doom at the UN.

The BBC does seem to be just a little concerned maybe that it might be about to lose its favorite environmental hobby horse with which it has scared us all for so many years and so recently and notably with the much-heralded broadcast of Attenborough’s Climate Change – The Facts.

They’re gonna have to get the old boy to do a swift follow up program soon: Biodiversity – The Even More Shocking Facts.

Is This Worse Than Climate Change?
Climate change is a crucial underlying factor that’s helping to drive destruction around the world.

Greenhouse gas emissions have doubled since 1980 and temperatures have gone up 0.7C as a result. This is having a big impact on some species, restricting their ranges and making extinction more likely.

The global assessment finds that if temperatures go up by 2C, then 5% of species are at risk of climate-driven extinction, rising to 16% if the world warms by 4.3C.

“Of the prioritised list of proximate drivers of biodiversity decline, climate change is only number three,” said Prof John Spicer from the University of Plymouth.

“Climate change is certainly one of the greatest threats that face humankind in the near future – so what does that tell us about the first and second, changes in land/sea use, and direct exploitation? The current situation is desperate and has been for some time.”

The report’s authors hope that their assessment becomes as critical to the argument about biodiversity loss as the IPCC report on 1.5C has done to the debate over climate change.

They must be a bit miffed at the Beeb, having just invested so much effort into misleading the public about the existential threat of climate change and no doubt helping to get a ‘climate emergency’ [not] declared.


Conning the Fijians

The unfortunate Fijians are taking all the alarm  seriously

The Conversation now has a policy of publishing articles which promote the false notion that extreme weather is virtually synonymous with climate change and in particular that vulnerable, low-lying island and coastal communities are climate change victims because of sea level rise and/or extreme weather.

Their most recent fake news article has apparently attracted a lot of criticism as numerous comments have been removed by the moderators and they have closed comments a day after publishing apparently because there is a “high risk of comments breaching our standards”. I bet. What they mean is there is a “high risk of comments exposing our shameless, unscientific climate change propaganda”.

The article is written by academics from the University of Queensland and University of the Sunshine Coast. When I say ‘academics’, it’s the usual science-lite dippy subjects: human geography/social sciences/environmental science/sustainability/climate change adaptation.

These people wouldn’t know proper science, hard science, if it walked up to them and slapped them hard in the face. Yet, here they are, bold as brass, making grand claims that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration has forced the re-location of two villages in Fiji via its effects upon sea level and via the impact of one cyclone in particular.

The original Fijian village of Vunidogoloa is abandoned. Houses, now dilapidated, remain overgrown with vegetation. Remnants of an old seawall built to protect the village is a stark reminder of what climate change can do to a community’s home. Vunidogoloa is one of four Fijian communities that have been forced to relocate from the effects of climate change. And more than 80 communities have been earmarked by the Fiji government for potential future relocation.

There is no misinterpreting this introduction to the article: climate change caused the relocations (man-made climate change). Because:

Low lying coastal communities like these are especially vulnerable to threats of sea-level rise, inundation of tides, increased intensity of storm surges and coastal erosion. Extreme, sudden weather events such as cyclones can also force communities to move, particularly in the tropics.

They then talk about their (no doubt fully funded) ‘research’:

Our research documents the experiences and outcomes of relocation for two of these Fijian communities – Vunidogoloa and Denimanu.

Vunidogoloa is a classic example of the slow creep of climate change. For a number of decades the residents have fought coastal flooding, salt-water intrusion and shoreline erosion. The village leaders approached the Fijian government, asking to be relocated to safer ground.

In contrast to Vunidogoloa, Denimanu experienced sudden onset effects of climate change.

While the village had been experiencing encroaching shorelines for years, it was Tropical Cyclone Evan, which hit in 2012 destroying 19 houses closest to the shoreline, that prompted relocation.

Let’s get down to the facts shall we. Firstly, sea level rise in Fiji. Here’s what the Fiji Meteorological Service, Australian Bureau of Meteorology and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) have to say:

Satellite data indicate sea level has risen in Fiji by about 6 mm per year since 1993. This is larger than the global average of 2.8–3.6 mm per year. This higher rate of rise may be partly related to natural fluctuations that take place year to year or decade to decade caused by phenomena such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation.

They then show this graph of observed (tide gauge and satellite altimetry) sea level rise, along with an estimate of the natural range of variability in that region. You can see immediately that the estimated natural range of variability dwarfs the 90% envelope of the climate model projected sea level rise, that the natural rise and fall of sea level in Fiji since 1970 exceeds even this estimate. There is a trend, but only since about 1980 and a large part of that appears to be large fluctuations associated with the powerful El Nino of 1982/83, 1997/98 and 2015/16.

And then there’s cyclones – “sudden onset climate change impacts” according to our erudite scholars at the Conversation.

Large interannual variability in tropical cyclone frequency, from 0 to 5. A decreasing trend, if any, in tropical cyclone frequency since 1969/70. Doesn’t look much like ‘sudden onset climate change’ to me! Back in the day, when the Con was at least making an effort to report on actual science, this is what author Kevin Walsh said about Winston, a cat 5 which struck the Fijian islands in 2016:

In the South Pacific, typically around nine tropical cyclones are recorded on average each year, but there’s a lot of variability year to year. They are most common in January through to March, but can occur as early as November or as late as May.

In the past 30 years or so, several severe tropical cyclones have affected Fiji, so it’s not unusual for Fiji to experience severe cyclones.

Is climate change affecting cyclones?

It’s difficult to say what the trends are in cyclone intensity in the South Pacific, as only limited data are available since the 1980s. Trend analyses in this region have given ambiguous results. Frequency of cyclones in the Australian region has been decreasing in recent decades. In the South Pacific region as a whole, trends appear weak.

We have just seen the peak of one of the strongest El Niño events on record. El Niño is related to the movement of warm water in the Pacific Ocean, so it’s not surprising that it has an influence on cyclones.

Contrast this with the garbage being put out in defence of climate action and ‘climate justice’ by our three geographers/sustainability experts/environmental ‘scientists’. The most absurd thing is, if you read the authors’ study, it is rather less certain that climate change is to blame for weather events in Fiji:

The first case study describes how relocation was driven by slow-onset climate change impacts while the other study site is an example of sudden-onset impacts, in this case driven by cyclonic storm surge activity. While not uncritically attributable to anthropogenic climate change, the increased strength of cyclonic and storm activity has a level of climate change attribution (Walsh et al. 2016).

So they’ve hyped up even their own study to present it as climate change propaganda on the Con website. The fact is, ENSO activity plays a huge part in tropical cyclone variability in the Fiji islands and natural sea level rise and fall, observed and estimated, also driven by ENSO activity, dwarfs the short term observed trend in sea level rise.

Climate change impacts are projected. There is no unequivocal evidence that ‘sudden onset’ or ‘slow creep’ impacts are happening right now, creating ‘climate refugees’ in their wake. This is pure alarmist hype from the Con with the undoubted intention of promoting political action.


Australia: Green eggs and Di Natale’s team of haters

Greens leader Richard Di Natale has been accused of double standards as he stands by two of his candidates who made racist jokes on social media despite condemning other parties over hate speech.

The Greens candidate for the seat of Lalor, Jay Dessi, joked about having sex with children and dead people, made a racist joke about an Asian man’s eyes, posted a cartoon about oral sex and liked a post about abortion and child pornography. Next to a photograph of an Asian friend wearing a frog hat, Mr Dessi wrote: “Which eyes are the real eyes?”

In the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari, Greens candidate George Hanna has refused to apologise directly for sharing a meme in which Liberal candidate Jacinta Price was called a “coconut”

When asked if he would disendorse the candidate, Senator Di Natale told the ABC: “I’m getting a briefing on that. They have given a full apology, in particular the gentleman in the Northern Territory, himself an aboriginal man.”

Senator Di Natale also downplayed links between his party and the woman who tried to egg Scott Morrison yesterday at a Country Women’s Association event.

Amber Holt, who was tackled by secrutiy staff immediately after throwing the egg, has shared numerous Facebook posts in support of the Greens and labelled all right-wing Australian politicians Nazis.

Senator Di Natale distanced himself from the protester, telling the ABC: “There are millions of people who vote for the Greens.” He branded the attack on Mr Morrison “disgraceful”.

“We’ve made it very clear that the way to defeat a rotten government - and this has been one of the most rotten governments in this country’s history - is in 10 days’ time at the ballot box,” he said.

Mr Hanna, who is Aboriginal, told Darwin radio he did not believe the meme he reposted was racist. “It (coconut) is a derogatory term used by Aboriginal people against other Aboriginal people that they feel don’t do the right thing by them,” he said.

He said the Liberals were “pulling for the race card because they’re ­struggling in this electorate”.

Resources Minister Matthew Canavan urged Senator Di Natale to sack his candidate. “I’m not going to hold my breath, but if Richard Di Natale had any standards over his party then this ­candidate would be ­immediately sacked,” Senator Canavan said.

Mr Dessi’s online conduct came to light after the Greens member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, said last week his Labor ­opponent Luke Creasey’s decision to resign was the right one. Mr Creasey was caught having made offensive posts on Facebook.

Labor MP Joanne Ryan, who holds Lalor, said Mr Dessi’s comments were insensitive, offensive and demonstrated poor judgment from someone seeking public ­office. “Adam Bandt and Richard Di Natale need to explain why there is one standard for Greens candidates and another for everyone else,” Ms Ryan said.

Mr Dessi, a financial technology developer, said he was “truly sorry for the language used” in ­social media posts he made years ago and comments he shared.

“The language and content was plainly offensive, and doesn’t reflect who I am today,” he said. “I apologise unreservedly to anyone that it may have hurt.”

A Greens spokesman said the party was disappointed by his language. “The content of these posts and ‘likes’ is contrary to Australian Greens social media policy, and he has apologised for that,” the spokesman said.

Josh Frydenberg, whose campaign material has been defaced with Nazi symbolism, said the Greens, who are running high-profile candidate Julian Burnside in Kooyong, were “extreme, ­aggressive and intolerant of views that don’t match their own”.

Senator Di Natale yesterday condemned Ms Holt’s alleged ­attack on the Prime Minister. “We think the way to defeat a shocking government is at the ballot box,” Senator Di Natale said. “We can have a fierce contest of ideas but we shouldn’t resort, no one should ­resort to these sorts of attacks.”

Scrutiny of Senator Di Natale’s candidates comes after the Greens leader pushed for legislation to regulate the media and stamp out alleged hate speech, targeting Sky News and News Corp commentators ­Andrew Bolt and Chris Kenny and 2GB radio host Alan Jones.

In the wake of the alleged egging attempt on the Prime Minister, Senator Di Natale agreed there had been a disturbing trend of physical attacks on politicians.

Ms Holt, 24, was charged with common assault and possession of a prohibited drug (cannabis) by NSW Police yesterday after allegedly approaching Mr Morrison and attempting to throw an egg at the back of his head as he mingled with elderly women.

She has “liked” the Albury Greens Facebook page and shared numerous posts from Senator Di Natale and NSW Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi but the party said she was not a member of the ­Australian, NSW or Victorian Greens.

Ms Holt said on Facebook she studied at Charles Sturt University but the university said she was not a current student. It would not confirm if she was a former student.

“The university does not condone or endorse Ms Holt’s behaviour. The university will not be making any further comment on the matter,” a spokeswoman said.

After the Christchurch terrorist attacks on two mosques and Queensland senator Fraser Anning’s comments blaming the atrocity on New Zealand’s immigration program, Ms Holt posted: “This is actually outrageous. My heart goes out to all impacted by today’s events in Christchurch. Why is every right-wing politician in Australia a Nazi?”

Senator Anning was later egged in an unrelated incident.

Ms Holt also shared an Internat­ional Women’s Day message from Senator Di Natale and urged her Facebook followers not to let the Prime Minister’s “bigoted views bring you down”.

Mr Morrison described the ­alleged egging attempt as an “ugly type of protest”, and called on Australians to disagree better.

He compared the incident to vegans who invaded farmers’ land and members of militant unions who “stood over” small business owners and employees.

Senior sources in Mr Morrison’s office said there would not be a review of the Prime Minister’s ­security detail, which had “acted very quickly”.

A woman who Mr Morrison ­referred to as Margaret was knocked over during the incident. The CWA said she was “shaken, but she is OK”.

Bill Shorten said the incident was “appalling and disgraceful ­behaviour”. He said any protests approaching violence were “completely unacceptable”.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: