Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Ship of Fools VI – Arctic ‘Global Warming’ Mission Scuppered By Mysterious Hard White Substance

Yet another greenie expedition to the Arctic to raise awareness of ‘global warming’ has been scuppered by unexpected large quantities of ice. This brings to a total of six the number of Ship of Fools expeditions where weather reality has made a mockery of climate theory. According to Maritime Bulletin:

Arctic tours ship MS MALMO with 16 passengers on board got stuck in ice on Sep 3 off Longyearbyen, Svalbard Archipelago, halfway between Norway and North Pole. The ship is on Arctic tour with Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with Climate Change and melting Arctic ice. All 16 Climate Change warriors were evacuated by helicopter in challenging conditions, all are safe. 7 crew remains on board, waiting for Coast Guard ship assistance.

The reporter, Erofey Schkvarkin clearly has a sense of humour. He adds: "Something is very wrong with Arctic ice, instead of melting as ordered by UN/IPCC, it captured the ship with Climate Change Warriors."

Here is the Ship of Fools list of shame

Ship of Fools 1 Australian climate researcher Chris Turkey and a crew of climate alarmists on a mission to demonstrate just how much Antarctic ice has been affected by global warming get stuck in unexpectedly thick ice and have to be rescued by helicopter.

Ship of Fools II Arctic expedition led by veteran explorer David Hempleman-Adams to raise awareness of “permanent irreversible change in the sea ice landscape of the Arctic” caused by global warming is ruined by unexpectedly large quantities of ice.

Ship of Fools III Global warming research study in Canada cancelled because of ice. “It became clear to me very quickly that these weren’t just heavy ice conditions, these were unprecedented ice conditions” claims the lead scientist, blaming it on “climate change fully in action” and calling it “a wake up call for all of us in this country.”

Ship of Fools IV Arctic Mission sailing expedition to North Pole to raise awareness of global warming has to turn back after yachts find their passage blocked by large quantities of unexpected frozen white substance.

Ship of Fools V Scientists, students, filmmakers from University of Rhode Island’s Inner Space Center on a mission to “document climate change effects” in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago have to be rescued after the ship is damaged after grounding on unexpected hard, bluey-white substance floating on the sea.

Do you think someone up there is trying to tell these people something?


Obama-era “Waters of the United States” Orwellian EPA tyranny finally ruled unconstitutional

Private property rights were challenged time and time again during the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration used both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as weapons to steal property from individuals and to convert state land over to the ownership of an all-powerful federal government. Many would argue that this plot was influenced by the United Nation’s (U.N.) Agenda 21, which was sold under the guise of “sustainable development” of natural resources – an idea that Obama sympathized with.

As law and order is restored under the Trump Administration and as state sovereignty is respected again, judges are declaring these land grabbing, Obama-era rules unconstitutional while restoring the private property rights of individuals and returning land back to the states.

Court strikes down Obama’s sweeping land grab as unconstitutional
Under Obama, the EPA adopted the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule to violate state sovereignty. The rule allowed the federal government jurisdiction over all property that is adjacent to any body of water. By the end of the torrid Obama administration, ten states had begun to challenge Obama’s land grab maneuver. U.S. District Judge Lisa Godbey Wood has ruled that Obama arrogantly disregarded the constitutional balance of powers between the states and the federal government.

Wood wrote, “The court finds that both because of its combination with tributaries and the selection of over-broad geographic limits without showing a significant nexus, the adjacent waters definition in the WOTUS rule is unlawful under Justice Kennedy’s Rapanos opinion.”

“Most importantly,” Wood states, “that significant increase in jurisdiction takes land and water falling traditionally under the states’ authority and transfers them to federal authority.”

She adds, “In light of this significant intrusion on traditional state authority, the CWA still contains the policy language of recognizing traditional state power in this area, and Congress has not made any clear or manifest statement to authorize intrusion into that traditional state power since Rapanos.”

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) was excited about the new ruling. “The court ruling is clear affirmation of exactly what we have been saying for the past five years,” AFBF General Counsel Ellen Steen said. “The EPA badly misread Supreme Court precedent. It encroached on the traditional powers of the states and simply ignored basic principles of the Administrative Procedure Act when it issued this unlawful regulation.”

Obama’s WOTUS rule violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that no “private property be taken for public use, with- out just compensation.” Obama’s unconstitutional land grab resulted in the persecution of rural private property owners in multiple states. The WOTUS rule gave the EPA sweeping power to dictate what property owners could do on their own property. Some property owners were attacked by the federal government for simply building ponds, irrigating, or collecting rainwater. Under Obama’s tyranny, landowners were forced to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees and submit to federal permitting just to start a project on their own land.


CNN’s Presidential Climate Change Town Hall Was Insane

And the hysteria is getting dangerous

Put it this way: the most benign climate-change plan proposed during CNN’s seven-hour Democratic Party presidential candidate town hall was more authoritarian than anything Donald Trump has ever suggested during his presidency. Democrats were not merely proposing massive societal upheaval but mass coercion.

CNN says it’s a “crisis,” though, so Democrats were free to offer one insane Nostradamus-like prediction after the next. Not only is every weather event now a manifestation of global warming, but Beto O’Rourke says our communities will soon be “uninhabitable,” and Pete Buttigieg says the challenge of warming is on par with World War II, a conflict that took more than 400,000 American lives and tens of millions of others.

None of this hysteria, as far as I can tell, was challenged during those seven hours.

As Joel Pollak notes, at this point climate change “is primarily experienced as a mass hysteria phenomenon,” a collective illusion of a massive threat. Just listen to audience members earnestly asking questions based on the risible premise that we’re on the brink of extinction. It’s really one of the tragedies of our age that so many anxious young people have been brainwashed into believing they live on the cusp of dystopia when, in fact, they’re in the middle of a golden age — an era with less war, sickness, poverty, and suffering than any in history.

When Joe Biden, the “moderate” front-runner, was asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper if the Green New Deal — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s unifying climate plan that bans all fossil fuels, 99 percent of cars and planes, and meat within the next decade — “goes too far,” or whether it was “unrealistic, promising too much” (“promising,” of course, suggests that GND’s goals are desirable), he answered, “No, no it’s not.”

In fact, the Green New Deal — which also promises to “retrofit” every building in the entire country and provide government-guaranteed jobs, free higher education, and salubrious diets to all Americans — “deserves an enormous amount of credit,” said the front-running candidate of the nation’s serious party.

And though the most effective way to lower carbon emissions — the one that allows us to outpace signees of the vaunted Paris Accord — has been fracking, most Democrats, it seems, now oppose that as well.

Candidate Elizabeth Warren, who’s now adopted Jay Inslee’s plan to force every American to surrender fossil fuel and nuclear energy in 20 years, claims solar panels are the way forward. To put this in perspective, remember that natural gas makes up about 23 percent of our energy consumption while renewables make up about 11 percent. Only 8 percent of that 11 percent is solar energy — much of it both already subsidized and mandated by government.

Americans use about 19.96 million barrels of petroleum products per day. To replace it, we’d have to create millions of unproductive taxpayer-funded jobs, layer every inch of available land with solar panels and windmills, and then pray to Gaia that every day is simultaneously sunny and windy. All for the low cost of $93 trillion.

How? The “norms of democracy” crowd hasn’t yet chimed in on Sen. Kamala Harris’ contention that she would reach across the aisle and demand Republicans pass her plan; and then, if they didn’t, alter the entire U.S. economy via executive action and get rid of the Senate filibuster — which will now be within her power, I guess, since we’re in a crisis.

Then again, when you’re in a crisis, all kinds of ugly things seem reasonable. Take the anti-humanism that’s long been connected to environmentalism.

One town hall audience member asked the bureaucrat Julián Castro if our children should “continue the cycle of family.” Can you imagine being so taken in by a Malthusian panic that you’re seriously pondering whether perpetuating mankind is a good idea?

Abortion, of course, has been a part of environmentalist plans for a long time. When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she “thought that at the time Roe (v. Wade) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” she was right.

It’s no accident that Al Gore argued that we “have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management” in the developing world as a way of controlling population to stop climate change. The Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups have long warned us that too many babies in Africa and Asia will destroy the Earth. “The Population Bomb” is widely accepted by environmentalists, although its chief prophets have long been discredited.

“Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth,” one CNN audience member told Bernie Sanders, who agreed, promising to back more U.S. funding for abortions in the developing world. Sanders believes women in Asia and Africa should abort their babies to save the world while he shuttles between his main house and one of his two dachas.

Sanders opposes the two greatest antidotes to poverty and suffering: affordable energy and capitalism. And others are now following him.

You might not believe Democrats’ efforts are particularly dangerous, since they’re mostly unworkable. But sooner or later, converts to utopianism are going to start demanding that rhetoric, which is always ratcheting up to new apocalyptic heights, align with policy. That’s dangerous.


Analysis finds that Google not only discriminates against conservatives but also anyone who challenges the “climate change” hoax

A new analysis notes that search and tech behemoth Google is not only working to suppress conservative voices and opinions, but also anyone who disputes the Left-wing “climate change” hoax, which is really nothing more than an attack on capitalism.

That’s a problem, writes David Wojick for Capitol Hill Outsider, because Google’s market dominance is such that it essentially qualifies as a “monopoly” on the kind of information the public is allowed to see.

And monopolies, according to U.S. law, are illegal. Here’s some background.

On July 2, 1890, after Congress passed the Sherman AntiTrust Act, President Benjamin Harrison signed it into law, thereby creating the first federal legislation outlawing monopolistic business practices.

Named after Sen. John Sherman of Ohio, a onetime chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and Secretary of the Treasury under President Rutherford B. Hayes, the law was designed to enhance competition among American businesses and corporations and prohibit single firms from completely dominating an industry or economic sector.

“The Sherman Act authorized the Federal Government to institute proceedings against trusts in order to dissolve them,” according to this government website. But because the law loosely defined key terms like “trust,” “conspiracy,” and “monopoly,” it was eventually “dismantled” by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But that wasn’t the end of the law. Presidents and administrations have used it frequently since to bust up real-life monopolies including Standard Oil, the American Tobacco Co., and — as recently as the 1990s — the Microsoft Corp.

Now, argues Wojick, Google — which The Washington Times notes dominates the online ‘search’ function with more than 92 percent of traffic — constitutes a monopoly on information that must be broken up.

He notes that several months ago Google released a white paper titled, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” While that sounds like a noble cause, because the tech giant “is a decidedly Left-wing outfit,” it classifies as “disinformation” conservative views and “things like skepticism of climate alarmism.”

He also says that Google’s search results when it comes to topics or news stories favor “authoritative sources” which the algorithm has been designed to identify as “mainstream” media, “which are almost entirely liberal.”

And since these are the biggest news sites, Google’s algorithm essentially filters out any site that is smaller and not as well-read, regardless of the validity of its content. That means conservative sites who argue against the climate change narrative are screened out intentionally.

As The National Sentinel reported in February 2017, a former U.N. official actually admitted in a private setting that the objective of pushing the ‘climate change’ narrative was to destroy individual liberties and capitalism. But anyone challenging the Left’s version of climate change — that it’s real and it’s going to destroy the planet unless we all give up our modern lives — is suppressed. Wojick notes.

While conducting research in 2018, Wojick documented extreme bias when he searched for “dangerous manmade global warming” information.

“My individual searches on prominent skeptics of alarmist claims revealed that Google’s ‘authoritative source’ was an obscure website called DeSmogBlog, whose claim to fame is posting nasty negative dossiers on skeptics, including me and several colleagues,” he wrote.

While conducting searches, Wojick found three things:

— Google linked to DeSmogBlog’s dossier on the skeptic though the information often was years old or “wildly inaccurate.”

— About half of the results consisted of links to negative attacks, “which should not be surprising, since the liberal press often attacks us as skeptics.”

— Climate skeptics are very often described as being “funded by Big Oil,” whereas funding of climate alarmists by “self-interested government agencies,” renewable energy companies and far-Left climate figures like Tom Steyer were “generally ignored.”



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: