It's the AGW Scammers Who Are the Deniers

To keep the scam running they deny all evidence that contradicts their "theory." How you can prove that it's a scam is laid out below.  

When the proponents of anthropocentric climate change resolutely refuse to look at evidence that undermines their "theory,"  what you are witnessing is the rankest violation of the scientific method (a theory, however respected, becomes a failed hypothesis when contradicted by new evidence.)

It reveals that the proponents of the AGW theory are engaging in a sham at the best, and at worst are running out a monumental scam that, if left unchecked, can't help but lead to misery for uncountable millions of people (a goal that is even embraced by its proponents, so much so that they are indoctrinating our young into believing that such a future is their duty).

By extension, the continuation of this project appears to be leading to the deaths of billions of people by any means necessary. (Here's the latest on that score. Hat tip to Doug Evans by way of Alec Satin It's another example that what we are fighting is nothing less than a neopagan belief system that's quickly become an undeclared Nationally funded religion that runs contrary to the Judeo-Christianity upon which the nation was founded, and is about as fundamentally unconstitutional as any Federal action can get.)

When one couples this with the coincident political behavior of the rest of the Progs — their fomenting, fostering and protecting of cruel Islamic death cults world wide — we see that the Establishment's pattern of behavior is very consistent.

The following is only one example of a denier. While I've seen it many more times than this. this is the first time I've seen it in Congressional hearings (exposing the shamelessness of most other congressmen). Just in case it disappears from Youtube, it's title is "Sen. Cruz Questions Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on Climate Change."

After you hear Mr. Mair repeatedly say “We concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming,” you must know that he is either a man fearful of running afoul of the scammers who fund his organization and pay his salary, or is a scammer himself.

Whichever he is, his position is the exact opposite of scientific. Relying upon a consensus of scientists that is 18 years old to justify new legislation while refusing to look at the new data — some provided even by scientists that comprised that consensus — is nonsense, is not science, and therefore must be driven by other forces not yet wishing to expose themselves.

Indeed, Mr. Mair's broken-record responses to all questions is reminiscent of the testimony by communist sympathizers in the HUAC hearings of the 1950s: "I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate me."

What do Mr. Mair and countless others have to hide? When one peels away at that onion, more and more hideous things are exposed. Over the years I've exposed many of them elsewhere on this blog. Use the labels below to find a few. (I'm not the only one to have done this; but I may be the one who does it most consistently. G-d: I hope I'm wrong.)

Updates with links providing additional cause for concern.

• “Judges Plan to Outlaw Climate Change ‘Denial’ Debunkers” : wherein the scammers feel the need to protect themselves by outlawing any and all who might undermine their schemes. Essentially outlawing the scientific method so it can't be used to expose them. 

• "I dream of a world where the truth is what shapes people's politics, rather than politics shaping what people think is true." — Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) January 24, 2015 : wherein a Sustainability priest preaches his "truth." The rotten irony is that this scientist has purloined the very words of those who actually use the scientific method (the same people the judges above wish to outlaw). This Sus priest-celebrity has the advantage because he has been provided the bigger bully-pulpit. He is paid by the SSM to endlessly repeat his dogma, and his words then are used to indoctrinate new true believers and to bestow a glow of saintliness on the priest. Some merely charge him with colossal failure of self-awareness. In my opinion they in turn fail to see the gain for the priest in preempting his opponents. Many more naive will fall to the confidence men — "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt 7:15) — wherever the defenders of truth are short-sighted or fail to fight back against the schemers with full force.

Counter-Propaganda

I’ve been tweeting variations of this line at each CAGW related story in the hopes that many others begin to repeat its essence.

Marginalize the marginalizers. Rent seekers co-opting science to coerce consensus via expulsion are NOT scientists.

Others will repeat this sort of message until there will be no place you clowns go where your audience has not heard it.

We will pile the ridicule high enough and so that even the most brainless rent seekers among you will look for safer pickings. You will help bring sanity and adults back to proper prominence or you will lose to a Higher authority.

The Soviet/Fascist Way Build-up

Setting up to apply Alinsky Rule Number 12 into a slick Orwellian Two Minute Hate during every hurricane, the Left-wing  "geniuses" at ClimateNameChange dot org are threatening all those who speak the truth: "fall in line with us fraudsters or suffer this."



Never forget that a favorite quote by more than one Prog organ is the infamous “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism” of the Depression Era demagogue, Huey Long.

I haven't tried to discover who is funding these apparatchiks, but I doubt I'll be surprised. I also bet they had no problem getting a 501 (c) 3 designation from the Obama IRS either.

Pass it on so that more people become familiar with the tactic. Hat tip to JWF.

Atlas Mugged

I finally went to see Atlas Shrugged Part 1 yesterday. It was not any better than I imagined it could be. Ayn Rand built into her story physical limitations and ideological failings that I've mentioned before but which are not the reason I am writing this.

The movie does not deserve the bad press it has gotten. For one, at least two of the no-name actors are enjoyable to see. Why some critics would lambaste it for using unknowns positively stinks of elitism.

For another, it is so laughable that some critics gave it 0 stars. I'm not the first to point out that one of the villains in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead was a critic (I think his name was Toohey). After yesterday's lambasting of Mr. Obama for being petty, I should point out that his level of petty vindictiveness pales in comparison to that of the critics of this film. How could anyone take Roger Ebert's opinon seriously ever again? Certainly not after realizing how he must be carrying an obvious vendetta towards a 2011 film for a book published more than 3-score years ago.

But let's look passed the clownishness of hyper-critics. More importantly, there is an ideologically damaging scene in this film for which the majority of NAILer outlet critics are paid to dissuade the public from ever seeing and comprehending its implications. (Just as Toohey was paid to destroy architects who built contrary to the wishes of the newspaperman that paid the critic's salary).

There is the scene where the industrialist goes to visit the director of the State Science Institute. It reveals to the viewing public, in a manner that mere words don't display, How Scientists On the Public Dole Are Pressured Into Standing Behind Fraudulent Studies.

Just for that scene alone, the NAILer critics panned this movie.

So, in complimentary fashion, just for that scene alone, pick one acquaintance who you believe is wavering about the global warming scam. Take them with you to see this movie.

In short, if you love the global warming scam, you want nobody to see this movie.

Too Late?

Why do I bother? Better known blogs and talk show hosts are beginning to speak as yours truly. But what of it?

Tonight, Wretchard writes in Downstream of Green,

Although “environmentalists” are often happy to see oil prices rise because it prices “carbon” out of the reach of consumers, its greatest effect on the Third World has been to raise food prices. The unrest in the Middle East are directly the result of unaffordable food.

But that’s OK. The Voluntary Human Extinction Project believes  “the biosphere of the planet Earth would be better off without humans. In VHEMT’s view, the human race is akin to an “exotic invader”, whose population is out of control and threatens other species with extinction, and only removal of the human race can restore the natural ecological order.”

And if there’s trouble in the Middle East, why just get America to bombing the living s**t out of the unrestful natives with B-2 bombers and the sophisticates can thereafter take the lead. Where extinction is concerned, why not just get the natives and the bitter clingers to kill each other. Extinction can wait a little, put off till the next glorious sunset.

Whether or not the Sustainability worshipers have wrenched control, they sure seem to have triggered helter skelter world wide.

Where are the optimistic adults? Are they too late?

I really like Wretchard, and supported him with cash early on. So I asked: "how come I could not get your discussion going on this several years before it came to this Wretchard? You’ve crossed its path many times, but I do not recall you calling out on their agenda the various architects like the VHEMT you cited today, and The Church of Euthanasia or the Georgia Guidestones, or the political leadership who never uttered a harsh word towards any of these."

And then there's another latecomer finally acknowledging the influence of Malthus and the Neo-Malthusians of the 1960s on public policy makers: William McGurn, Vice President of News Corporation (parent to Fox News Channel to the unknowing), writing in this month’s Imprimis newsletter (hat tip to the Dennis Prager Show).  But could you tell by his title? The Not So Dismal Science: Humanitarians v. Economists. [Beware -- The Hillsdale folks did not provide a permalink, so copy it if you want to keep it for reference.]

I guess he’s decided it’s now “timely” to relate to us the overly pessimistic influence of the Neo-Malthusians such as Ehrlich and McNamara.

Why is this so late, and written so obscurely? Are we to assume that the Establishment Right also harbors this death wish? Does the sun rise in the East?

Poorer people will be starved to death, or murdered for what little they have, as fuel prices soar, food is converted to fuel, and dollars get printed to keep pace.

Our “Intelligentsia” has a confrontational date with the Almighty, and I think they believe they’ll win. Theirs is the ultimate crime against humanity. DAMNED SKUNCs to my loyal readers.

Oh, for those who don’t know, as Mr. McGurn is now doing, I’ve long questioned the humanitarianism of the “humanitarians.” See up there, under my masthead?

If our "leaders" are so humanitarian, how is it that we never hear them direct a harsh word at the Malthusian, Utilitarian and Green nutcases?

Too Many Links Are Too Taxing On Moderators

I'm guessing that the following post was held up due to security issues that are necessary for operating any large site (and perhaps even smaller ones).

What I may do in future is that any comment like this one that has more than two links I will post to this site and then link this site's post at PJMedia.

As I have no idea when the post with its links intact might appear at BC, and as it joins several critical posts together in response to another contributor's comment,that is the reason for this post.

53. Pascal (the derivative):
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Jason, Postmodernism already has its “science.” It goes by the name of “Post-Normal” Science, which Wretchard headlined twice, here and here, along with his extensive additional commentary (unusual for him) placed in with the comments.

Essentially, Post-Normal science reveals only what its members believe need to be revealed, what the public is ready to hear. So it one may not find it unusual that its leading proponent, Mike Hulme of the U of East Anglia, and the publisher of the Post-Normal Times: Putting Science Into Context (apparently now in hiatus) was one of the first to offer excuses for what was revealed by the emails, in the WSJ December 2 — where he admitted that his emails were among the ones purloined.

Interesting times.

Dec 6, 2009 - 11:41 pm

Ingenuity by Common Humans: Discounted by Our Demigods

Late today I encountered a frank new commenter at Belmont Club. It was on Wretchard's latest exploration of the AGW fraudulence.

Here is the comment "Bear" posted:

We should all be aware of who wants to pick the winners and losers.

Civilization as we know it is confronted with serious issues. It just so happens some think they can determine the outcome. These are not ignorant people, and carbon is a vehicle to the solution in their eyes. The problem is that they equate survival as a species with a socialist (we all know where that ends) state.
relentless growth is unsustainable.

Climate change propanganda is the vehicle to get there, since stating the obvious issues would generate even more populist resistance.

The myth that technology can solve everything is patently false.

this will end badly.

Bear, I’ve been battling with this concept a very long time. Few are willing to state it as you have.

There is redundancy in your assertion “The myth that technology can solve everything is patently false.” It sounds like you want to believe your line so much that you had to call technological solutions both a myth and patently false.

Dare you battle with me over it?

He responded:

The Useful Idiots Who Blindly Assist Achieving Hell On Earth

"For we can make the dead live whether they wish it or not....They cannot refuse the little present." -- C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength.

Lewis gave us a glimpse of hell on earth with that one line. I'd forgotten that that was how it struck me when I first read it. I don't recall if I'd ever told you.

Thus began a comment I left for Fran Porretto in particular response to his using that line from Lewis's great novel in today's Sunday Ruminations: Assorted. Fran had many years ago penned an important series (spurred on by some thoughts I had shared with him) titled: The Convergence of the Death Cults

I continued...

A pity too. Your series on the death cults would have been more compelling had you explored this implication. The lust of some to supplant God is aided by those like your young colleague who remain ignorant of the horrors such hubris is promising to visit upon him. [End comment as it appeared at Eternity Road]

For those who don't know, there was a key character in that novel who very much resembles Fran's young colleague. Sadly, there are quite a few like him abounding today. But it need not remain so. Speak up and loudly my friends.

I don't know how many of my readers or Fran's readers agree with our concerns in this matter. But if you do, I recommend that you not remain silent about such strivings. And don't be foolish enough to be silenced by those who'd glibly fit you for a tinfoil hat. Here's a quip by a late revered spokesman for the Left who bragged about what we can expect from the anti-humanists who hide amongst the research granters:

The more a man can achieve, the more he may be certain that the devil will inhabit a part of his creation. -- Norman Mailer

Courage:
It will not be easy to fight the forces who are actively seeking such "progress." If you think you lack the courage to take on this fight, I am willing to bet that both Fran and I have good suggestions about how you could build some. I doubt I need to say more as to why you'll need it.

What's This Noise About Global Cooling?

"Science is at war with global warming. Science has always been at war with global warming. Global cooling is our friend." </straight-faced sarcasm>
[supporters whoop and woot in the background]

A Keystone for Postmodernism: "Post-Normal" Science

Last week Wretchard posted "Post-Normal" Science As Proof of Global Warming.

In it he let an insider (Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research) reveal in his own words the nature of that "science."

Wretchard does a nice turn on this there (and in a subsequent post).

Still, let me try to summarize why "post normal" science exists:

"Because our goals are so very important, mere facts cannot be allowed to get in our way. We must fund the right scientists only. We must get the science we pay for."

Where one finds true believers and radicals, one could logically expect some who are decidedly ruthless:

"All others must be ignored, barred, discredited and even ..., well let's not state that last part outright."

Go there and to see that I am well stating my summary. Yes my second quote is my own interpretation of course. But given the threats sent to dissidents, is it not wise to be cautious?

I've not written at length about Postmodernism yet. I've tended to refer to it here and there at my main site Pascal Fervor and in comments I've left at other sites like the Belmont Club. However, I have written long ago about casuists and sophists, and how the latter know how to make use of the former. Surely the power hungerers who exploit sophistry shamelessly have little qualms about misleading well-meaning people who time and again trip over into casuistry.


Please look into this. It quickly becomes clear to those who research Postmodernism (and I'm not talking about the architectural mode) that postmodernists takes a dim view of humanity as a whole. In short, their primary concern is global "sustainability." And that makes reducing the number of people on the face of the Earth, by hook or by crook, their chief agenda. Naturally, they are always welcoming volunteers; but they are not beyond seeing to it that more deliberate means are employed.

Misleading the wealthier humans on the earth into self-destruction has well begun: witness the huge decline in populations in the advanced world.

Making sure that the developing world — doesn't — continues. Groaning but doing nothing whilst the Mugabe's of the world do their worst is about as emblematic as it gets. Supporting violent Islam is their latest wrinkle: all the talk about making life better for little people everywhere is somehow gone and replaced with "let the local culture decide." See? Mugabe many times over.

And the Global Warming "Crisis?" To me and many like me it is the new excuse to foist command economy on the world. For those who don't know, that is what the old Soviet Union was aiming for. It is what the PRC still has but with adaptations to please a world market — eager for the products of its slave labor — to help sustain it.

Yes, the new face of World Dominion is simply a mask with Karl Marx behind it. And, in turn, Marxism always had the misanthropic Malthusian worshippers hiding behind it. This last group is ever so proud of the pile of corpses that Marxian ideology "produced" worldwide.

Anyway, nowadays haters of humanity live under the tent labeled "Postmodernist."

Whether you are conservative, classically liberal, libertarian, or even a modern liberal who has been made skeptical and wary by the unsavory behavior of Leftists, and you wish to survive in a personal sense, then it will serve you well to learn what postmodernists wish for you.

And now — as never before — you have "Post-Normal" Science as the verifiable proof of their hubris.