Create a scare or panic, then profit from it before the sheep and under educated figure it out.
This fraud has both the climate scam and the leader of fake and biased news, the NY Times in it. When I had to work with New Yorker’s at IBM, they worshiped the Times both for what it said and how we treated it in the land of public relations. My co-worker Tom Belz would quote anti-Bush stuff as well as global warming panic from this bible. I’d laugh it off by telling him it was from the NYT and everyone knew they were lying. The anti-Bush (or anti-truth) rhetoric stopped with the revelation that he graduated both from Harvard and Yale. They couldn’t understand that one of their own wasn’t (then) part of the left cabal.
Then, I had to deal with the zealots like Greenmonk and Internet Trolls like Tim O’Reilly who were sure that then named global warming was the greatest problem in the world and that tides were rising.
A little history provides the facts I knew back then. It was all a lie. While the facts are now it place, I knew they couldn’t predict the weather next week, let alone decades from now.
Many of those beaches are along the East Coast. However, back in 1995, the New York Times ran a story with “experts” genuinely concerned those beaches would be gone in 25 years.
The article covered the assessment conducted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
According to draft sections of the new forecast, some of the predicted effects of climate change may now be emerging for the first time or with increasing clarity. The possible early effects include these:
*A continuing rise in average global sea level, which is likely to amount to more than a foot and a half by the year 2100. This, say the scientists, would inundate parts of many heavily populated river deltas and the cities on them, making them uninhabitable, and would destroy many beaches around the world. At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years. They are already disappearing at an average of 2 to 3 feet a year.
Yet, somehow, East Coast beaches remain. Sadly, marine mammals are routinely washing up along the coastal shores, and one of the concerns is that their deaths can be attributed to climate change “solutions.
(Plymouth Rock, the same tide level as 1620)
In addition to these dire predictions being entirely wrong, chasing after solutions to nonexistent problems is turning out to be expensive: Trillion dollars.
No one said that combating climate change would be cheap. Still, a report released during the COP27 climate talks made for a sobering reminder. The report, commissioned by Britain and Egypt as the past and current hosts of the UN summit, said that developing countries alone need a combined $1trn a year in external funding to meet the goals set out in their Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs (the climate action plan set out in the Paris Agreement).
This funding, in addition to the countries’ own expenditure, is needed for things like cutting emissions, dealing with deadly disasters and restoring nature. In one encouraging development, it was reported on November 11th that America and Japan would provide Indonesia with at least $15bn to help retire some coal-fired power stations early.
Time, talent, and treasure is squandered on bad policy built on “narrative science.”
Meanwhile, some recent studies shed light that on the Earth’s past that show the climate has long been in flux.
Researchers from Aarhus University, in collaboration with Stockholm University and the United States Geological Survey, recently published a report on their findings related to samples from the previously inaccessible region north of Greenland. Their findings indicated Arctic sea ice in this region melted away during summer months around 10,000 years ago.
The researchers have used data from the Early Holocene period to predict when the sea ice will melt today. During this time period, summer temperatures in the Arctic were higher than today. Although this was caused by natural climate variability opposed to the human-induced warming, it still is a natural laboratory for studying the fate of this region in the immediate future.
And while the authors argue their study confirms the need to be climate extremists, I assert that their data show man’s impact on the global climate isn’t panic-worthy. In fact, humanity would do better to focus efforts and resources on dealing with local pollution problems and perhaps exploring nuclear energy options.
The experience with Covid should have taught us not to trust global “experts” who offer simple solutions to complex issues. This should be doubly true with the “climate crisis,” especially as the long-term projections made nearly 30 years ago have proven to be wrong.
The good news: The East Coast beaches are still here. The bad news: So is the climate hysteria.
As you listen to this, it’s amazing how they talk in one voice, as if that makes it more right or actually correct. It’s as if they were coerced to say the narrative that they told about Covid and the Vaccine. It was this pattern recognition that tipped me off to the farce that was the jab.
You can read the body language of Bill Gates and tell that he is lying. The news reporters are just puppets reading whatever they are told to. The hags of The View try to shame people. You can see Evil speaking in Klaus Schwab (and Gates). I sounds like they are the Devil’s spawn as they talk.
It’s all too clear when they protested that people “don’t do your own research”. It’s what the Russians were told before communism, the Nazi’s were told before Hitler. They tried to shut people down from being safe. It was the only thing that kept some of us from making bad decisions. It’s how I learned what a farce the whole Covid story was.
There was enough group think going on here to know that they lied. Judge for yourself. YMMV
As I read about California trying to buy votes with reparations, it occurs to me that California can’t afford it nor were they in the slavery issue to begin with. It’s about being woke. No one mentions that the first slave owner in America was black, or that South America was by far a worse offender of slavery than the United States by millions of people. They let it go on longer and didn’t fight a civil war on behalf of stopping it.
It’s never mentioned that slavery still exists in North Africa today or that the people who sold the slaves were blacks to begin with.
A generation of Americans are being raised on half-truths and lies about the history of slavery in America.
They are given the impression that America was uniquely bad and that American slavery was uniquely bad. They learn nothing about slavery elsewhere. Among the many lies they are told are that “black slaves built America” and that America is systemically racist.
Since the only mortal enemy of the Left is truth, here are some truths about slavery.
America’s Slavery Compared to Slavery Elsewhere
If you are interested in morality and committed to truth, you do not ask, “Who had slaves?” You ask, “Who ended slavery?”
Who had slaves?
Every civilization throughout history had slaves: Asian societies, Africans, Native Americans, and other Indigenous peoples around the world, and the Muslim/Arab world, which may have had the most slaves of all.
Who ended slavery?
There was only one thing unique about slavery in the West: It raised the issue of the morality of slavery, ferociously debated it, and finally abolished it there, before it was abolished in any other civilization.
If you care about moral truth rather than, for example, promoting America-hatred, you must recognize—and you must teach—that America was one of the first slave-holding societies to abolish slavery. This even includes Africa.
Cornell professor Sandra Greene, a black scholar of African history, notes, “Slavery in the United States ended in 1865, but in West Africa it was not legally ended until 1875, and then it stretched on unofficially until almost World War I.”
The numbers of slaves.
According to the authoritative SlaveVoyages.org, the total number of black slaves imported from Africa into America was 305,326. The number of black slaves other countries imported from Africa into the rest of the New World—i.e., into the Caribbean and South America—was 12,521,337.
In other words, other countries imported 41 times the number of black slaves into the Western Hemisphere than the United States did, including the years before American independence).
Yet, the American Left never mentions this important moral point—because the Left-controlled education system suppresses facts it finds inconvenient, and the Left is not interested in morality or truth, but in vilifying America.
And then there is Arab/Muslim enslavement of blacks. Professor Paul Lovejoy, in his “Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa” (Cambridge University Press, 2012), reveals that from the beginning of Islam in the seventh century through the year 1600, the estimated number of Africans enslaved by Muslims was about 7 million. After 1600, it was about a million per year.
Do American students ever learn about the Arab/Muslim slave trade? How many know, for example, that a great percentage of the African male slaves were castrated so that they could not have families?
‘Black Slaves Built America’
This is another lie of the Left.
Those who make this argument point to the lucrative cotton manufacturing and trade in the 19th century—the industry in which black slaves were primarily used in the American South.
But University of Illinois professor of economics Deirdre McCloskey answered this:
Growing cotton, unlike sugar or rice, never required slavery. By 1870, freedmen and whites produced as much cotton as the South produced in the slave time of 1860. Cotton was not a slave crop in India or in southwest China, where it was grown in bulk … That slaves produced cotton does not imply that they were essential or causal in the production …
The United States and the United Kingdom and the rest would have become just as rich without the 250 years of unrequited toil. They have remained rich, observe, even after the peculiar institution was abolished, because their riches did not depend on its sinfulness.
But one need not know anything about cotton to understand how false “Black slaves built America” is. All you need is common sense.
First, even if slavery accounted for much of the wealth of the South, the Civil War that brought slavery to an end in the United States wiped out nearly all of that wealth and cost the Union billions (in today’s dollars).
Second, if slavery built the American economy, the most robust economy in world history, why didn’t Brazil become an economic superpower? Brazil imported 4 million black slaves, about 12 times as many as America. Why did the slave-owning American South lag so far behind the North economically?
Why did England, which, though it played a major role in the transatlantic slave trade until the beginning of the 19th century, had almost no slaves, become the most advanced economy of the 19th century?
“Black slaves built America” is left-wing propaganda to vilify America and to discredit capitalism.
“America is systemically racist.”
This is the Great Left Lie.
Four million black people have emigrated to the United States since the 1960s—and tens of millions more would if they could. Are they all fools? Why would anyone move to a country that is systemically bigoted against them? Did any Jews emigrate to Germany in the 1930s?
Blacks have emigrated to the United States because they know what Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the black woman who fled her homeland of Somalia and who now writes and lectures in America, knows:
What the media do not tell you is that America is the best place on the planet to be black, female, gay, trans, or what have you.
Blacks emigrating to America know what Algerian writer Kamel Daoud, writing in Le Monde and Le Point, knows:
It is forbidden to say that the West is also the place to which we flee when we want to escape the injustice of our country of origin, dictatorship, war, hunger, or simply boredom. It is fashionable to say that the West is guilty of everything.
As regards American slavery and everything else, always remember this: Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value. It is not a left-wing value.
Maybe I should include the Bilderburg’s, because they are just a subset of this crowd. It’s been the same throughout history. Power hungry people trying to take over the world and tell the rest what to do.
As Alicia Powe previously reported – Key leadership from companies like Microsoft, ChatGPT, and Google are convening with prime ministers, royalty, bank governors, army generals, and top US officials at the 2023 Bilderberg Meeting in Lisbon, Portugal to strategize about global affairs.
At the end of the day, they want communism for everyone, with them in charge of the state. Things haven’t changed. There is your pattern. People are evil and want power, control and money. They’ll walk all over anyone who gets in their way, unless we stop them.
From Vlad Tepes.
WHO head, Tedros explains that the only answer to Covid and other health issues is communism. He doesn’t call it that. but that’s what it is.
WHO Director Tedros Calls for Global Pandemic Accord “The end of COVID-19 as a global health emergency is not just the end of a bad dream from which we have woken. We cannot simply carry on as we did before … Chief among those lessons is that we can only face shared threats with… pic.twitter.com/x3HLYI6ibh
Alissa Heinerscheid, Bud Light’s head of marketing, said in March that “I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light. It was, this brand is in decline, it’s been in decline for a really long time, and if we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand, there will be no future for Bud Light.”
Bud Light sales dropped by about 28% in May when compared to sales figures from last year following controversy over the company’s partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. The Journal reported that the company recently informed wholesalers that it would buy back unsold cases of beer that have passed their expiration dates.
The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy group, has downgraded Anheuser-Busch’s equality score for the company’s handling of the backlash from a Bud Light promotion last month that featured transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney as a new spokesperson, USA Today reported on Monday.
A wave of conservative backlash harshly criticized the company for working with Mulvaney, with calls for a boycott appearing to be the reason for a drop in the sales of Bud Light, Business Insider reported.
HRC’s senior vice president of programs, research, and training Jay Brown said the group decided to revoke Anheuser-Busch’s equality score after several attempts over the last month to contact the company’s executive team went unanswered.
The group said it had asked the company to release a statement backing Mulvaney and transgender customers, shareholders, and employees.
Anheuser-Busch had previously held a perfect score and was designated a “Best Place to Work for LGBTQ+ Equality,” which meant the company took “concrete steps to establish and implement comprehensive policies, benefits, and practices that ensure greater equity for LGBTQ+ workers and their families,” according to HRC’s website.
“We don’t make this decision lightly,” Brown said. He emphasized that demonstrating backing for the LGBTQ+ community is particularly important in the current atmosphere, with numerous anti-LGBTQ bills under discussion in legislatures across the nation.
If it bleeds, it reads. That used to be the excuse for lying. Now, it’s just the ministry of propaganda, if anyone remembers the 30’s in Germany, or 1984 also.
The media has abandoned even the cover of pretending to be fair and unbiased. They just parrot the (deep) state talking points. They are in lockstep. Even Fox has gone state sponsored. Lachlan Murdoch and his liberal wife just pulled Foxweiser with the firing of Tucker Carlson. I lost trust in them around the 2016 election anyway, not that I trusted them to begin with.
Meathead, a relative of my asked why I didn’t watch the news to find out what happened. I said it’s because you’ll never find out by listening to the news.
Judge for yourself, but don’t be a sheep. They told people that if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. If you liked your (insurance) plan, you could keep your plan. The Covid jab was safe and effective. January 6th was an insurrection.
Even an idiot could find a pattern here, excepting meathead.
It finally came out. AB is truly woke. Their main customer base for decades is men, the beer drinkers. I don’t know the white/black breakdown other than 13% of the population is black, so I’m guessing more white beer drinking men.
Anheuser-Busch, the parent company of Bud Light, has pledged to purge its white, male employees in an effort to have a “more diverse and inclusive environment,” according to footage found on the company’s website. The company has seen its sales collapse since the disastrous Dylan Mulvaney advertisement campaign which wiped billions off the firm’s value, and chased millions of customers away.
In the video, one employee of Anheuser-Busch explains, “we’re still 40 percent women, and 60 percent men, still predominantly white: so there’s still work to be done.” The “work” to be “done” is apparently replacing white male workers with alternatives.
In doing this, another employee says, “I feel like I finally found my voice as a black woman, and I’m not prepared to lose it.”
Discussing the #CheerstoDiversityAndInclusion campaign, Anheuser-Busch’s European Diversity and Inclusion Manager, Lara Laila Gärber explains, “at AB InBev, what we wanted to do is ensure that diversity and inclusion is fully integrated in our business strategy.”
Anheuser-Busch has lost billions of dollars as a result of its decision to embrace diversity by partnering with Dylan Mulvaney for the now infamous ad campaign. The stock has also since been downgraded by HSBC.
Back to me.
As a person sitting in the grandstands watching the shit show, I’d say they were cutting their own throats. Not everything is for everybody every time. Different people like different things. Why you don’t promote your customers instead of demeaning them for the sake of woke and pleasing Blackrock ESG for your proper CEI scoring (how woke you are for DEI, CRT, etc.).
Bud Light sales began dropping in the first week of April and kept falling for weeks. The boycott has hurt other Anheuser-Busch beers, too, including Budweiser, Michelob Ultra and Busch Light. Sales volumes for rivals Coors Light and Miller Lite in the first week of May were up about 16% and 17%, respectively, according to Bump Williams.
Sure, it’s easy to say go woke, go broke, but this would be in textbooks in colossal marketing mistakes, except the colleges are just as woke. They’ll provide cover for this unless someone wants to actually teach success.
No spin in the world is going to be able to hide the sales numbers. They thought it would blow over, but they underestimated how sick the normal person in America is getting from having this woke crap shoved down our throats by the coastal elites.
Keep hiring those Harvard grads to lower your sales even more. I’d be hiring a bunch of male toxicity employees who actually understood the product and the customer. I bet Don Draper would do better in his sleep than this.
Bias is bias, discrimination is discrimination. Disparaging someone for the color of their skin, any color is racist. It’s sexist to judge against another sex. Funny how they promote dozens of genders, but discriminate against males. They are doing what they blame others for, the heights of hypocrisy.
I had a relative move there in the early 2010’s. The theme was keep Portland weird (look out Austin who has adopted that phrase) and I knew it was going down the toilet right then. I saw the beginnings of anarchy, homeless people defecating on the street and mentally unstable people yelling at us as we walked to the foodie places. Everything was so hip, but the crumbling of the infrastructure was there at night in the tent cities. They thought they were the elite and upper crust because they were against what was morally right.
Drugs were made legal and the flush began to swirl faster.
Ted Wheeler, the mayor who let it self destruct did nothing to save it. He embraced everything liberal and now you see what is happening.
Little did I know how far down the sewer it would go. After occupy, antifa, homelessness, drugs, crime, shoplifting and control by the left who wouldn’t uphold the law, it is a shithole like San Fransisco now.
They want to refund the police, but it’s too far gone. The city is so indoctrinated in what they feel it should be rather than right vs wrong that it would take burning it down and starting over.
Half of the state has voted to join Idaho. Even they want to get away from Portland.
Back in 2020 when Democratic-run cities decided it would be a good idea to give in to angry mobs of protestors and defund local police and other authoritative agencies, no city’s voice seemed louder than that of Portland. The city’s leaders cut police funding by $15 million leaving the city largely in the hands of the angry, violent mobs that had forced the move.
Now, 3 years later with the city sinking under skyrocketing crime rates, a shrinking tax base, and shuttered businesses, Portland seems to have finally realized that it needs police, but replacing the force it all but threw away is proving to be an uphill battle. The city is struggling to attract new officers, DAs, and investigators given its leaders’ recent history of turning their backs on law enforcement. Potential replacements know better than to go where they’re not wanted.
The lack of candidates for its underfunded and under-appreciated police force and court system is making it difficult for a newly launched task force to fulfill its purpose and crack down on retail and vehicle theft in what now appears to be a lawless city.
Crime rates have risen so drastically since 2020, that Portland residents are now 3 times more likely to be the victim of a property crime than the average U.S. citizen, according to data from Neighborhood Scout. Portland had 63,000 property thefts in 2022 along with roughly 11,000 stolen vehicles – a new record for the city that doesn’t need police.
Now, residents who have the means to do so are fleeing the city and taking their businesses with them. Public data has shown that since the pandemic, more than 2,600 businesses left downtown Portland and filed for changes of address with USPS.
Not only has the city been left trying to replace the $15 million it cut from its budget for police and the officers themselves, but now Portland is having to find a way to reinstate its police force with limited funding as its tax base continues to shrink as more residents pack up and leave.
Meanwhile, according to a report by Zerohedge, most of the remaining local police officers have been doing everything they can to get off the force. Officers have not only been quitting at an alarmingly fast pace but there has also been a substantial uptick in early retirements and transfer requests to other municipalities.
To complicate matters further, the police who have survived the past 3 years have become discouraged by liberal prosecutors who never take cases to court, instead opting to return criminals to the streets.
Meanwhile, it is unlikely that defunding the police, which was done wholeheartedly and briskly, can be undone as quickly and thoroughly. It is far easier to cut $15 million than it is to raise it – a lesson the Portland City Council and the city’s residents have had to learn the hard way.
It’s a tough time to be a Portland resident, but a great time to be a criminal. As for the city’s police force, it will take years, possibly decades, to rebuild what the City Council destroyed in a matter of months.
For all the carping they do about being discriminated against, how come they haven’t hit the roof on all the erasing women lately? As I point out through the evidence below, feminists don’t care about women. They care about promoting themselves and/or getting money. They’ll wear pink pussy caps if they can hate someone like a politician, but won’t fight for the actual cause.
They are quiet while companies erase them or push them aside for men, pretending to be women. I don’t care what they want to be called, they still need a prostate exam and will never have ovaries or Fallopian tubes. They are straight men.
Next and possibly one of the worst is the latest SI swimsuit cover. There is a man who took thousands if not hundreds of thousands from actual females when they put him on the cover. The link will take you to him in a woman’s bathing suit. I don’t want to have to look at it. The Swimsuit edition used to be about gorgeous females. It provided teenagers with endless one handed page turning.
The stories we bring to you this month focus on the status of women who live under Islamic Law (sharia). The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are among the world’s regimes under which some of the most horrific human rights abuses against women occur. Islamic Law consigns women to a second-class status under which the rights of men are accorded a superior status. Such unequal treatment derives from the Qur’an, which allows Muslim males to marry up to four women in addition to those “that your right hands possess” (i.e., sex slaves, Q 4:3) and to grant male children inheritance “equal to that of two females” (Q 4:11). In Surah 4:34, the Qur’an tells Muslim men that if they “fear disloyalty and ill conduct” from their wives, they should admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and “beat them”. Muslim men are told in Q: 2:223 that “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how you will” (no such thing as marital rape under sharia). [Editor’s Note — ‘tilth’ is cultivated land ready to seed.]
Regarding the requirement that women must cover their hair and wear concealing clothing, this derives directly from Surahs 28:31 and 33:59, which connect covering up with not being “molested” (i.e., raped, by Muslim men). In this spirit, the IRI is cracking down on women and girls who have been in the forefront of the uprising against the Tehran regime since the September 2022 murder by the so-called “morality police” of the young Kurdish woman, Mahsa Amini, for supposedly allowing some hair to show under her hijab.
Just to prove they don’t care, a man with full dick and balls is masquerading as a sorority sister and getting a boner while ogling the girls. He’s not trans. He’s an Animal House or Revenge of the Nerds pervert who is scamming the system to ogle girls because he is a loser who couldn’t get one the real way.
The lawsuit also alleges that ‘Mr. Smith has, while watching members enter the sorority house, had an erection visible through his leggings.’
‘It’s a weird gut wrenching feeling that every time I leave my room I’ll walk past him in the hall in whatever setting that may be.’
Seven members of the University of Wyoming Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority are suing after the chapter admitted a 21-year-old biological male who identifies as female.
The lawsuit notes that the individual, who goes by the name Artemis Langford (referred to in the lawsuit as Terry Smith), is 6’2” and 260 pounds, often sits in the women’s common area on the second floor and watches them for several hours without saying a word.
The group of women filed the complaint against Langford himself, as well as Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity base in Ohio, the organization president, and Kappa Kappa Gamma Building Co. in Wyoming.
Langford does not live at the house but often visits it and watches the women, according to the suit. However, he is currently set to move into the house in September.
The complaint details an incident in which “One sorority member walked down the hall to take a shower, wearing only a towel,” and “She felt an unsettling presence, turned, and saw Mr. Smith watching her silently.”
The lawsuit also alleges that “Mr. Smith has, while watching members enter the sorority house, had an erection visible through his leggings.” Langford reportedly makes no attempts to appear feminine but simply identifies using “she/her” pronouns.
On May 15, the women made an appearance on the Megyn Kelly show to talk about the issue. One of the women, named Jaylyn, said that “It’s a weird, gut-wrenching feeling that every time I leave my room, I’ll walk past him in the hall in whatever setting that may be. And it’s never a pleasant encounter and that’s the scary part. This just goes to show that we need women’s spaces for that reason. Our house is our home.”
The women also said that several members have already left the sorority.
Langford’s personal Instagram page features only five posts—four of which are photos of women’s feet. Some of the accompanying captions read: “This young girl has perfect feet” and “I’ve always had a mild foot fetish.”
Campus Reformreported in October when Langford was first admitted to the sorority—making it the first at the university to induct a transgender person.
Campus Reform made its best attempts to contact the relevant parties for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.
The study to which I refer is not new. It is new to me, though, so I feel utterly free to share my thoughts because the study confirms what anybody who has spent time around condescending liberals instinctively knows.
The Yale writeup of the study is a perfect example of how clueless liberals are, and how blind to reason academics are so often.
New research suggests that bias may also shape daily interactions between racial minorities and white people, even those whites who tend to be less biased.
According to new research by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale SOM, white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges. The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Notice how the discussion begins? They claim to be studying Whites who are LESS BIASED. The assumption is that White liberals are not biased against Black people, while their research shows exactly the opposite as we shall see. The researchers are liberal, know that liberals are good, and therefore liberals are not the biased ones. Conservatives, who behave the same with both Whites and minorities, are the genuinely biased ones.
Liberal=good. It is a law of nature.
So how do liberals behave, these truly good and unbiased people?
The team found that The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes. There was no difference in Democrats’ or Republicans’ usage of words related to warmth. “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”
In other words, Democrats talk down to Black and Hispanic people, while Republicans do not.
Republicans treat their audiences of whatever race the same, and with the same basic respect for their intelligence and ability to reason.
Hmmm. Who is “less biased?”
What about in work settings? Perhaps liberal politicians treat minorities as if they were children, but the average liberal treats their Black colleagues just the same as their White colleagues?
Nope, they too assume that Blacks are stupid.
The researchers found that No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
Hmm. Patronizing? Why would anybody assume that treating people as if they are stupid and incompetent is patronizing?
Dupree and Fiske suspect that the behavior stems from a liberal person’s desire to connect with other races. One possible reason for the “competence downshift,” as the authors describe it, is that, regardless of race, people tend to downplay their competence when they want to appear likeable and friendly. But it’s also possible that “this is happening because people are using common stereotypes in an effort to get along,” Dupree says.
Initial data from follow-up studies suggest that describing a black person as highly intelligent, thus reversing the stereotype, or as already highly motivated to get along with whites, thus removing the need to prove goodwill, can reduce the likelihood that a white person will downplay their competence in their interactions with the black person.
Do you see what they are doing here? Liberals treat minorities as if they are clumsy children because they want to be liked. They are just super nice people, that’s all.
Conservatives, those meanies, treat everybody the same, proving that they hate minorities and are a bunch of White supremacists. If they were truly good people they would treat Black people like children, as liberals do. Or something.
Despite all the evidence that White liberals are racist–they assume that Blacks cannot understand complicated things and that Blacks are incompetent–the researchers actually characterize the White liberals as “allies” to minorities.
While many previous studies have examined how people who hold racial bias behave in multi-racial settings, few have studied how whites who are more well-intentioned interact with people of other races. “There’s less work that explores how well-intentioned whites try to get along with racial minorities,” Dupree says. “We wanted to know their strategies for increasing connections between members of different social groups—and how effective these strategies are.”
Conservatives are the ones who aren’t well-intentioned. We know this because they treat minorities like they treat everybody else. We know liberals are well-intentioned because they treat Blacks and Hispanics like little children.
Yeah, you go with that.
There is, of course, an alternative explanation for why White liberals behave as if they look down on minorities as inferior: it may be because they look down on minorities because they believe them to be inferior.
Ever consider that? Isn’t that the assumption in every affirmative action program? In every attempt to eliminate testing requirements? In fact, in every DEI initiative is an assumption that minorities are incapable of achieving success on their own.
Most Whites, particularly socio-political liberals, now endorse racial equality. Archival and experimental research reveals a subtle but reliable ironic consequence: White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites—that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent. In an initial archival demonstration of the competence downshift, Study 1 examined the content of White Republican and Democratic presidential candidates’ campaign speeches. Although Republican candidates did not significantly shift language based on audience racial composition, Democratic candidates used less competence-related language to minority audiences than to White audiences.Across five experiments (total N= 2,157), White participants responded to a Black or White hypothetical (Studies 2, 3, 4, S1) or ostensibly real (Study 5) interaction partner. Three indicators of self-presentation converged:sophistication of vocabulary selected for an assignment, competence-relatedtraitsselectedfor an introduction, and competence-related content of brief, open-ended introductions. Conservatism indicators included: self-reported political affiliation(liberal-conservative), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (values-based conservatism) and Social Dominance Orientation (hierarchy-based conservatism). Internal meta-analyses revealed that liberals—but not conservatives—presented less competence to Black interaction partners than to White ones. The simple effect was small but significant across studies, and most reliable for the self-reported measureof conservatism. This possibly unintentional but ultimately patronizing competence-downshift suggests that well-intentioned liberal Whites may draw on low-status/competence stereotypes to affiliate with minorities
Liberal racism is a very real, measurable phenomenon, based upon the assumption that minorities are unintelligent, incompetent, and lack self-control.
The latter is made clear by the criminal justice policies the Left is putting forward: they refuse to hold minority criminals responsible for their actions because, apparently, they do not believe they are competent moral actors capable of behaving in a civilized fashion.
That assumption is not true, and in fact, encourages criminality among minorities who are assured they will catch a break. For many, it becomes rational to behave as a criminal because they can get away with it.
The statistics are actually pretty clear that success in America is not determined by race. Whites are, among ethnic groups, pretty much in the middle of the pack in income compared to other racial groups. This data is a bit old, but the chart is so easy to understand that I chose to use it. The current data is not much different.
The true economic, social, and political cost of the measures proposed by governments (in the West only) to destroy their nations’ businesses and jobs and to impoverish every household is becoming ever more visible. At last, therefore, a few brave souls in the scientific and academic communities are beginning to question what I shall call — with more than a little justification — the Communist Party line on climate change.
Three devastating equations have emerged, each of which calls fundamentally into question the imagined (and imaginary) basis for the economic hara-kiri by which the West is throwing away its gentle and beneficent global hegemony. Power and wealth are passing inexorably from the democracies of the West to the communist-led tyrannies of the East.
However, the three equations stand firmly in the way. It is these three equations — simple enough to be explained here for the general reader, yet devastating enough utterly to destroy the official climate change narrative — that will soon lay low the enemies of prosperity, democracy, and liberty who have, until now, gotten away with undermining the West, no less from within than from without, by their childishly apocalyptic climate change narrative.
The first of these equations was presented to you here a few months ago. Therefore, I shall summarize that discussion briefly. The equation comes in two versions: the wrong version, on the basis of which the climate science establishment felt improperly confident that unabated emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmless greenhouse gases would soon bring about Thermageddon, and the corrected version, which shows that IPCC’s predictions of large and dangerous global warming are false and without scientific foundation.
The system-gain factor is the variable by which the predicted 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 in the air is multiplied to obtain the predicted final warming by doubled CO2 after taking account of feedback response, a knock-on, additional warming signal driven by and proportional to the direct or reference signal.
The erroneous version of the equation neglects what engineers call the base signal, the 260 K direct sunshine temperature. Climate scientists call this the emission temperature. It is the temperature that would obtain at the Earth’s surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases.
The 29 K total greenhouse effect is the sum of 8 K direct warming by natural greenhouse gases, 1 K direct warming by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and 20 K total feedback response.
Multiply the 1.2 K direct doubled-CO2 warming by the erroneous system-gain factor 3.2 to get climatologists’ 3.85 K final doubled-CO2 warming. Sure enough, the average final or equilibrium doubled-CO2 warming predicted by the general-circulation models in the sixth and latest generation of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project is 3.85 K.
But the corrected system-gain factor bears in mind — as climatologists in this crucial respect do not — that the sun is shining and that, therefore, the dominant 260 K sunshine temperature must be included in the corrected equation. Therefore, the system-gain factor is not 29 / 9, or 3.2, but (260 + 29) / (260 + 9), or just 1.1. Then the final warming to be expected in response to the 1.2 K direct warming by doubled CO2 is not 3.85 K, but more like 1.3 K, which is small, harmless, and net-beneficial.
Climate scientists made their error when they borrowed the physics of feedback from a branch of engineering physics known as control theory. They did not understand what they had borrowed. When I pointed out their grave error to the world’s most eminent climatologist, he said he did not believe that the feedback processes in the climate (chiefly the extra water vapor — itself a greenhouse gas — that the air can hold as it is directly warmed by the non-condensing greenhouse gases) would respond to the sunshine temperature.
So I asked him how the inanimate feedback processes in the climate knew that at any given moment, such as the present, they should not respond in the slightest to the 260 K sunshine temperature but should respond violently and extremely to the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases. A Kelvin is a Kelvin is a Kelvin, I said. He had no answer to my question. He shuffled off, looking baffled.
It was hitherto unnoticed that feedbacks such as the water vapor feedback (the only one that really matters — all the others broadly self-cancel) necessarily respond to the entire 269 K input signal or reference temperature. Therefore (I shall not show the working for this, but trust me), just 0.01 unit of increase in feedback strength would add as much as 1 K to the final warming by doubled CO2. But it is entirely impossible to measure feedback strength directly by any method, and certainly not to a precision of only a few hundredths of a unit.
Therefore, after correction of climate scientists’ error, no method of deriving predictions of anthropogenic global warming that is based on feedback analysis — as just about all of the current official predictions are — is capable of producing predictions that are any better than mere guesswork.
The IPCC, not realizing this even though it has been told about the error, bases very nearly all of its predictions upon feedback analysis. Its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report mentions “feedback” more than 1,100 times, its 2021 Sixth Assessment Report more than 2,600 times. In short, the IPCC’s entire analysis of the “how much warming” question is meaningless and valueless.
How could so crass a mistake have been made? The answer is that when the climatologists asked the control theorists how to calculate feedback response, they were told that they should base the calculation only on the gain signal (in the climate, the 9 K direct warming by natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases) and on the 20 K feedback response. Control theorists do things this way because in typical control-theoretic applications, such as electronic long-distance telephone circuits or factory control processes, the feedback response signal is 10 to 100 times larger than any other signal in the circuit. Therefore, neglecting the base signal usually makes no significant difference to the calculation, so they neglect it.
In the climate, however, it is the other way about. The base signal in the climate, the 260 K sunshine temperature, is almost 30 times the 9 K direct warming by greenhouse gases, and 13 times the feedback response. The sunshine dominates. Therefore, as common sense would in any event dictate, one cannot ignore it in carrying out the “how much warming” calculation.
The significance of this first equation, then, is that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that climatologists’ profitable but misguided whining about the rate of future global warming is based on a very large and very serious error of physics that has gone undetected until now because different scientific disciplines — here climatology and control theory — are increasingly narrow in their specialization. The climate scientists did not (and do not) understand the control theory they had borrowed, and the control theorists did not (and do not) realize what climate scientists have done with the borrowed theory. It is in this disastrous interdisciplinary compartmentalization that the climate change scare is rooted.
The truth is that one must use methods other than feedback analysis to derive estimates of future anthropogenic warming. But all such methods, which are based on observation rather than theoretical manipulation of data in climate models, show far less global warming than diagnosis of feedback strength from the models’ outputs shows.
The simplest observational method is this. The IPCC in 1990 predicted that until 2090, the world would warm by between 0.2 and 0.5 K/decade, with a midrange estimate of 0.3 K/decade (i.e., 2 to 5 K per century equivalent, with a best estimate of 3 K). Likewise, now as then, the IPCC predicts that final warming in response to doubled CO2 in the air will be 2 to 5 K, with a best estimate of 3 K. However, according to the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which maintains the most accurate and up-to-date satellite temperature record, since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 there has only been 0.136 K warming per decade.
This slow warming is equivalent to less than 1.4 K per century or, per CO2 doubling, well below the lower bound of the IPCC’s range of predictions, and less than half its midrange prediction.
Note how close that 1.36 K is to the 1.3 K we obtained by correcting official climatology’s error of feedback analysis. A more elaborate method, known as the energy-budget method, also shows about 1.3 K warming per century or per CO2 doubling, with a range of 1 to 2 K. The first equation, then, powerfully suggests that our sins of emission have not caused and will not cause a problem, crisis, emergency, or apocalypse.
But let us pretend, just for the sake of argument, that climatologists had not perpetrated their elementary error and that, therefore, there might, after all, be an impending cataclysm. In that case, what can we do about it? The second of our three equations demonstrates that the currently favored method of Saving the Planet — replacing coal and gas generation with windmills and solar panels — will make little or no difference to global temperature.
Our second equation says excess generation E by wind and solar power in a given grid is the difference between the installed nameplate capacity N of wind and solar in that grid (their output in ideal weather) and the total mean hourly demand D for electricity from that grid.
Obvious though this equation seems, grid operators and governments are, as far as we can discover, wholly unaware of it. But by rights it ought to signal the E = N — D of any further costly destruction of the countryside and the oceans, the birds, bees and bats, the whales and dolphins by ugly solar panels and wind turbines.
Douglas Pollock, the Chilean engineer who discovered the equation, has investigated several Western national grids and has plotted the results on the graph below.
The United States could, if it wished, add more wind and solar power to its grid, but the cost would be enormous and the CO2 emissions abated surprisingly small, because coal and gas-fired backup generation must be kept running at wasteful spinning reserve at all times in case the wind drops and the sun goes down.
However, the seven countries listed as already exceeding the fundamental hourly-demand limit on wind and solar capacity will not reduce CO2 emissions at all if they try installing any more wind and solar power. All they will do is to drive up the cost of electricity, which is already eight times greater in the West than in China or India, where the expansion of the world’s cheapest form of electricity — coal-fired power — is continuing rapidly.
This second of our equations also puts an E = N — D to the notion that replacing real autos with electric buggies at twice the capital and running costs will reduce emissions. It won’t, because in most Western countries, wind and solar power are already at or above their Pollock limit, so that the power for the buggies will have to come from coal and gas, at least until the soi-disant “Greens” abandon their sullen opposition to the peaceful use of nuclear power.
The Traffic-Light Tendency — the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds — are opposed to coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric generation. Yet wind and solar power, which they favor, cannot keep the lights on 24/7; are cripplingly expensive; are cruel to landscape, seascape, and wildlife; and, though their exceptionally low energy density, do more environmental damage per MWh generated than any other form of power.
Why, then, do the climate communists advocate wind and solar power and oppose just about everything else? They do so precisely because there is no quicker or more certain way to destroy the economies of the hated West and to end its hegemony than to destroy its energy infrastructure. For that, and not Saving the Planet, is their true objective. What they advocate makes sense when seen in that light and makes no sense otherwise.
So to our third simple but decisively powerful equation. Let us pretend not only that there may be a global warming Armageddon (though we have proven there will not be), but also that we can do something about it by the proliferation of windmills and solar panels (though we have proven that we can achieve nothing by that method except crippling our grids and vastly increasing the already prohibitive cost of electrical power, further turning the terms of trade to the advantage of the communist-led countries that are vastly increasing their coal-fired generation).
How much global warming would worldwide attainment of net zero emissions by 2050 prevent? It is a measure of the extent to which such little debate as the far left have permitted on the climate question has been stifled, and of the extent to which the objective of climate policy is political rather than scientific or existential, that this question does not seem to have been asked before.
I was in Parliament the other day, talking to a Conservative M.P. I asked him what he thought about global warming. He said, “I’m a mathematician, so I know we have to show leadership by getting to net zero emissions by 2050.”
“So,” I replied, “if the whole world followed the policy of just about all the British governing class and went to net zero emissions by 2050, how much global warming that would otherwise have occurred by that year would be prevented?”
His face was a picture. He had clearly never thought of asking that surely elementary question. When I told him the answer, he was dismayed. But the answer is not in doubt, for the necessary equation is again unchallengeably simple.
First, we need to know how much global warming would occur on present trends. Typically, one goes back at least 30 years, so let us go back to 1990, the date of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report. Since then, our sins of emission have added one 30th of a unit of influence every year in a near-perfect straight line. All those trillions squandered on trying to make global warming go away have not altered that third-of-a-century-long trend one iota.
Now, if the whole world went immediately to net zero emissions today, we should be able to abate 27/30 units of our influence on the climate. But if we get there in a straight line over the next 27 years, we shall abate about half of those 0.9 units — i.e., 0.45 units.
Next, how much global warming would each unit we abate prevent? Here, as throughout, we are using official figures. The IPCC says that the warming over the next 70 years if we suddenly doubled the CO2 in the air today would be 1.8 C. This is known as the “transient doubled-CO2 response,” or TCR. And, again according to the IPCC, there is an “effective radiative forcing,” or ERF, of 3.93 units of anthropogenic influence in response to doubled CO2. Therefore, temperature change per unit of influence is 1.8 / 3.93, or 0.46 K per unit.
Multiply the 0.45 units the world would abate if all nations went to net zero by 0.46 K per unit, and the total warming prevented by global net zero emissions would be just 0.2 K.
The M.P., on being told this strikingly puny figure, said: “Oh, well, there must be a very large uncertainty in that number.”
“No,” I said, “there isn’t. The IPCC predicts up to 5 K warming this century. But even if the whole world actually got to net zero emissions, which it won’t because the communist-led nations are expanding their coal-fired capacity at a very rapid rate, somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 K of that warming would be prevented by 2050. The midrange estimate is 0.2 K.”
In fact, even less warming than this would be prevented. For we have used official midrange estimates to calculate the 0.2 K warming that even global net zero would prevent. But those estimates are proven to have overstated the true medium-term rate of global warming by more than double. So the true warming the world would prevent if all nations, rather than just those of the empty-headed West, were to go together to net zero would be less than 0.1 K.
Then I added the clincher. I told the M.P. that the U.K. National Grid had estimated $3.6 trillion as the cost of re-engineering the grid to meet the net zero target; that electricity generation accounts for less than a quarter of U.K. emissions; and that, therefore, the cost to the U.K. of getting to net zero by 2050 would be more than $15 trillion, or six years’ total annual GDP.
Therefore, I said, every $1 billion the world squanders on trying to get to net zero emissions by 2050 would prevent only one 16-millionth of a degree of warming. Did he, as a mathematician, consider that to be value for money?
The M.P. capitulated. “The trouble with you, Monckton,” he said, “is that you take impossible positions on everything, and you’re always right.”
Now, the purpose of this unusual exercise has been to reduce the apparently complex global warming argument to just three equations so simple that they can be explained to a layman without too much difficulty, and then to explain them. In my submission, any one of these three equations, on its own, would in a rational world be more than sufficient to lead Western governments to abandon all their global warming mitigation policies at once.
The three equations together are devastating. There is no global warming problem; even if there were, our current method of addressing it will make no difference; and even if the whole world attained net zero by 2050, global temperature would barely change.
These three arguments are simple, but they are strong. It is only because the far left have captured the debate and have silenced discussions such as this that governments have allowed themselves to be fooled. Soon, that will change, whether the far left and their paymasters and instructors in the FSB and the Ministry of State Security like it or not. For the laws of physics, of economics, and of mathematics are not up for repeal.
I wonder if the rest of the world is getting tired of the MSM egging on the mentally deficient or deranged people. They gang up like the mean kids on the playground who got together to bring someone down to build themselves up.
Anyway, here is some woke crap because that is what it is. Look below for definitions from the left who try to ruin our lives with speech restrictions. Here’s your woke hint. If it’s about straight, white, christian men, it’s bad, ergo woke.
The word “woke” has become synonymous with leftism. At its core, “wokeism” is essentially a cult-like religion for the far-left, who think everything that is pro-America or pro-tradition is somehow an attack on specific, marginalized groups. “Woke” people parade throughout the nation as professional victims and make everything about them, and take narcissism to a whole new level. The Media Research Center defines the word “woke” or “wokeism” as people or ideas who are committed to the most extreme left-wing views on issues like race, gender, crime, climate, the economy, and more. Woke people think that burning down buildings is a way of peacefully protesting. Woke people believe that abortion is healthcare and that you can pick any gender you want to be. They think Antifa is a myth and that we should stop using existing, reliable, and abundant domestic sources of energy. In practice, woke people push against common-sense morals and values and promote the perpetual victimhood of groups they’ve deemed “marginalized.” While it’s evident these ideologies are nuts, the media has become obsessed with these woke ideas while vilifying traditional values and normalcy. They silence opposition through censorship or by ignoring and dismissing other people’s opinions as “racist” or “hateful.”
Trying to silence someone for their beliefs is a cross between 1984 and Communism.
Critical Race Theory = anti-white positioning, or negation of people of European descent.
The Defense Department in October launched a 30-day review of Wing — the now-former education activity chief diversity equity and inclusion officer — after her Twitter posts with disparaging comments about white people resurfaced.
Marvel used to make good movies. Mimicking real life, the guys were the hero’s with support from others. There was good story telling and we liked the hero’s, faults and all. They came through for us every time. Now, this:
Naturally, Alonso was a woke quota queen who lobbied to ruin Marvel movies with homosexuality, transvestites, and outright idiocy like changing the X-Men to the “X-People,” or some such nonsense.
Anyway, it looks to me, based on the box office numbers, that Alonso was pretty successful at ruining the Marvel juggernaut. Thanks primarily to woketardery, Marvel’s box office is down, and so is the audience’s goodwill. Marvel feminized Thor, gave us a hairy man-on-man kiss in the Eternals, desexualized everyone, and introduced new characters who are no fun at all because they are too busy whining about racism, sexism, and getting misgendered.
So cut the woke crap. Look what it is doing for Bud Light, Fox News, Maybelline, Smirnoff and others.
It was either him or his pedophile brother that had to get the crown. It’s a pretty sad choice for a monarchy that once controlled one sixth of the world.
Queen Elizabeth held on as long as she could so that her subjects wouldn’t have to suffer him any longer than they will have to. It’s what happens when you marry in your family.
She and her father were what a monarch should be. They helped bring the country out of a war that could have left England speaking German by now.
It’s also odd that he is supposed to protect the Christian protestant faith when he favors Islam. His global warming hypocrisy of trying to force cutbacks of perfectly good energy sources are a joke. He jet sets around the world and has a fleet of planes, yachts, cars and a carbon footprint larger than some nations.
Even the new Queen Consort, or whatever Camilla really is titled is a trade off. We don’t have to suffer through Di, who was annoying and was only 1 for 2 in her kids. Harry is a blight on the Windsor name like his father. Full of ideas that are not only wrong, but are influenced by facts that are socially amenable, but still false. He let a wife who is bitter and self serving ruin the Windsor name because sparkles didn’t get her way. Of course she claimed racism because it is socially convenient. It’s still a lie. Even Chris Rock said it’s not racist, just in law problems because she is a pouting little child.
So Harry got sent to the cheap seats along with Taco Jill, since senile Joe doesn’t work the weekends. He’s going to wake up one day when sparkles dumps him when he isn’t useful to her anymore and realize he made as big of a mistake as Edward the VIII. He gave away a life of luxury, wealth and free mooching off the subjects of England for a spiteful B actress from Hollywierd (sparkles).
Maybe we should be grateful that they are becoming more irrelevant. He’s about as good as George III, who went crazy from inbreeding also.
Chuck is in charge of 15 commonwealth countries, but if anything of consequence happens, England couldn’t and probably wouldn’t be able to do anything about helping them. They’d bail on him in a second. The Falkland Islands is a one off.
Unlike the Great Kings of England of lore, Charlie III will not be fighting those nasty uppity French or Austrians on the continent for land and riches and fame. Nor will Chuck be separating the heads from bodies of his detractors or those who might partake in Palace Intrigue. Nor will Chuck be forced, for the purpose of military or political alliances, to take some butt ugly princess as his queen (that part is already taken care of).
These days Chucky Three Sticks, as the new King of All England, biggest battles won’t be against foreign Emperors or pissed off crazy cousins with large armies marching through neutral countries to threaten the British Empire. No, his battles will more likely be with with his little pedo prince brother Andrew and with the little tart Yoko Markle and her English Setter puppy Harry, from further disgracing the family and bringing down the Monarchy.
It’s also expected Chuck will be annoying his subject with his special interest, climate change, and advocating for all the Globalist agenda of making of the lives of his subjects even more uncomfortable than they already are. It also been said that as King, despite his increase in duties of the Monarch, Chuck will continuing to make time for his love of talking to plants in the royal garden.
I don’t care (too much) about what other people are doing, even if I think it is strange until they want to force it on others (Bud Light just learned about that). You can never go anywhere without them telling you they are Vegan (or vegetarian). Like an ex of mine who won’t go away, I have to hear about how self righteous they are for eating plants. Once I got told she was a vegan, I knew she was full on crazy.
Nearly 1,000 scientists from around the globe have signed a declaration encouraging the consumption of meat, slamming movements to push plant-based diets as “zealotry.”
Researchers responsible for nine new studies in the Animal Frontiers journal made a joint declaration that red meat consumption is not only safe but necessary for the nutritional health of many populations around the world.
“Livestock-derived foods provide a variety of essential nutrients and other health-promoting compounds, many of which are lacking in diets globally, even among those populations with higher incomes,” according to The Dublin Declaration. “Well-resourced individuals may be able to achieve adequate diets while heavily restricting meat, dairy and eggs. However, this approach should not be recommended for general populations, particularly not those with elevated needs, such as young children and adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, women of reproductive age, older adults, and the chronically ill.”
A November 2022 Harvard study proclaiming the benefits of plant-based diets claimed diets based on “red and processed meat had the highest environmental impact out of all food groups in participants’ diets, producing the greatest share of greenhouse gas emissions and requiring the most irrigation water, cropland, and fertilizer.”
Researchers behind The Dublin Declaration refuted this argument, saying “farmed and herded animals are irreplaceable” in keeping up a “circular flow of materials in agriculture.” Livestock are not only able to convert large amounts of inedible biomass back into the natural cycle, they also do it while simultaneously producing high-quality food fit for consumption, according to the article.
“Livestock is the millennial-long-proven method to create healthy nutrition and secure livelihoods, a wisdom deeply embedded in cultural values everywhere. Sustainable livestock will also provide solutions for the additional challenge of today, to stay within the safe operating zone of planet Earth’s boundaries, the only Earth we have,” The Dublin Declaration concludes.
Animal-based diets, or livestock systems, are “too precious,” the Declaration argues, “to become the victim of simplification, reductionism or zealotry.”
Back to me.
Besides being annoying, let’s see if anyone cares about their diet choices.
Be healthy and eat some meat, and stop ruining other people’s life at the dinner table.
Nope, no one cares other than wishing they’d stfu about it and let us enjoy steak and bacon.
When we used to have to code talk, we’d say she played softball or soccer. Everyone knew that meant lesbian. Now, we had the worst attended sport of all, the WNBA, of which it is projected as 98% lesbian. Besides being a terrible sport to watch, these players are usually the butch version, not the one’s you’d want to look at. Their before and during Covid attendance didn’t change much it is such a terrible spectator sport.
What was under reported was the sexual preying on the young by coaches and older players. It kind of sucks as Caitlin Clark finally made us want to watch at least her college games. I don’t want to know or have it thrown in my face. She’s worth watching as a player and who she sleeps with has nothing to do on the court. Unless it becomes a political playing card.
What does matter is that these girls are being molested. Were it men, they’d be stringing them up by the balls and putting them in jail. Somehow it is overlooked in girls sports. Maybe if you look at the lack of attendance, it’s because no one cares.
When you are an adult, make your own choices and pay the consequences. That they are hurting kids is another issue.
Believe it or not, there’s a juicy well-kept secret about women’s sports hiding in plain sight that people don’t talk about much. The truth is, women’s sports can be a groomer’s paradise, like some sleazy “Club Med,” where predators are able to roam around and freely target anyone without fear of retribution. However, let’s be clear: we’re not discussing male predators here; rather, the focus is on female groomers.
We’re referring to older female coaches and strong veteran players who are grooming younger female athletes and turning women’s sports into a lesbian-making factory.
While the image of a “lesbian factory” might elicit a chuckle, the prevalence of lesbianism within women’s sports is off the charts. Even the Washington Post can’t ignore it.
Alyssa is dating DeWanna who used to be married to Candice; Jasmine and Natisha are engaged, and Natisha and Courtney used to date. Allie and a different Courtney are married, while Diana married her former teammate, Penny. No, this isn’t an episode about Alice’s chart on “The L Word”: It’s the WNBA, where romances among teammates and league rivals are as expected as a lethal three-point shot.
The Washington Post piece goes on to admit that this a phenomena that only happens in women’s sports. This should be a huge red flag, and it would be if the this tale involved men, like we saw with girls swimming and gymnastics, but because the groomers are women, nobody seems to care. However, that’s a real shame, because once again, vulnerable women are being abused.
So many “Rah-Rah-Rah, My DAUGHTER” Republican Dads are worried about their precious angels being groomed into the transsexual lifestyle on TikTok. Well, maybe ESPN-loving, Bud-Light-swilling fathers should be more worried about their daughters being groomed into lesbians with all the sports and athletic activities they are being pushed into.
But seriously, the feminist movement has been so successful that Republican Dads are more worried about their daughters learning how to swing a golf club or shoot a jump shot than they are worried about their daughters learning how to cook up a mean apple pie—and no one ever talks about this.
One heterosexual former WNBA athlete spoke out on this topic. Candace Wiggins estimates that 98 percent of the women in the WNBA are lesbians—an eyebrow-raising number.
“Me being heterosexual and straight, and being vocal in my identity as a straight woman was huge,” Wiggins said. “I would say 98 percent of the women in the WNBA are gay women. It was a conformist type of place. There was a whole different set of rules they [the other players] could apply.”
According to Wiggins, if you weren’t part of the “Lesbian Club Med,” you paid a price. She describes a damaging culture within the WNBA where she was singled out and bullied for being heterosexual.
“People were deliberately trying to hurt me all of the time. I had never been called the B-word so many times in my life than I was in my rookie season. I’d never been thrown to the ground so much. The message was: ‘We want you to know we don’t like you.’ “
The WNBA plays by different rules. For example, recently, the head coach of the Miami University (Ohio) Redhawks women’s basketball team, DeUnna Hendrix, stepped down from her position after intimate text messages revealed she was having a steamy sexual affair with a much younger player.
An older coach with a young, vulnerable player… imagine the headlines if a male coach was involved with a young female player—he’d be tarred, feathered, branded a pervert, and his life and career would be over. However, Ms. Hendrix will likely face none of that and will shake this off, and go on to be a celebrated lesbian coach, mentor, activist, and trailblazer, blah blah blah.
But it’s not just the WNBA facing these “grooming” questions. Women’s soccer also attracts an absurd number of lesbians.
There’s a couple of major differences between women’s soccer and men’s soccer. One: The U.S. women are good at it. Two, women’s soccer is a hell of a lot gayer.
Yesterday, “content producer” Alex Binley from ITV News published an article about why, exactly, so many dykes excel at this sport. It’s a good question. By Binley’s count, there were at least 41 openly gay players or coaches during the Women’s World Cup this year. The last Men’s Word Cup, in contrast, had a whopping zero. So, what gives?
Liberals will answer that question much differently than the rest of us. Liberals believe the reason for this staggering contrast between men’s and women’s sports is largely due to “homophobia.”
Binley says this is largely due to homophobia. She says that men’s soccer, especially outside of the U.S., is chock full of homophobes (as well as sexists and racists) who would not welcome openly gay male players in the sport.
This is a tiresome, lazy, rubber-stamp response. However, critical thinkers would look at these scenarios and at least entertain the theory that the LGBT ideology contributes to greatly to this grooming mentality and behavior that permeates women’s sports. It’s based around this notion that all girls have some secret underlying “lesbian tendencies,” and that notion then becomes a twisted justification for coaches and players to target vulnerable girls. Perhaps they push this false narrative that a person is depressed because they are not being true to their authentic self, and then use that as a tactic to manipulate and control their victims.
Unfortunately, this is a strategy employed not only by some parents, but also by certain transgender advocacy groups, particularly towards vulnerable and confused children.
The statistics speak for themselves; the disproportionate number of lesbians within women’s sports is not a normal occurrence. This trend indicates a culture of grooming and unhealthy behavior and abuse. It makes you wonder: how many female athletes initially identify as heterosexual, similar to Candace Wiggins, but ultimately succumbed to the bullying and grooming culture within their sport and transition to identifying as lesbian.
We’d love to share those statistics with you, but sadly, they don’t exist because nobody wants to acknowledge that this type of grooming is actually going on. We hope that changes.
Yep, she’s gone. It says leave of absence, but when you cost your company at least 5 billion and counting, along with a century old reputation, your ass is history.
She’s going down as the girl who did the worst marketing campaign in history (Gillette may argue this one) all in the name of woke and inclusivity. A college freshman would identify this as the textbook example of f**king up to the extreme.
The controversial marketing exec behind Bud Light’s partnership with Dylan Mulvaney has taken a leave of absence as the boycott against the beer brand rages on.
Ad Age reports that “Alissa Heinerscheid, marketing VP for the brand since June 2022, has taken a leave of absence, the brewer confirmed, and will be replaced by Todd Allen, who was most recently global marketing VP for Budweiser.”
In an interview on the Make Yourself At Home podcast from March 23rd, Heinerscheid revealed that the brand was in decline and they needed to “attract young drinkers… then there will be no Bud Light,” which led to the controversial partnership with trans TikToker Dylan Mulvaney.
We know it was created by a murderer who chopped up his girlfriend and is on Lenin’s birthday. The connection to communism is more than that coincidence.
It’s also not based on science, rather it is a religion for those worshipers (the uneducated).
They consistently fail to follow actual science and this year is no different. I’ve ranted about it as I find it so unbelievable that those who celebrate it want to show how wrong they are. Instead, I’ll link and put excerpts to the recent story about how wrong they got it on methane this time. I had to work with this crowd of ignorance when I got forced into supporting the fake green initiative. Even then I couldn’t believe how wrong they were, until I found out they did it for the money.
Remember all that talk about methane being the scariest greenhouse gas? The claims are behind the war on meat, rice, farts, gas stoves, fracking, and just about everything else in the known universe that improves human life.
Well, except farts. They really don’t improve human life that much, unless you have gas pains. Man, it sucks when you have gas pains.
The science behind the claims that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas is pretty straightforward, if you look at only part of the science. Methane indeed traps more heat inside the atmosphere than CO2, by a wide margin. It disperses much more quickly, with a short life in the atmosphere, but if you only consider the warming impact it indeed is quite powerful.
Yeah, well, there is a huge problem with that claim. While technically true in some abstract sense, it is much less true when you look at all the effects methane in the atmosphere has on global temperatures. In other words, it is the sort of claim that relies upon your ignorance of the multiple effects of methane gas in the atmosphere–some of which are known widely, and many of which even climate “scientists” didn’t know when they made their wild claims about doom from leaking natural gas.
New research shows that methane is still a powerful greenhouse gas, but nothing like what is claimed regularly.
This is the sort of thing that happens all the time in climate research, where variables are viewed and modeled in isolation based upon a limited set of data, and then the “scientists” extrapolate the heck out of the limited data and come up with models that are, frankly, ridiculous.
Then they pick the most extreme outcomes from models with the worst outcomes, and call it “settled science.” It is exactly the sort of thing you see in nutrition research, for example. Creating simplistic models from limited data interpreting complex and highly interdependent systems as if they mirror the falling of a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum.
And the results, as you can see in the real world, are quite different. Bowling balls and feathers fall at the same rate in a vacuum, but once you introduce the atmosphere a feather can “fall upwards” on a breeze while the bowling ball crashes down as predicted.
Methane is a greenhouse gas with dual personalities. It heats Earth’s atmosphere 28 times as potently as carbon dioxide, gram for gram. But its absorption of the sun’s radiation high in the atmosphere also alters cloud patterns — casting a bit of shadow on its warming effect.
Also, you may note that key point: gram for gram. There are a lot more grams of CO2 than methane out there. Altogether the findings change the equations quite a bit, and those equations are still very simplified versions of the real world. Simplified versions that in all likelihood don’t reflect reality.
The result is “counterintuitive,” says climate scientist Robert Allen of the University of California, Riverside. It happens because of the way that methane’s shortwave absorbance affects clouds in different layers of the atmosphere, Allen and colleagues’ simulations suggest.
When methane absorbs shortwave radiation in the middle and upper troposphere, above about three kilometers, it further warms the air — leading to fewer clouds in that upper layer. And because methane absorbs shortwave radiation high up, less of that radiation penetrates down to the lower troposphere. This actually cools the lower troposphere, leading to more clouds in that layer.
These thicker low-level clouds reflect more of the sun’s shortwave radiation back out to space — meaning that less of this solar radiation reaches Earth’s surface, to be converted into longwave radiation.
One of the biggest problems with climate science, as it stands, is that it cannot explain the natural variations in the Earth’s temperatures, which have swung wildly more than anything predicted from human activity. Clearly, those natural variations need to be understood first before adding in anything that human beings do.
Not that human beings are doing nothing. We are. The scale may not be understood, but the fact itself is pretty easy to understand. We are changing the atmosphere and the reflectivity of the Earth, changing the biome, and such changes will have some effect on the climate. But any claims that we have a clear idea of what those changes will be exactly are pure bunkum. We don’t. We don’t know the scale, and we don’t know the what.
What we do know is that massive changes to the economy will have drastic impacts on human well-being, just as the vast industrialization has improved lives and extended lifespans dramatically. Tens of years have been added to lifespans, food security has been established for almost everybody, and the prospects for further improvements without industrialization of the third world drop dramatically.
And, of course, we know that every single prediction of the apocalypse has been laughably wrong.
There are two easy answers that no one wants to use. The second is the real answer in the title of this post
First, nuclear power. It’s clean, safe and as affordable as the waste of money that has occurred chasing carbon as a bogeyman. It has it’s detractors, but if the climatards were serious it would be the main source of their energy. They just want to penalize the USA and some western countries and it’s petroleum production to line their wallets. They don’t mind using other countries gas. That puts our country at a disadvantage for cost of goods produced and sold. It’s on purpose. We already saw our economic freedom between 2016 and 2020 with fracking.
Here is a recent example of one western country cutting it’s own throat, but proves that it is a cheaper solution for energy.
The wrong people are leading the the self created energy crisis and climate scam.
The real answer is fusion energy. It is self perpetuating and an endless source. Of course that would mean the end of the climate gravy train and control of the narrative that we are being assaulted with.
On Dec. 5, for a fraction of a second, a man-made star was created at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California. The occasion was an experiment in nuclear fusion that succeeded in doing something no fusion experiment had done before: It emitted more energy than it consumed.
The experiment amounted to a big step forward in basic science. If the technology used at NIF is developed to its full potential, it could provide a virtually endless source of energy that would be clean and inexpensive. You’d think that nuclear fusion technology would be pushed forward by billions of dollars in research and development, but you’d be wrong, because it doesn’t fit into the “climate change” industry’s mantra that any nuclear power generation has to be bad.
Nuclear fusion is what happens on and in the sun. At temperatures up to 27 million degrees Fahrenheit, the sun fuses types of hydrogen — tritium and deuterium — under enormous pressure in such a way as to produce enough heat and light to warm and illuminate our planet, which is about 93 million miles away.
One of the benefits of fusion technology is that it produces virtually no nuclear waste like a nuclear fission plant does. Moreover, the “half-life” of the “activated” materials is far shorter than those of the conventional nuclear power plant, which produces “hot” waste such as fuel rods that are radioactive for hundreds of years.
Oh, it has it’s problems, but we went from the Wright brothers to the moon in 66 years. If we were serious about the problem of replacing petroleum, then it would get solved.
First, the “target” mass of tritium and deuterium is destroyed by the fusion that takes place within it. To render the technology feasible, you have to create targets about 10 times per second, not over a period of months as they are now.
Second, fusion emits neutrons that, at this stage, have to be converted into heat and steam to power a turbine engine that will produce electricity. Along the path of research, scientists may discover how to convert neutrons into electricity more simply and directly.
Both of these problems have to be solved — as well as the “unk-unks” that are encountered — before fusion can be made into a usable technology. And that’s where the government has to come in.
But if the Government was actually interested in the energy/climate issue other than an ATM…..
Industry can only spend money on research that is paid for either by the government or by rapid transformation into profitable products. The government’s proper role is to fund research into technologies that can later be made into profitable products. It did so many times, from the development of stealth aircraft to former President Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed,” which developed the COVID vaccines in months rather than the decade or more it would normally have taken.
Fusion research will continue, but at a far slower pace than it could were it better funded. The outlook is good, but fusion won’t, at the current rate, produce practical — i.e., usable — fusion technology for at least a decade or two.
What is needed is a major research effort, such as the Manhattan Project, which produced nuclear weapons in the 1940s. But that won’t happen while President Joe Biden and his “climate change” minions govern us. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said on March 1: “As the Secretary of the Navy, I can tell you that I have made climate one of my top priorities since the first day I came into office.” Climate change is his priority rather than rebuilding our Navy, which has far fewer ships than the Chinese navy.
As always, it comes down to money. The climate change clowns are investing in reducing carbon emissions — eliminating fuels such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum — and converting us to weather-dependent sources of energy such as wind and solar power. They won’t even consider building more nuclear power plants regardless of how safe they are. (One of my friends used to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. He often reminds me that our nuclear-powered Navy ships have had zero accidents.)
Our government wastes billions on too many idiotic ideas. They are far too many to rehearse here. If we have a new president in 2025, Biden’s priorities can be tossed aside, and those billions can be spent in productive research and development of fusion and other technologies that could make us more secure and energy independent again.
Lastly, we aren’t going to run out of petroleum reserves, and it is the cheapest and easiest source of energy. Hating it is the cheapest and easiest source of increasing bank accounts and control of the masses by tyrants.
Everything is about equality these days. The reality is that Males and females are not equal and will never be. It’s why men pretending to be girls are terrible at it (and look ugly while trying), except for kicking ass in sports. Ergo not equal. It’s why girls aren’t good superhero’s. I wish they would stop it, along with the woke thinking that they are in real life. A girl is a girl and a guy is a guy.
First, girl action hero’s are not believable. In no world is a girl going to kick ass on a guy. Girls believing they are hero’s or are going to out fight a man are going to learn a hard lesson.
Hollywood is laying out an image of woman that is far more unrealistic and harmful than even the old Barbie doll image, which really could inspire women to pursue beauty and health if interpreted positively. Whereas there is no positive spin on encouraging women to see themselves as capable of going toe to toe with big men in a fight.
It is remarkably foolish. It is not just bad entertainment, it is not just bad and unrealistic and unimaginative writing, it is dangerous messaging. Messaging which has been taken up and believed by many women today who pursue combat roles in the army, conflict roles in the police and sport and many other things.
Messaging matters and this messaging needs to be challenged.
The Dangerous Message (lie) of the “Strong Female Protagonist”
The stereotypical “strong female protagonist” that many modern movies and television shows, books and comics want to foist on the general public are not just bad writing or uninteresting characters, they are dangerous messaging.
We have to remember that people are more often emotional rather than rational, and are far more likely to be convinced by consistently pushed rhetorical messaging than reasoned facts. This is a polite way of saying that many people are not that bright, and not that thoughtful about what they believe.
Therefore, presenting women consistently as being able to go toe to toe with men, is planting dangerous messages, anti-civilizational messages, in the minds of young men and women.
John C. Wright explains:
“If Supergirl is from Planet Krypton, fine, she can punch goons through solid brick walls, no problem. Ditto for Starfire of the Teen Titans. If Buffy the Vampire Slayer is possessed by all the strength of the ghosts of all the Slayers back to the First Slayer, fine, she has super duper strength and it is magic. Fine. That is all fine with me. (Supergirl is a horrible character, especially the latest one. Even Super dog is better)
But when the heroine is Hit Girl or Batgirl or some leggy blonde selected for her cup size rather than fighting ability, such portrayals of wispy little she-adventuresses able to tackle boatloads of thugs built like linebackers not only as absurdly unrealistic, they have the sinister tendency to make it socially acceptable for boys to hit girls.
This leads to girls getting their asses kicked: (note by me here, I studied martial arts for decades. I never had to go full speed ever against any female. In fact I had to take it easy on them in stand up sparring or on the mat. I was always faster, stronger and could out think them in strategy without much effort. It was like playing with kids)
Back to the source article and discussing why it isn’t misogynistic. Not one, but two girls of my close acquaintance both had this happen to them.
They had been convinced, and everyone had told them, and all the movies and television shows had shown them, that girls could fight boys and be victorious. One girl was shocked when a male friend of hers, just horsing around, pinned her down with one hand. She had always thought she’d be able to fend off an attacker. Not without an equalizer, she wouldn’t. The other friend was equally shocked when the boy she was with was walking down the beach with her, and he picked her up, (I do not know whether bride style or Tarzan style), and ran full speed down the beach with her. She realized with a shock that she could not have picked him up no matter what, not even in an emergency, not even if he was helping. These were not even linebackers built like Conan or men on the leading edge of physical strength for men, they were ordinary boys of ordinary strength.” Wright, John C.. Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth (pp. 325-326). Still Waters Books. Kindle Edition.
Back to me. It’s why I never believed that the Black Widow was a real or even a good Avenger. She was window dressing and best only when talking to the hero’s. Captain Marvel was a terrible movie and character. No one saw her as a hero and she didn’t even act like one, even with CGI. She was so woke they cut her out of Avengers Endgame except at the end.
In real life, if I were a soldier, I’d be mighty worried that if I got injured, that a girl would have to fireman carry my ass out of the battle. I’d rather have men around me that are big, strong and could fight and would save your life. That is reality.
Why Girls Shouldn’t Trust Other Girls About Relationships
Sitting around my mom while she was fixing one of her saris, giving us some life advice. Here is what she told us:
She was telling us all about how it’s important NEVER to ask a girlfriend about relationship problems. Because girls more often than not will lead you astray. And especially when girls are young they will knowingly or unknowingly ruin your life.
She has an employee who is a cute little 26yo newly wed. The girl complained to her about her husband and my mom gave her the other perspective from her husbands point of view. Made her rethink her whole position with more maturity. Girlfriends don’t do that. Matriarchs do
Girls want to win your favor. They want you to like them. So they will say whatever they can to be on your side. They don’t have the ability or experience to see the situation from all points of view, and they don’t have the integrity to disagree with or counter you to your face. (They are lying, which they are good at)
But the thing is, 50% of the time you ARE wrong and there are very few, perhaps one in a thousand girls, who will tell you the truth, even if it is not what you’d like to hear. And most women don’t have the experience of good relationships to give good advice
Another person to never take advice from are older women who have been unsuccessful in their relationships in life. I remember a woman I knew who had gotten divorced and she was lecturing me in her man hating bitter ways every time she talked to me. In one ear out the other! They are bitter (almost always liberal) cat ladies that carp about everything, men and other women.
The girl complained to my mom that her husband never took her out. My mom reminded her that he’s a truck driver and wants to be home because he’s out all week. She complained about not getting gifts and my mom reminded her he’s providing for her so she can work just for fun
Back to me. A girl I rode bikes with (and had to hold back not to drop her) told me that girls are mean. They’ll say you look good when it is a lie so you’ll keep wearing that outfit or dress that way. They lied on purpose to be mean to the other girl, then talked behind their backs. She turned out to be a bitch also.
Why can’t we let girls be girls and stop telling them to act like men? Conversely and I’ve written about it already (see the Bud Light posts a few down) that men make terrible pretend girls. It’s just ruining females for everyone, especially them.
There are two sets of rules, one for democrats and one for everyone else. Trump got charged with a felony that is a misdemeanor throughout history. Whether he cheated or not may never be known. We know that Billy the raper was a tremendous horn dog.
What makes it fun as Trump’s charges wer a payoff for sex as told by the press and the indictment. I wonder how Clinton is feeling other than knowing they are above the law.
Hard to believe that the current administration and the lamestream media are pushing the socialist gun agenda and trans movement as a priority with so much else going on. Now, the trannies are shooting up everyone but no one calls for a gun ban when they shoot up the scene. They’ll never be happy. Hell, they aren’t happy with themselves given how much they are trying to become either male or female, because there are no other genders to transition to.
With all the talk of restricting guns, they should apply the same rule to everyone. Let’s look at that. Let’s also call hate crime what it is. The media fawned over the murderers this time instead of the victims. It is their narrative. I call BS.
Who should have guns?
This one is not just for the UK, but all of Europe who think they have some right to tell the USA how to live. We can mess it up without their help. They always want us to be like them, but forget we started a country to get away from what they wanted us to do.
They never get who the USA is and what we stood for when the nation was formed.
Mind your own business, or protect your citizens from the cultural enriching Muslims who are invading and ruining your countries. They are just sucking off your socialistic programs. If your citizens were armed, there would be less rapes and attacks.
We have a 2nd amendment to protect citizens from the government, and now from trannies. If you are mentally ill enough to think you aren’t what you were when born, those are the people who should be prevented from having a gun.
Remember the Gillette commercial about #MeToo and the best a man can get? That cost them about $8 billion in sales and a lot of customers. It was one of the textbook worst marketing campaigns, trashing your clientele. You don’t lecture your customers on how to behave and expect success.
“In less than two minutes you managed to alienate your biggest sales group for your products. Well done,” wrote one angry viewer.
Not to be outdone and in a hold my beer moment, Anheueser-Busch put a tranny as the face of Bud Light. It tastes like weasel piss anyway, but it may top Gillette as the worst marketing move.
Way to cut your throat. Woke marketing execs love to make fun of folks in flyover country, but that is was where a lot of Bud drinkers live.
It will be a hit to the bottom line. It could be the new advertising screw up of the century, except the press will celebrate it instead of reporting properly.
Sooner or later, they sales numbers will come in and I don’t think it will be pretty for AB or Bud Light, the new joke of beers. No real man is going to be caught dead with a Bud Light now in public.
The face of this flavored water now is a guy pretending to be a girl. He had face altering surgery, but like all males when born, he still has a dick. Unlike the latest Supreme Court Justice, I can define what a female is and this loser isn’t one.
Here is some early feedback
That one courtesy of Irish like this one.
Just because it is the latest fad doesn’t mean it’s any good or that people like it. Remember eating Tide Pods or a spoon of Cinnamon? Nobody likes that or does it anymore either.
Get woke, go broke….every time. That’s right Gillette, I didn’t forget what you did last year. I’ll never shave with your razor’s or drink a Bud Light ever again.
Currently, China is producing more pollution and C02 and trash than the rest of the world combined. Add the number 2 offender India and you have almost all the climate change problem that the talking heads are espousing.
But wait, C02 and the temperature were hotter hundreds of years ago. There weren’t as many people or cars back then. How do you explain that? I can, it’s called cyclical climate patterns that have gone on without man affecting it.
The popular target is the United States, who has reduced it’s footprint more than most, but is the bank of climate change to cash in on.
The science says man hasn’t affected the climate as much as the AGW play for money says it has. I had to listen to the pontificating by Climatards like Tim O’Reilly and Tom Raftery on this nonsense for years when I was at IBM. I never believed it was anything but a grasp at attention and money. They lead in being wrong on the climate with Al Gore, Greta, AOC and John Kerry, but right on scaring people for money.
Obviously, this is already a scam. And the few sincere environmentalists who believe the sky is actually falling denounce it as such. But it’s an incredibly lucrative scam that moves billions if not trillions of dollars around.
The inadequacy of wind power The plan dramatically to cut the combustion of fossil fuels was accepted at the 2015 Paris Conference. The instinctive reac- tion around the world has been to revert to ‘renewables’, the sources of energy delivered intermittently by the power of the Sun. Unfortunately this power, attenuated by the huge distance that it must travel to reach the Earth, is extremely weak. That is why, before the advent of the Industrial Revo- lution, it was unable to provide the energy to sustain even a small global population with an acceptable standard of living. Today, modern technology is deployed to harvest these weak sources of energy. Vast ‘farms’ that monopolise the natu- ral environment are built, to the detriment of other creatures. Developments are made regardless of the damage wrought. Hydro-electric schemes, enormous turbines and square miles of solar panels are constructed, despite being unreliable and ineffective; even unnecessary.1 In particular, the generation of electricity by wind tells a disappointing story. The political enthusiasm and the inves- tor hype are not supported by the evidence, even for offshore wind, which can be deployed out of sight of the infamous My Back Yard. What does such evidence actually say? That the wind fluctuates is common knowledge. But these fluctuations are grossly magnified to an extent that is not immediately obvious – and has nothing to do with the technology of the wind turbine. The energy of the wind is that of the moving air, and, as every student knows, such energy is ½Mv2, where M is the mass of air and v the speed. The mass of air reaching each square metre of the area swept by the turbine blade in a second is M = ρv, where ρ is the density of air: about 1.2 kg per cubic metre. So, the maximum power that the turbine can deliver is ½ρv3 watts per square metre. If the wind speed is 10 metres per second (about 20 mph) the power is 600 watts per square metre at 100% efficiency.2 That means to deliver the same power as Hinkley Point C (3200 million watts) by wind would require 5.5 million square metres of turbine swept area – that should be quite unacceptable to those who care about birds and to other environmentalists. But the performance of wind is much worse than that, as a look at the simple formula shows. Because the power carried by the wind depends on the third power of the wind speed, if the wind drops to half speed, the power available drops by a factor of 8. Almost worse, if the wind speed doubles, the pow- er delivered goes up 8 times, and as a result the turbine has to be turned off for its own protection. This is not related to the technology of the turbine, which can harvest no more than the power that reaches the area swept by its blades.
My wife’s relatives in Denmark are going to have to deal with this inconvenient truth. They bought the wind farm hoax a long time ago. I don’t bother telling them they are wrong. They have to justify living in that place and this is part of it.
This next one is for Tim, who said the tide rising is our major problem around 2010, dipstick.
And here are your hero’s Tim. Don’t try so hard to be a wanker.
Ah, a real climate disaster, but it doesn’t fit the narrative of Man and the USA being bad guys.
More for Tim O’Reilly and Tom Raftery
Even more for evidence for Tim and Tom, who said both tides are rising and that Climate Science is hard when I asked him for facts. It’s only hard if it’s your religion and you ignore both the truth and science. Oh look, the tide is the same as it was 1620. Must be that AGW that doesn’t change anything.
Let’s compare it to the 45th President, whom the above attack by claiming he did what they actually did, like take under the table deals with Russia/Ukraine/China, cause racial divide and hurt race relations, break the law, weaponize the Justice Department, Divide the country, assault women (Hillary did it by attacking the victims of her rapist husband). The dichotomy is mind-boggling.
Trump did it while being attacked by the media, celebtards, the justice department, both houses and parties of congress and social media.
1. Unemployment and economic growth.
•Unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and those without a high school diploma all reached record lows.
•Unemployment for women hit its lowest rate in nearly 70 years.
•Lifted nearly 7 million people off food stamps.
•Poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanic Americans reached record lows.
•Income inequality fell for two straight years, and by the largest amount in over a decade.
•The bottom 50 percent of American households saw a 40 percent increase in net worth.
•Wages rose fastest for low-income and blue-collar workers – a 16 percent pay increase.
•African American home ownership increased from 41.7 percent to 46.4 percent.
Trump, of course, is a “racist” and “sexist” to liberals; it is one of their prime charges against him, with absolutely no proof. It is hard to understand, though, why a man who hates minorities and women so much would institute policies that would be so beneficial to them.
2. Tax Relief
•Strengthened America’s rural economy by investing over $1.3 billion through the Agriculture Department’s ReConnect Program to bring high-speed broadband infrastructure to rural America.
•More than 6 million American workers received wage increases, bonuses, and increased benefits thanks to the tax cuts.
•A typical family of four earning $75,000 received an income tax cut of more than $2,000 – slashing their tax bill in half.
•Doubled the standard deduction – making the first $24,000 earned by a married couple completely tax-free.
•Doubled the child tax credit.
•Since the passage of tax cuts, the share of total wealth held by the bottom half of households has increased, while the share held by the top 1 percent has decreased.
•Over $1.5 trillion was repatriated into the United States from overseas.
•Created nearly 9,000 Opportunity Zones where capital gains on long-term investments are taxed at zero.
Americans were able to keep more of the money they earned. Only a Marxist (yes, Democrat) would object to that.
•Instead of 2-for-1, Trump eliminated 8 old regulations for every 1 new regulation adopted.
•Provided the average American household an extra $3,100 every year.
•Removed nearly 25,000 pages from the Federal Register – more than any other president. The previous administration added over 16,000 pages.
Mr. Trump was very pro-business, something else that is anathema to the Left. Yet, the removal of onerous, needless regulations, not only helped small business owners, but cheapened costs and provided more money for average Americans.
•Immediately withdrew from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
•Ended the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and replaced it with the brand new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
•The USMCA contains powerful new protections for American manufacturers, auto-makers, farmers, dairy producers, and workers.
•Negotiated another deal with Japan to boost $40 billion worth of digital trade.
•China agreed to purchase an additional $200 billion worth of United States exports and opened market access for over 4,000 American facilities to exports while all tariffs remained in effect.
•Imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions worth of Chinese goods to protect American jobs and stop China’s abuses under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
•Achieved a mutual agreement with the European Union (EU) that addresses unfair trade practices and increases duty-free exports by 180 percent to $420 million.
•Successfully negotiated more than 50 agreements with countries around the world to increase foreign market access and boost exports of American agriculture products, supporting more than 1 million American jobs.
Economics is not something most Americans understand very well, thus the benefits of the above are not easily understood, or quickly perceived or felt, by most. Yet, the list is clear enough to make the Left angry. Mr. Trump negotiated trade deals that benefited the United States. He still had much to do in that regard, but he was denied another four years in which to do it. Obviously, the country has suffered greatly the last two years because of that.
Yeah, I think it’s BS like most do, just like being woke. Blaming others so you think that it will make people equal.
Trying to silence someone for their beliefs is a cross between 1984 and Communism.
I wonder if the rest of the world is getting tired of the MSM egging on the mentally deficient or deranged people. They gang up like the mean kids on the playground who got together to bring someone down to build themselves up.
Critical Race Theory = anti-white positioning, or negation of people of European descent.
It’s very rare that a democrat doesn’t get re-elected in Chicago. She’s one of the few in the last 4 decades. She didn’t get re-elected because she did a bad job as mayor, not because it is racist or sexist as she claims. Chicago is the last place that would happen,
Biology is something that is hard to argue with. They know if a dinosaur is male or female from fossils thousands or millions of years ago. They haven’t discovered any of the other 74 genders the woke try to claim.
For the alphabet people:
I got a fitness tracker and when setting it up, here were my options during setup:
It’s also why the guys who can’t compete against men change colors and kick ass on the girls with ease. It’s why they have to lower the standards in the military so that females can graduate the hardest courses.
I can’t pretend that any guy makes a good looking girl. There is always something off (they are still a dude). What kills me is that most of them who transition still date girls. They say they are lesbians, but they are just dudes who like girls, dick or no dick.
The woke love to screw things up. Way to ruin woman’s day Taco Jill….
“We have these mediocre male athletes,” Gaines told The Daily Signal in an interview. “In my experience, we had Lia Thomas, who was ranked 462nd at best as a male, just one year later winning a national title, and then further going on to be nominated for NCAA Woman of the Year. “
Gaines, 22, said that allowing men into women’s sports makes a mockery of competition and puts women in danger. She explained that she swam every day for 18 years and put an enormous amount of effort into nutrition to be the best she could be.
For those who will get offended by this post, this one’s for you:
At least if you are going to argue this point, other than the less than 1% that have gene anomalies, explain it in terms of XX and XY. XY who got an add-a-dick-to-me surgery is still a girl. Cutting off a guys unit doesn’t let them have children either.
As usual, woke ruins everything it touches. When do men need menstrual products? Never, but there it is in the link below.
Gettin’ kind of tough for others when stuff starts coming true and the facts come out proving what you knew was right all along. Who’s going to call them out for lying to us, or is it going to be swept under the rug by Google, Facebook, the media and the deep state?
I could have always taken off my tin foil hat, but you can never get un-jabbed.
Remember it’s safe and effective (just like if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor)
Here’s the two sentences from the paper that everyone should read:
1) A worldwide Bayesian causal Impact analysis suggests that COVID-19 gene therapy (mRNA vaccine) causes more COVID-19 cases per million and more non-Covid deaths per million than are associated with COVID-19 .
2) An abundance of studies has shown that the mRNA vaccines are neither safe nor effective, but outright dangerous.
The Whitehouse Press Gaffe spokesperson confused Biden with Obama (who is half white). She is confused by many things like facts and the truth, but this one is a doozy. She couldn’t have been the best candidate for the job, just the most woke and the most letters in the alphabet of weirdness.
(I’m counting on that last paragraph for a new round of censorship, enjoy while you can)
The biggest problem I have in my arguments is timing. I get out talked by people who tend to be wrong. Only later does the truth come out or I can express myself, but no one (except me) cares by then.
Like most introverts, I think things through, throw out the things that are wrong, then come up with a salient and correct argument. All of this is well after the discussion took place.
While being pressured to get the jab during Covid, I knew it was wrong and listened to everyone regurgitating the media and government lies (paid for by the Big Pharma companies). Since I was an island, it was everyone against me. There was nothing I could say that anyone would listen to other than my black friends. They remembered Tuskegee like I did.
The lesson? Stop trying to be right, learn patience for the facts to come out. They are coming out now.
This would have also helped me a lot earlier in life if I’d have known. I didn’t understand that I was an introvert though and thought I could go toe to toe with extrovert talkers not afraid to be wrong. I lost a debate to an imbecile in 8th grade when I clearly had the facts. He had the class popularity and the class went with him as he made up stuff.
It was similar in politics. The 2016 election won me a $100 bet, not that anyone cared. The 45th President continues to be right, so they just throw dirty underwear against the wall until something sticks. He is the comeback champion in rhetoric though so I stopped talking about that also. I was an island politically also. I lost every discussion on that one also even though my facts were proven right over time.
I found out that a lot of people don’t have a sense of history or really understand anything other than reading and repeating talking points they are told to think. Social media is making idiots out of the next generations. Knowing how to find information is not the same thing as understanding why things are the way they are.
I was already recognizing the pattern of facts that led to the truth, just not when I wanted it. I’d never make it as a lawyer or politician.
Maybe that’s why I write about this. It gets my thoughts (mostly cogently) in order and documents my position. It’s all I have sometimes. Since the internet is forever, here you go in the future if you read this.
Very rarely in my life do I have the proper comeback. It’s not satisfying when I do compared to the frustration of not being drop quick witted and precise information when needed.
So, I just have decided to let some stuff pass. It gets me out of talking to the under educated anyway.
The other lesson?
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
There are a few meatheads in my life. The more time goes on, the more Archie Bunker has been right. Screw political correctness. They tell me how bad the people are who try to put America and Americans first, but their spew is just that.
These people need to be held accountable for actual pedophile crimes.
Know why this isn’t as big of a deal as it should be? It’s because they are all guilty and are being protected. The magpies from The View are there. A lot of notable perverts are here as are the Clinton’s. Billy Boy Clinton was clocked there 21 times, not to mention the in flight servicing he got on the Lolita express.
SMH. They are polluting the mouth of the Mississippi River, killing Whales with Wind Turbines and have sent more harmful chemicals into the atmosphere than any of their faux attacks on plant food.
Agriculture is Ohio’s No. 1 industry, contributing more than $93 billion to our state economy and supporting one in six jobs. Other important facts:
Almost 50 percent of the land in Ohio is classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as “prime farmland,” which is the most fertile and productive land in the country.
Ohio has the fifth highest percentage of “prime farmland” in the nation.
Ohio has lost more high-quality acres of farmland than any state other than Texas.
Ohio farmers grow more than 200 crops. Corn and soybeans are the top crops.
Ninety-one percent of Ohio farms are family farms.
First, here is the state of C02:
Now, a real climate disaster that is being all but ignored by the media, except to cover up the other climate issue, 400,000 gallons of oil spilled when the Nord Stream pipeline was blown up (some say by the US and Biden ordered it, we’ll see)
Green water has been reported in East Palestine. Let’s review the chemicals released and produced by burning, and the colors they will turn water upon mixing:
Vinyl Chloride (VC): Colorless water (primary product) and colorless to light yellow water (combustion product – hydrogen chloride)
Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (EGMBE): Colorless water (primary product) and clear to pale yellow water (combustion product – acrolein)
Ethylhexyl Acrylate (EHAA): Colorless water (primary product) and clear, colorless to cloudy water (combustion product – formaldehyde)
Isobutylene (i-C4H8): Colorless water (primary product) and clear, colorless water (combustion product – formaldehyde)
Butyl Acrylates: Colorless water (primary product) and clear, colorless to cloudy water (combustion product – formaldehyde)
None of these products produce bright green water. How could bright green water possibly have been formed?
Greta tweeted that we should commit criminal acts to protect the environment from C02 with no mention of this actual climate problem.
Many victims of the East Palestine train derailment may be too young to be familiar with the toxic tragedy of Love Canal, poster village for toxic waste dumping, corporate irresponsibility, and government fumbling.
Quite simply, Love Canal is one of the most appalling environmental tragedies in American history.
But that’s not the most disturbing fact.
What is worse is that it cannot be regarded as an isolated event. It could happen again–anywhere in this country — unless we move expeditiously to prevent it.
When the 1910 vision of Love Canal as a dream community went south due to technological advances and the vicissitudes of the economy, Hooker Chemical Co. turned the canal into a chemical waste dump. In 1953, Hooker covered their work with dirt and sold it to the town for a buck — but with a telling disclaimer:
May 7: Hooker Chemical sells the canal to the Niagara Falls Board of Education for $1.00 and writes into the deed a disclaimer of responsibility for future damages due to the presence of buried chemicals.”
Then, in a display of government imbecility: “The board subsequently builds a school there and sells land that is developed with residences.
Here are two examples that just came through. A diploma from there comes with a woke minor in any discipline. Were I a hiring manager, I’d shuffle these students to the bottom. Not only are they doing the below, but the parents are way overpaying for this.
Harvard Law School’s journal Civil Rights and Civil Libertiesrequires that applicants submit their sexual orientation, gender identity and race for their article submissions to be considered, a relatively new requirement for the publication.
Also required are the applicant’s pronouns, whether they have a disability, and whether they are a first-generation professional or student, according to the “Author Submission Form” Google document for the journal.
There is more at the link, but how about the merit of being a critical thinker instead of a color? How is this not racist or sexist?
This next one is the killer. If I have a life threatening disease, the climate is the last thing I’m going to care about.
The Harvard School of Public Health’s Caleb Dresser said students and faculty “have been pushing” to add a climate change component into the HMS studies for some time.
“Many graduates of Harvard Medical School go on to leadership positions in medicine and beyond,” Dresser said. “It’s going to be increasingly important for people in leadership roles in healthcare and other industries to integrate climate change and climate-related hazards into their strategic decision making as they lead organizations.”
[Student Benjamin] Grobman said changes in the Medical School’s curriculum are just one step toward addressing the impacts of climate change on health care.
“It has to go beyond that, and I think that’s something that hopefully we can start to do in the future,” he said. “But I think curriculum is essential because it really lays the groundwork for people to be thinking about these issues.”
HMS student Madeleine C. Kline said though medical education remains outside of her core passions, the potential for enhanced patient care has motivated her to push to modify the curriculum.
“Every student who comes through the Medical School will leave with an understanding of what climate change is and what it means for their patients,” she said. “I think it is going to mean a lot for their patients.”
While the WEF dined on the finest food in the world after flying in on 455 private jets (to talk about global warming), they have decided that the rest of the serfs should eat bugs. The EU approved 2 lines of crickets to eat in various forms.
Let’s take a look at what you will be eating if they have their way. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. I and others have said the same about Covid and the Vaccine. The WEF said it failed as the great re-set, so this is the next round of evil they are planning.
(Natural News) (Natural News exclusive) – Various forms of crickets are now being sold for human consumption as part of the disingenuous “climate cult” lunacy that pretends if enough humans eat bugs, we will change the weather.
While the meat supply chain is being destroyed by governments who claim nitrogen is evil — yes, the very same governments that still claim carbon dioxide is a pollutant even though it’s the pillar of photosynthesis — we’re all being told to eat crickets and mealworms to save the planet.
Right now, various forms of crickets — cricket “cheesy ranch” snacks, cricket powder and cricket protein powder — are sold on Amazon.com and labeled for human consumption.
We purchased three brands of crickets for human consumption — Cricket Bites, Entomo and Bud’s — plus one brand labeled for consumption by reptiles: Fluker’s.
Here’s a closer look at the brands we purchased and the video microscope setup we are using at our food science lab:
We proceeded to take microscopy photographs at magnifications ranging from 50X to 300X.
Here are some microscopy photos of Entomo Farms’ Cricket Protein Powder, which is labeled as, “The planet’s most sustainable superfood.” Many cricket products are also labeled dairy-free, non-GMO, paleo friendly and gluten-free.
None of them are labeled chitin-free, however, since they are loaded with chitin, part of the exoskeletons of crickets and bugs. Consuming chitin carries its own risks for humans and dogs, but we aren’t covering that in this article.
Here, notice how this cricket protein powder contains all the parts of the crickets: The legs, hairs, segments of eyes, excretion organs, wings and more:
Next, we feature microscopy photos of Fluker’s Freeze Dried Crickets, which are labeled for consumption by reptiles. However, these appear to be the same crickets used in human consumption formulas sold under other brands.
Meet your new bug lunch:
The part of the cricket that opens and closes the rear end of the cricket to dispose of fecal matter is called the “Dorsal valve” (on top) and “Ventral valve” (on bottom). You might also call it the “poop chute claw,” because it claws shut after the cricket poops.
Here’s a closeup of the poop chute claw, which you’re also eating if you eat crickets:
Some parts of the crickets were unidentifiable but creepy looking, resembling creatures from the movie series Aliens:
Don’t forget your crispy wings:
Yummy leg sockets…
“Cricket Bites” Cheesy Ranch crickets for human consumption
Cricket food companies have tried to make their crunchy crickets more tasty by adding salt and flavorings. The Cricket Bites brand adds various spices and cheese flavorings to produce their “Cheesy Ranch” flavor. They also offer crickets in “Hickory Smoked Bacon,” which seems a bit hilarious, given that the whole point of eating crickets is to avoid eating meat products like bacon.
This brand also uses autolyzed yeast extract, a flavor enhancer known to contain glutamate:
Here’s what the Cheesy Ranch crickets look like up close:
Delicious eyeballs, fully intact:
Bud’s Cricket Power
When it comes to cricket food products, one thing you have to give the industry credit about is the fact that most cricket food providers aren’t lying about what’s in their product. A brand called Bud’s Cricket Power is labeled as, “100% Pure Cricket Powder.”
No lies. No deception. It’s just ground up cricket, plain and simple. Whether you should actually eat ground up crickets is up to you, but at least there’s no dishonest labeling at play here, unlike many processed junk food products which are wildly deceptive.
Here’s what Bud’s Cricket Power “100% pure cricket powder” looks like up close:
Yummy hair-like fibers are included at no extra charge:
I finally found a lot of people like me. I’ll link to the article below, but the comments by the people are most revealing.
I thought I lived on an island regarding Covid and the jab. I now see a lot of people who have been through these scares before, don’t trust the government, saw through the propaganda, actually looked at the science, refused to be sheep and various other reasons.
I saw the pattern developing early that caused me not to trust anyone on this. There was too much pressure and not enough evidence of anything but the 1930’s in Germany all over. I wasn’t going to line up and comply like a sheep being led to slaughter
I find this refreshing to see that the beating I took over not being jabbed was worth it. It will go down as one of the biggest scamdemics pushed on us. Note how much the word trust is used.
In the bigger picture if you want to fill up your faith cup and recognize the scale of commonsense assembly in our nation, take the time to read through the 2,000+ responses.
The feedback you are providing is exceptional and trust me when I say that far more people are reading these responses than you could fathom. Additionally, the responses have reasserted my belief in the scale of our national assembly. There are far more of us, ordinary, hardworking, commonsense, pragmatic and smart people, than the self-described intellectual elites would ever admit.
In addition to the responses below, there have been hundreds of emails answering the question, which suddenly made me realize that no one has really ever asked this question before in a format that provides ordinary people with the ability to respond.
There is also a yearning to talk about this issue, publicly and with deliberation; massively so. And I am hopeful (insert grin here) this small corner of the internet is about to push this conversation into a much larger national forum. Our nation needs a big conversation about this.
If I had to pick a single phrase to encapsulate the myriad of phenomenal responses to the question I would use the phrase, “intellectual discernment”; which again provides buckets of faith that a large number of people are wide awake, albeit part of what I call a potato revolution growing safely underground.
Also, unbeknownst to front page readers I am stunned at the people in/around operation warp-speed, these are people in government directly attached to the issue, who have contacted CTH on the backside, stepped forward and said they also didn’t take the shot because, well, despite their belief in the purpose and principle at the time, things were just not adding up and ultimately seemed sketchy. They couldn’t talk (so they felt), couldn’t even hint at their concern; but when it came to making the personal decision, they waited.
I also owe it to you to answer the question of my own status, which is a big heck no – I did not take the jab.
Why? Because in the preceding years of all my research into the rapidly exposed corruption of our government, there was just no way in hell I was going to trust that same system. A system that literally was working outside the constitution and legal framework of our nation to destroy a sitting U.S. President is going to suddenly care about my health. Nope, it did not align. I also looked at the datapoint of the U.S.S. Comfort delivered to New York City under the grandest of media proclamations about impending medical doom, only to see the ship sit empty and completely unused despite the scale of the narrative that surround its purpose.
Lastly, and more obliquely, the datapoint of one of my heroes Franklin Graham assembling a NY field hospital to serve over 20,000 patients; another massive endeavor that sat empty and without use. However, prior to the hindsight, it was the in-real-time fight from officials in/around the area who tried to block Samaritans Purse from setting up the facility. If the SARS-CoV-2 issue was as great a threat as declared, then why would anyone fight to keep out a field hospital that could provide such relief. It just didn’t make sense.
Those issues, and others, formed the baseline of my inability to reconcile the key issue of ‘trust’ needed to believe in the vaccine. Additionally, I am healthy and not within any of the risk factors. However, I also feel strongly that each health decision is unique to the individual person, and everyone was making the best decisions for them based on the available information at the time; so, I carry no judgement for those who made a different choice.
Even I’m getting bored about how bad they act there. Anyway, here is the short bus again and story below.
In a militantly secular society like ours, the highest authority is the intelligentsia. The innermost sanctum of the intelligentsia, our answer to the Oracle of Delphi, the dispenser of ultimate truth, is Harvard University. That’s how we know that it is possible for even infants to achieve the pinnacle of cultural Marxist oppressiveness by identifying as sexual deviants:
Harvard Medical School students can learn about how to provide healthcare to “infants” who are LGBTQIA+, according to a course catalog description.
“Caring for Patients with Diverse Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities, and Sex Development,” a regularly available med school course, promises to give students a chance to work with “patients [who] identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex or asexual.”
Prelingual babies would not be able to share the details of their perverse sexual proclivities even if they had any. But this doesn’t matter, because the LGBTism comes from woke parents, until kids are old enough for schools to provide indoctrination in progressive sexual ideology.
Ivy League college credit can be earned by evangelizing on behalf of the LGBT agenda:
Students in the course may also “engage in a mentored scholarly endeavor” such as “advocacy, quality improvement, medical education, original research, or public health project.”
The directors of the course are Alex Keuroghlian and Alberto Puig. They also work at Massachusetts General Hospital, where the course is held. This hospital performs horrific sex change surgeries starting at age 18. In addition,
It also has a patient guide telling parents how to support their child’s “transgender journey” by affirming an identity contrary to their biological sex.
Let’s not single out Mass General:
Another institution involved in the course is Boston Children’s Hospital, which became the center of a national controversy in August due to videos of employees promoting “a full suite of surgical options for transgender teens,” including vaginoplasties and hysterectomies. One video contained the claim that children can know they’re transgender “from the womb.”
Keuroghlian has authored research that connected transgender drugs and surgeries to better mental health outcomes for patients. He has also condemned government restrictions on the procedures.
You do not have to attend a prestigious and outlandishly expensive medical school to know that people cannot be transformed into members of the opposite sex. Harvard students are taught to unknow it.
The doors were opened from the inside to let them in. Those wearing MAGA hats were Federal Agents who caused it. Pelosi could have authorized the National Guard. Twitter banned Trump’s tweet telling everyone to stop it and go home. AOC thought she was being attacked, but was many blocks away not even near the action except for FOMO.
They lied, censored justice and now people are still sitting uncharged in jail, some who weren’t even there.
Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer:
Beginning Jan. 6, 2021, the government-media deep state cabal sharply pivoted from accusing President Donald Trump of “colluding with the Russians to steal the 2016 presidential election” to “incitement of insurrection,” a charge for which he was impeached a second time and now the farcical January 6 committee is recommending criminal charges.
An organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects.
As for Trump’s supposed role, in his January 6 speech, he promoted the First Amendment’s protections of “freedom of speech and assembly” and “the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Here are his exact words, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Trump went further tweeting, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!” How exactly was this a call for a violent overthrow of the government?
This was not a call for violence, revolt, or rebellion. In fact, President Trump authorized National Guard troops, but only Speaker Pelosi or D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser could order deployment. And neither did. The January 6 Commission ignored this.
Capitol Police welcomed protesters inside the U.S. Capitol building, and the only death was at the hands of a Capitol Police officer, fatally shooting an unarmed female military veteran.
As the FBI admitted to embedding informants in the January 6 protests, it begs the question of the FBI’s role in inciting this so-called “insurrection.” How did the FBI know to place informants there? It takes months to train and embed informants, suggesting that the FBI knew these protests would happen, well in advance, but did nothing to stop or prevent them. Or did they play a role in creating these protests through their informants? Did the FBI aid and abet this “insurrection”?
Questioning or challenging election results is hardly unusual. Just ask Al Gore who mounted all sorts of legal and media challenges in 2020. Or Democrats who contested Trump’s 2016 electoral college victory. Were these insurrections?
What’s the common theme? Government agencies actively promoting one favored political party while damaging their political enemies, Soviet-style, to influence elections and disrupt Constitutionally based government. In other words, an insurrection.
Because if he was really guilty, this many investigations and impeachments would have produced actual evidence, like an illegal e-mail server or payments from FTX or Burisma or the CCP. That is overlooked though if you are in the deep state.
From the best economy ever to crap in 18 months. #FJB #LGB
No bias from big tech, nothing to see here
Sooner or later, enough of us figure it out. If we don’t, say goodbye to America, at least the one that was greats
When your 5th car is a Ferrari that you only drive when you are at your “other” vacation home, it’s called F**k Y** money. Look at all the bankrupt 1st round draft picks in the NFL who were paid millions. Their past is littered with F/U mistakes.
Elon Musk has taken it to a new level though. $44 Billion is the king of F/U buys so far. He’s smart enough that it might work.
I know he is trying to stop child porn, spam bots and is fighting for free speech the best since 1776, but how many people can afford to take this gamble?
He’s showed the one sided censorship platform for evil and hate that Twitter became. See the link below where it took orders from the DNC.
I don’t know what it will become, but Musk does have a track record for success. Even if it’s not as big as Space-X or Tesla, he rescued social media (except for fake book) from being a cesspool of bias and hate against good or God.
Twitter was a one-sided censorship platform that had to be killed so that it could survive.
Either way, I enjoy all the time I got back from getting off of useless social media.
If you think we are going to forget that the Covidiots pulled everything short of Concentration Camps to get us jabbed, guess again. A lot of people paid a horrible price for the lies these people told. We were banned, ridiculed, quarantined and ostracized for not being sheep. Some were denied organ transplants. The un-jabbed were the butt of every reason things were going wrong.
Remember this lie? “It’s a pandemic of the un-vaccinated”. It turns out to be the opposite. This is only topped by the vaccine is safe and effective and stops the transmission of Covid
The un-jabbed weren’t the experimental subjects for an untested gene therapy that was neither safe nor effective. It didn’t prevent or stop the transmission of Covid. In fact it is now killing more than Covid did. (I’ll save the de-population issue, but look up WEF or Gates foundation…..the evidence is there).
Now, they want us to forget that they knew they lied and want forgiveness for murder and medical malpractice. Sweep it under the rug.
Not a chance in hell. We won’t forget what you did. It should be enough to know that the un-jabbed won’t go through the damage that the vax is doing to the sheep that got it I got a good taste of what it’s like to be discriminated against,
See Kid Rock Below for what they’d go through and why, the bastards.
The consequences are beginning to appear. If you want a trend, start watching the immune system damage to the vaxxed.
Let’s look at the lies and what they did to you and me. Keep in mind that we, the un-jabbed didn’t forget. We don’t even need retribution because the jabbed will have their own suffering. Those that tried to force it on us will live in infamy as liars and manipulators without facts.
It’s time to correct the narrative and reveal the facts.
You can ask for forgiveness, but you can’t take back the lies.
Yet these companies stopped advertising on Twitter which is purging child porn and enabling free speech.
Abbott Laboratories Allstate Corporation AMC Networks American Express Company AT&T Big Heart Petcare BlackRock, Inc. BlueTriton Brands, Inc. Boston Beer Company CA Lottery (California State Lottery) CenturyLink (Lumen Technologies, Inc.) Chanel Chevrolet* Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.* Citigroup, Inc. CNN Dell Diageo DirecTV Discover Financial Services Fidelity First National Realty Partners Ford* Heineken N.V. Hewlett-Packard (HP) Hilton Worldwide Inspire Brands, Inc. Jeep* Kellogg Company Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. Kyndryl* LinkedIn Corporation MailChimp (The Rocket Science Group) Marriott International, Inc. Mars Petcare Mars, Incorporated Merck & Co. (Merck Sharp & Dohme MSD)* Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) MoneyWise (Wise Publishing, Inc.) Nestle Novartis AG* Pernod Ricard PlayPass The Coca-Cola Company The Kraft Heinz Company Tire Rack Verizon Wells Fargo Whole Foods Market IP Yum! Brands
I was glad to hear that the truth couldn’t be hidden behind the curtain. I was equally disturbed that the same idiots now have a new villain, clouds. Of all the nonsense.
I guess that CO2 is running out of steam because the truth that it is a plant nutrient is not the culprit. We all know the real reason for it is to grift money of the government and billionaires, or to grift it into the pockets of the politicians.
There is a lot more than this, but you get the drift. They are making it up like they have all along.
Our tax dollars have been at work with NASA for the last 20+ years putting satellites in orbit to detect and measure the “CO2 effect” on Global Warming, GW. After 20 years, the CERES satellite (and others) has discovered that cloud reduction is the major effect on GW for those 20 years. Two papers published in 2021 reach this conclusion, Dübal and Vahrenholt, (2) and. Loeb, Gregory et al (3) These new papers do claim some sign of CO2 effect (and other greenhouse gases) on GW; but the papers show the dominate effect on GW for those 20 years was the cloud reduction effect (albedo reduction- warming). This paper will show that the observed cloud reduction will account for all the GW in those 20 years and back to 1975, leaving no GW left over for the CO2 effect on GW. Cloud reduction is albedo reduction, (albedo: color of the earth, black, 0.0, is hot and white, 1.0, is cool). Another recently published paper (2021) by Goode et al (4) measuring earth’s albedo from moon shine also reports the same reduction in albedo as the CERES data of both Dübal and Loeb: one can only conclude that for 20 years of data the albedo change is real. Why is albedo change important? Because the IPCC theory of CO2 effect on GW assumes that the earth’s albedo has been constant (or not changed much) and CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) thru Radiative Forcing effect GW. The resent satellite data says this is not true. Cloud cover changes are best documented at “Climate and Clouds”(5) with links to the data source at “Climate Explorer” (6). “Climate and Clouds” conclude that cloud change only accounts for 25% of the GW. This paper will show an improved analysis of “Climate and Clouds” data agrees with the CERES data of Dübal and Loeb that cloud reduction is accounting for most if not all of the warming over CERES’s 20 years. Figures 1 and 2 show a graphic representation of what Dübal and Loeb observed in the CERES data and what was expected from IPCC Radiative Forcing, RF, theory. The shape (slopes) of the observed and expected are entirely different but the increase in the missing energy (Earths Energy Imbalance, EEI) is the same. The missing energy, EEI, is used to warm the earth though the energy balance equation:
And more that there is no climate emergency, (only a money emergency):
Before I start the post, let’s put the real crux of this on the table. It is a false crisis that was generated on wrong data to get money. I worked in this field and know the players and the facts. It is about stuffing their pockets and distracting the attention from the real problems. It is a go to for everything.
There is no better evidence than COP27 that did nothing to pretend to solve the supposed crisis. It was a bunch of elites in private planes who voted to move money from rich nations to poor. The reality is they are moving the money into their own pockets. They penalize the weak who will pay, and dismiss those who are the worst polluters as they get money under the table for that also.
“There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” – Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009.
It has been 12 years since the intellectual scandal erupted called Climategate. Each anniversary inspires recollections and regurgitation of salient quotations. These quotations speak for themselves; attempts of climate alarmists to parse the words and meaning distracts from what was said in real-time private conversations.
And the scandal got worse after the fact when, according to Paul Stephens, “virtually the entire climate science community tried to pretend that nothing was wrong.” Whitewash exonerations by the educational institutions involved and scientific organizations– was a blow to scholarship and standards as well. The standard of fair, objective, transparent research was sacrificed to a politically correct narrative about the qualitative connection between CO2 forcing and temperature (see Wiki).
Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming (2010) was a rare mainstream-of-sorts look at the scandal. Michael Mann is the bad actor, despite his I-am-the-victim take in his account, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars(2012). 
On November 19, 2009, a whistle-blower or hacker downloaded more than 1,000 documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University (United Kingdom). Posted on a Russian server, these documents were soon accessed by websites around the world to trigger the exposé.
These e-mails were part of confidential communications between top climate scientists in the UK, the United States, and other nations over a 15-year period. The scientists involved had developed surface temperature data sets and promoted the “Hockey Stick” global temperature curve, as well as having wrtten/edited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) physical-science assessment reports.
Branded “Climategate” by British columnist James Delingpole, the emails provided insight into practices that range from bad professionalism to fraudulent science. Bias, data manipulation, dodging freedom of information requests, and efforts to subvert the peer-review process were uncovered.
There is a lot more at the link above, but here are some salient facts.
Man-Made Warming Controversy
“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”
—Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.
“Keith’s [Briffa] series…differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s [Jones] does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series).”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.
“…it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period]…”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, June 4, 2003
“By the way, when is Tom C [Crowley] going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Aug. 3, 2004.
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
—Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Oct. 12, 2009.
Let me end with some actual Climate facts:
That extreme cold has hit the South Pole this month.
That the South Pole had record cold temperatures in the six-month winter of 2020-2021
That 2022 was a relatively mild hurricane period, just like the ten years after Hurricane Katrina hit.
That we had extreme cold weather in the U.S this month along with record snow in the Northeast.
That the Arctic icecaps have been expanding the last ten years, contrary to predictions that the ice would be gone by now.
That the coral reef off Australia is growing with a vengeance
That wildfires were down 80% from the last five-year average.
After 150 years of exponential growth of crude oil and coal use, and rapid growth in the population and all the other components we are told cause warming, the dire predictions have all been false.
The temperature is only up one to two degrees after a Little Ice Age ended in 1860 and the Earth now has a temperature similar to over 1,000 years ago in the Medieval Warming Period.
Why do they always go there. History shows it’s never worked yet the same group thinks they can do it better. It’s going on right now with the WEF, UN, COP27 and the rest of the one world wonders. Well, feast on this:
After the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, Communism was dead. Or so we were told at the time. However, it should be clear by now that Communism is the John Barleycorn of political ideologies:
They worked their will on John Barleycorn, but he lived to tell the tale.
That is, Communism was thought to have been destroyed, but not only did it survive, it eventually came to dominate those who believed they had destroyed it. (A full-length exegesis on this conceit may be found in my 2008 essay “John Barleycorn Was Dead”.)
The 21st-century version of the victorious ideology is not called “home-brewed ale”, but rather “Progressivism”, or the “New World Order”, or “Global Governance”, among other terms. The process of imposing the new global utopia is, of course, referred to as “the Great Reset”. Which is currently well underway, and will probably be completed before most people realize what is happening.
One of the features of latter-day Communism is that it has always been able to count on a multitude of fellow travelers among the members of the political class in the liberal democracies. The Soviets recruited agents of influence in Western governments and cultural circles, but they really didn’t have to work all that hard to find them; there was always a pool of idealistic intellectuals who were eager to embrace the utopian vision provided by the Socialist Revolution.
Communism is primarily a disease of the intellectuals. The proletariat — the purported beneficiaries of the socialist revolution — are generally indifferent to the allure of progressive utopias. But those who hold multiple advanced degrees are especially attracted to the idea of a glorious future planned and implemented by technocrats. They can draw up detailed plans for the construction of an ideal political economy, but they lack the political power to realize their dreams. Achieving such power tends to consume all their energy for well over half their lives; hence the pursuit of power becomes an end in itself.
They get them young with the college professors. How many of them do you think are conservatives or middle of the road? About 4 percent. Most of the mush heads don’t have a chance. It’s why they vote liberal when they aren’t educated properly. Usually they keep the single women, as demonstrated by the last election. They are the easiest to persuade.
I see the current administration trying to take us down that road in the (thinly veiled) guise of climate change and woke. I don’t buy it.
The answer is that it is about money and power. The intellectuals think they know more and need to tell others how to live and what to do.
Bear in mind, the rest of us are getting tired of this charade and are well educated in how to live. Let the power go out and see who survives and who gets robbed.
“Green” policies are destroying the natural environment and changing local weather. This is part of a futile U.N. scheme claiming to improve the climate of the world.
All green energy degrades its environment.
Take wind power. Wind turbines steal energy from the atmosphere and must affect local weather. Turbines are always placed on the highest ground and along ridges to catch more wind. Natural hills already affect local weather by causing more rain along the ridge and a rain shadow farther downwind. Wind turbines enhance this rain shadow effect by robbing the wind of its ability to take moisture and rain into the drier interior. Promoting more inland desertification is not green.
Wind turbines and solar panels soon wear out and have to be replaced. Some have already reached their use-by date. Most of this “green” debris cannot be recycled. To calmly bury that complex toxic waste of plastics, metals, steel, and concrete is not green at all. Soon chemicals will be leaking into the groundwater and water supply dams.
Manufacture, erection, and final disposal of green energy generators uses more energy than they can produce over their short lives. Their whole-of-life net energy production is negative, and their net emissions are also negative.
Greens also worship biomass energy like wood. This is the fuel that cavemen used for warmth, cooking meat, and repelling wild animals. Primitive people like the British still burn wood for power generation, but too much of the energy is consumed in collecting, drying, chipping, and transporting this low-energy fuel from distant forests to power station boilers.
NEXT, IF THEY WEREN’T SO HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT IT
The BBC Defends Special People Flying Private Jets to COP27
There has been criticism on social media of delegates arriving at the COP27 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
The day before the conference began, hundreds of environmental activists stopped private jets leaving Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, by sitting in front of their wheels and riding around the airfield on bicycles.
What is the carbon footprint of private jet travel?
Emissions per kilometre travelled are significantly worse than any other form of transport.
Climate models can’t be validated on initiatialisation due to lack of data and a chaotic initial state.
Model resolutions are too low to represent many climate factors.
Many of the forcing factors are parameterised as they can’t be calculated by the models.
Uncertainties in the parameterisation process mean that there is no unique solution to the history matching.
Numerical dispersion beyond the history matching phase results in a large divergence in the models.
The IPCC refuses to discard models that don’t match the observed data in the prediction phase – which is almost all of them.
The question now is, do you have the confidence to invest trillions of dollars and reduce standards of living for billions of people, to stop climate model predicted global warming or should we just adapt to the natural changes as we always have?
IT FIGURES AL GORE WOULD BE BEGGING FOR MONEY WITH ANOTHER SCAM
The 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) of elite globalists is now gathering in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, to decide how to best use ginned-up climate crisis narratives to extract wealth and power from the United States are redistribute it . . . mainly among themselves.
Former Vice President Al Gore is at the event, touting his newest pet project and trying to regain relevancy. He joined with Google’s nonprofit arm to back the nanny-state Climate TRACE project. The goal is use a satellite database to track “individual emitters” of life-essential carbon dioxide and other gases.
Finally, I defy the satellites to gather data on China and then enact any meaningful consequence to the Chinese government when it ignores the senseless emission goals.
The U.S. is suddenly open to making rich nations pay reparations to countries suffering the ravages of climate change — but only if China ponies up, too.
The about-face comes after years of Washington serving as the bulwark of wealthy countries’ resistance to making such payments, and would set up China as the new climate bogeyman. It would also challenge Beijing’s assertion that China should still be seen as a developing nation.
Paying developing nations that suffer from climate-driven disasters and rising temperatures is one of the most contentious issues in global climate negotiations, which resume this weekend at a major conference in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.
China and India are way worse than any other country. This is about penalizing the West. I suppose that is the non-communist part of the world. An obvious target.
People like the idea of solar farms in the abstract, but hundreds of communities around the world are currently fighting them because they require 300-600x more land than other energy sources, produce 300x more toxic waste, and devastate critical wildlife habitats.
Many rich nations dump used solar panels and batteries on poor African nations
Other rich nations send used solar panels to “landfills where in some cases, they could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium.”
By 2035 there will be 3x more used solar panels than new ones, which will make them 4x more expensive. “The economics of solar,” wrote Harvard Business Review researchers, “would darken quickly as the industry sinks under the weight of its own trash.”
The gig is up on sustainable energy, even for the staunchest of supporters. Before the discussion begins on those who are having to scramble to get ready for winter, China and India are laughing. They are expanding coal mining and coal power plants and are the worlds largest polluters. Still, the weenies who bought the (money laundering) Global Warming story are going to pay the most this winter.
Despite the fanfare surrounding wind and solar, the world’s dependency on fossil fuels is increasing. Last week, Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser said that the world is now “transitioning to coal.”
Saad al-Kaabi, Energy Minister of Qatar, says, “Many countries particularly in Europe which had been strong advocates of green energy and carbon-free future have made a sudden and sharp U-turn. Today, coal burning is once again on the rise reaching its highest levels since 2014.”
They are right. Global coal demand will reach an historic high in 2022, similar to 2013’s record levels. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), “Global coal consumption is forecast to rise by 0.7 percent in 2022 to 8 billion tons…. Coal consumption in the European Union is expected to rise by seven percent in 2022 on top of last year’s 14 percent jump.”
Coal will continue to be a sought-after energy source as “rising gas prices after 2030 will make existing coal-fired generation more economic,” the IEA says. Global energy demand will grow by 47 percent from now through 2050, and oil is expected to be the major source of energy.
Analysts are projecting “a huge gas-to-coal fuel transition in power and industrial sectors” of Europe. Yes, not gas to renewables, but gas to coal. In fact, the European Union’s coal consumption grew 16 percent year-on-year for the first half of 2022. European countries imported 7.9 million tons of thermal coal in June, more than doubling year-on-year. Annual coal imports are expected to reach 100 million tons by the end of the year, the highest since 2017.
Even in the most developed economies of the West like Germany and the UK, fossil fuels continue to dominate as the only dependable source of energy. Germany is set to become the third highest importer of Indonesian coal in 2023, ranked just below coal-guzzling China and India.
AP says, “Coal, long treated as a legacy fuel in Europe, is now helping the continent safeguard its power supply and cope with the dramatic rise in natural gas prices caused by the war.” Rather than wind or solar, it is coal that is keeping the lights on in Europe.
So the Greens lied to us about the nuclear power plant issue!
The Greens assured us again and again that it would not make sense to continue operating the nuclear power plants. We would have “no electricity problem,” said Economics Minister Robert Habeck, Environment Minister Steffi Lemke and Green Party leader Ricarda Lang, like a mantra. But that was a lie that was spread against the advice of experts: This is proven by 166 documents from the environment and economics ministries, which environment minister Steffi Lemke (Greens) had to hand over to the Die Welt am Sonntag and the Cicero on application [both are behind a paywall].
Explosive: Robert Habeck and his Federal Ministry of Economics and Climate Protection refused to hand over the documents, which they are legally obliged to do! He wanted to cover up what Welt was able to prove anyway: the Greens lied to us in the nuclear debate — and neutralized experts who wanted to tell the truth.
The files show how Habeck and company put their crude anti-nuclear ideology above the security of supply in Germany: Against the advice of their own experts. Experts in Habeck’s ministry “obviously” considered the continued operation of the remaining nuclear power plants to be the right, sensible decision — Habeck ignored them. Just like the Ministry of the Environment, which apparently let a letter from the BMWK [Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection] experts go straight into the wastepaper basket, ignoring the words of the experts as well. When the head of the “Society for Reactor Safety”, which is close to the ministry, criticized the phase-out of nuclear power, he was quickly muzzled by State Secretary for the Environment Christian Kühn (Green Party) and was no longer allowed to comment.
Ever since signing the Paris climate agreement, Vietnam has shown interest in reducing its dependency on fossil fuels, introducing in recent years a slew of measures to cut consumption.
However, in what is considered to be a major U-turn, Vietnam’s government announced last month that it will increase coal imports for the next 13 years.
Critics of fossil fuels, including most mainstream media, are out of sync with the world’s energy realities. They are consistently premature in their celebrations of the emission-reduction promises of developing nations like Vietnam only to see commitments yield to the need to meet growing energy demand with coal, oil and natural gas. Even developed economies like Germany and the UK have ditched — or suspended — grandiose plans for “carbon-free” utopias to fend off social unrest or economic collapse.
In a new strategy drafted to develop the coal sector, Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade says that it will increase annual coal imports to as much as 83 million tons during 2025-35.
This decision is a marked departure from ambitious emission-reduction plans that the country seemed keen to embrace, thus delivering another blow to the international campaign against fossil fuels.
Vietnam’s consumption of coal has increased rapidly in the last decade largely to generate electricity — from 27.8 million tons in 2011 to 38.77 million tons in 2015 and 53.52 million tons in 2021. Demand for coal is projected to peak at 125-127 million tons in 2030, mainly due to growing needs in power generation and in the cement, metallurgy and chemical industries.
For countries like Vietnam, there is no option but to increase fossil fuel consumption in the coming decades. Coal, oil, and gas together represent the most affordable, dependable, and abundant source of energy. In fact, a majority of the world’s primary energy comes from these fuels.
The favored technologies of climate alarmists — wind and solar — cannot meet energy needs of large populations. What little electricity they do produce is intermittent and expensive. So, developing countries cannot reduce fossil fuel consumption without a significant compromise in power reliability and economic growth. The consequences of energy shortages due to the anti-fossil fuel stance is greater in developing countries where poverty is still rampant.
Coal consumption correlates closely to Vietnam’s growth in gross domestic product (GDP). The doubling of consumption between 2011-21 tracks with a steady increase in the rate of growth over the same period.
Also, it must suck that Trump said this would happen if they relied on Russian oil.
A great sport has been overtaken by the environmentalists saying this is the future of clean energy and the usual word salad to prove their point. They have created some of the most cutting edge technology and speed you can possibly do. It was at the cost of fun, enjoyment of the car and the rush you get from all of your senses.
Before I get to the facts below, everyone likes the sound of a screaming V-12,10 or even 8 over a hybrid car. You can hear them before you see them and the noise and smell enhance your senses of excitement.
It’s not going to happen though, but here’s why it should:
The electric car’s biggest disadvantage on greenhouse gas emissions is the production of an EV battery, which requires energy-intensive mining and processing, and generates twice as much carbon emissions as the manufacture of an internal combustion engine. This means that the EV starts off with a bigger carbon footprint than a gasoline-powered car when it rolls off the assembly line and takes time to catch up to a gasoline-powered car.
One of the big unknowns is whether EV batteries will have to be replaced. While the EV industry says battery technology is improving so that degradation is limited, if that assurance proves overly optimistic and auto warranties have to replace expensive battery packs, the new battery would create a second carbon footprint that the EV would have to work off over time, partially erasing the promised greenhouse-gas benefits.
With governments now in the business of mandating electric vehicles, the battery challenge assumes a global scale. The majority of lithium-ion batteries are produced in China, where most electricity comes from coal-burning power plants.
The process of mining critical minerals is sometimes described in language that evokes strip mining and fracking, an inconvenient truth that is beginning to attract notice. “Electric cars and renewable energy may not be as green as they appear,” a 2021 New York Times article noted. “Production of raw materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel that are essential to these technologies are often ruinous to land, water, wildlife and people.” The Times has also warned that with global demand for electric vehicles projected to grow sixfold by 2030, “the dirty origins of this otherwise promising green industry have become a looming crisis.”
All of these CO2 metrics could come into play in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently proposed rule that would require publicly traded companies to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions they produce directly, as well emissions produced indirectly through their supply chains around the world. While the implications aren’t clear yet, the new rule could standardize CO2 disclosures and transparency on EV carbon impacts, but some say that such calculations are nearly impossible for global contractors, and automakers would have to rely on the same kinds of estimates and modeling that are used now. Echoing a common concern, EV battery maker Nikola Corp. told the SEC that “some climate data is not readily available, complete, or definitive.”
As a result of these uncertainties, many consumers don’t understand the complexity of these analyses and may assume that their electric cars are literally zero-emissions, or that what matters most is that EVs are better for the environment and the precise degree is not that important.
EV advocates are optimistic that in the coming decades electric cars will become cleaner as power grids are “decarbonized” and the industrialized world reduces its reliance on CO2-spewing fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas. Exactly how much cleaner is not easy to pinpoint. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 60% of the nation’s electricity was generated from coal and gas in 2021. In its Annual Energy Outlook, the agency projects those two fossil fuels will generate 44% of U.S. electricity by 2050.
But those percentages can be misleading. Even as the relative fuel proportions change over time, overall electricity demand is going up, so the total amount of fossil fuels actually burned in the mid-21st century goes down by only about 5%, according to EIA estimates. Future greenhouse gas emissions will depend on the number of EVs on the road and how electricity is generated, and those forecasts swing wildly. The EIA forecasts a mere 18.9 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2050, which is very conservative compared with advocacy group EVAdoption’s prediction of more than 25 million EVs on U.S. roads by 2030, only eight years away. BloombergNEF forecasts 125 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2040, up from 1.61 million at the end of last year, which would constitute about half the cars in this country.
“They’re making these forecasts that are basically licking your finger and sticking it up in the air,” David Rapson, a professor of energy economics at the University of California, Davis, who analyzes electric vehicle policy, said about California forecasts, which also applies more broadly. “Nobody knows what’s going to happen.”
Back to me.
Don’t try to tell me racing a hybrid is environmentally helpful when you fly around the world in many private and cargo jets each F1 weekend. Hauling the freight to one race is the pollution (carbon is not pollution) of all the cars in every race.
Cut us some slack and put real engines that we can hear coming, building our excitement.
Even the greenie drivers loved it when Fernando Alonso drove his championship winning Renault to some exhibition laps. They miss the sound also.
It’s not a step backwards, rather a step in the right direction.
No more censorship of one side of the political argument. The press can still hide and distort the broadcast news, but we are back to the 2016 rules of election. That is the one where everybody gets to have their say.
Maybe there is a chance for the truth to come out. It’s Twitter and is going to take a long time to wash the blue stain off of their reputation.