Wow. This is an absolutely epic take down of climate change nonsense and wokeism. Outstanding!pic.twitter.com/DY1vDyjuur

— DissocialSpace (@DissocialSpace) January 15, 2023

Mark Steyn: Krill or Be Krilled

 Professor Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey is worried about – stop me if you've heard this one before – global warming. For this year's Royal Institution Christmas lecture, he'll be warning that the merest smidgeonette of an increase in temperature in the south polar seabed will lead to the loss of a zillion species. As the oceans warm, the ice shelves that extend from the polar depths into the sub-Antarctic light will shrink, and the thick mats of algae on their underside will vanish, and the billions of tiny krill that feed on them will perish, and pretty soon, up at the scenic end of the food chain, all those cute seals and penguins and whales will be gone.

And all this will happen if the temperature goes up two degrees, from butt-numbingly freezing to marginally less butt-numbingly freezing. "It is going to be really unpleasant," Prof Peck tells the Guardian. "We are going to lose things – we just don't know how much."

Each to his own. I like whales. I spend a lot of time on the north shore of the St Lawrence and around the Saguenay fjord in Quebec, and it would certainly be a duller place without the whales gaily plashing hither and yon. But what I find curious about this sort of thing is that Prof Peck is supposed to be a scientist and the newspaper reporting his views is famously rational. A month ago, for example, it was mocking the kind of folks who'd re-elected George W Bush – men of faith, not science, many of them from jurisdictions where the school boards are packed with creationists who look askance at Darwin, evolution and the like.

Evolution posits that species will come and go: some die out, some survive and evolve. I don't regard myself as anything terribly special but in a typical year I'm exposed to temperatures from around 98 degrees to 45 below freezing, in the lower part of which range I evolve into my long underwear.

Maybe if the Antarctic food chain is incapable of evolving to cope with a two-degree increase in temperature across many decades, it isn't meant to survive. Science tells us that extinction is a fact of life, and that nature is never still: long before the Industrial Revolution, long before the first lardbuttus Americanus got into his primitive four-miles-per-gallon SUV to head to the mall for the world's first cheeseburger, there were dramatic fluctuations in climate wiping out a ton of stuff. Yet scientists and their cheerleaders, the hyper-rationalists at the progressive newspapers, have signed on to the idea that evolution should cease and the world should be frozen – literally, in the case of Prof Peck and his beloved algae – in some unchanging Edenic state.

Well, good luck to him. If I see a chap with a "Save the algae" collecting box, I'm happy to chip in a fiver. But, at the same time as the Royal Institute and the Guardian and all other bien pensants are in a mass panic at the thought of the krill having to adjust his way of life, they're positively insouciant about massive changes to our own habitat. You like fox-hunting? You're not entirely cool with gay marriage? You prefer English common law to this new Euro-pudding legal code? Tough, shrugs the Guardian.

Stuff happens, things change, adapt or die. Perhaps he'll give us some hard numbers in his lecture but, insofar as I can tell, Prof Peck's doomsday scenario depends on a lot of "ifs". In the course of several decades, the temperature might indeed increase sufficiently, and that might reduce the algae, and that might diminish by several billion the number of krill, and that might impact the lifestyle of the Antarctic penguin by, oh, 2050, 2060.

But, on the other hand, somebody might have invented a thing the size of the Palm Pilot you staple to the seabed that automatically lowers the temperature by two degrees and we'll have wall-to-wall algae. Who can say?

What we do know for certain is that the krill's chances of survival are a lot greater than, say, those of the Italians, or the Germans, or the Japanese, Russians, Greeks and Spaniards, all of whom will be in steep population decline long before the Antarctic krill. By 2025, one in every three Japanese will be over 65, and that statistic depends on the two out of three who aren't over 65 sticking around to pay the tax bills required to support the biggest geriatric population in history.

Does the impending extinction of the Japanese and Russians not distress anyone? How about the Italians? They gave us the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, Gina Lollobrigida, linguine, tagliatelle, fusilli. If you're in your scuba suit down on the ice shelf dining with the krill and you say you'd like your algae al dente in a carbonara sauce, they'll give you a blank look. Billions of years on Earth and all they've got is the same set menu they started out with. But try and rouse the progressive mind to a "Save the Italians" campaign and you'll get nowhere. Luigi isn't as important as algae, even though he, too, is a victim of profound environmental changes: globally warmed by Euro-welfare, he no longer feels the need to breed.

And, if he doesn't care if he survives, why should the penguins and the krill feel any differently? Given the choice between the krill's hypothetically impending extinction and their own impending extinction already under way, Europeans would apparently rather fret about the denizens of the deep. Even Chesterton, who observed that once man has ceased to believe in God he'll believe in anything, might have marvelled at how swift the decay from post-Christian to post-evolutionary. Like the old song says: What's it all about – algae?

~from The Daily Telegraph, December 14th 2004

Virginian Pilot Climate Ghouls Forget About the Victims.

 

Mayfield KY: Decimated By Tornado, Piled On By 

Climate Change Jerks

As I read the headline above, I went back a few minutes in time to recall this front-page story in the 
Virginian Pilot

What's the Science Behind Storms

The purpose was to strongly suggest, without any proof, that "climate change" was the cause of the tornado that killed a large number of people in Mayfield, Kentucky.  The actual story of the devastation - that may have killed as many as 100 people -  was downgraded to page.6.  

For the Left, politics is their religion — their One True Faith. Everything, without exception, must be politicized. Tornadoes? Hurricanes? Volcanic eruptions? Rains of frogs? They’ll find a way. It’s what they do.

I can only imagine what Leftist journalists would have said about the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883. Let’s try it on: First: if conservatives were dominant:

“Heartless Far-Right Administration Refuses Blame For Massive Eruption”

“Krakatoa Explodes: Poor and Homeless Worst Affected”

Now, if left-liberals were in command:

“President Warns More Eruptions Coming If Climate Change Not Fought”

“Explosion Would Have Been Worse Except For Infrastructure Bill”

Give it a spin on your carousel!

An interesting statistic: China now burns more coal than all other countries put together

Where is Greta Thunberg when you need her?  "HOW DARE YOU?"

 

Greenland Glacier Reverses Course, Growing Again After Shrinking for Years

Global warming ... Climate Change strikes again. 

The reports related to this finding indicate the shrinkage is “temporary.” Climate change believers are hanging onto this word as vigorously as anti-Trumpers are hanging on to the phase “not exonerated” in the Mueller Report.

Science Fraud and Bogos Experts

Global cooling, global warming, climate change, have all been predicted with various levels of alarm for 50 years.  When global temperatures stopped dropping and began to rise the alarmists switched scenarios.  The one thing they didn’t change was the assumption that industrial civilization must somehow be destroying the whole planet.

If you are old enough you may recall that Newsweek, Time, Life, National Geographic all predicted that global cooling would kill billions.  University of California professor Kenneth Watt predicted a new Ice Age as the earth cooled by 11 degrees by the year 2000. What caused this prediction?  Simple, the temperature record showed global temperatures generally declining from about 1940 to 1970.  

In 1971 Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.”  This did not come to pass, and today the predictions are exactly reversed.

Today he’s warning that Global Warming will lead to cannibalism.

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) predicted that, by 2010, 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing the Caribbean and the Pacific islands. In 1989, the AP reported that “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” The UNEP predicted “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”  It’s now 2018.

The Pentagon got in on the act, in 2003 predicting that in 10 years (2013) California would be flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures would result in resource wars and all sorts of other horrors. The Pentagon report claimed there was “general agreement in the scientific community” that the scenarios would come to pass.

James Hansen headed NASA’s Goddard and is one of the best known “climatologists” in the world.  In 1988 he predicted – among other things - that NY City’s West Side Highway would be under water, tape would cover the city’s windows because of high winds and crime would rise because of the heat.  In 1986, Hansen also predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years.  It’s not.

Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, in 1990 predicted that within 5 years the heartlands of North America would be desolated by drought, the Platte River of Nebraska would be dry and Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.  Perhaps Mexico should build a wall.

Al Gore, the BBC and the UN all predicted that the North and South poles would be ice free before now.   They’re not.  

Predictions of man-cause disaster are not exclusively related to climate.  

There’s the Population Bomb.  When environmentalists said that we were destroying the Earth, they meant it directly and literally. The biggest problem was the very existence of humans, the fact that there were just too darned many of us. We were going to keep growing unchecked, and we were going to swarm the surface of the Earth like locusts, destroying everything in our path until we eventually used it all up.

There were going to be an inconceivable seven billion people on Earth by the year 2000, and there was just no way we could support them all.  It took us a bit longer, until 2012, to reach a global population of seven billion—who are better off than the population of Earth has ever been.

Mass starvation.  Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness predcited that by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.  On reality, obesity has created a shortage of men and women fit enough to join the military.

Resource depletion.  Not only were we going to run out of food, we’re supposed to run out of pretty much everything else such as nickel and copper, and above all we were running out of oil.  Remember “Peak Oil?”  

Here’s our friend Kenneth Watt again, with his present trends continuing: “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”  Watt also got the demise of gas station attendants wrong.  

 Everyone knows the sad story of Cassandra, the woman given the gift of true prophecy by the gods and simultaneously cursed to have no one believe her. The Global Warmer/Changers/End of the Worlders problem, up to now, is like that but reversed. Always off, but generously credited. I think that string has run out. They can play Wagner and whistle the Ride of the Valkyries all they want from here on. People are tired of that music, and sick of the band.

References to Federalist and New American

Trump to remove ‘climate change’ as a national security threat

This is encouraging news:

The Trump administration will reverse course from previous Obama administration policy, eliminating climate change from a list of national security threats. The National Security Strategy to be released on Monday will emphasize the importance of balancing energy security with economic development and environmental protection, according to a source who has seen the document and shared excerpts of a late draft.

“Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system,” a draft of the National Security Strategy slated to be released on Monday said. “U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”

IS SEA LEVEL RISING?

Climate change alarmists portray a catastrophic rise in sea level as one of the chief dangers of global warming. They draw pictures of the Statue of Liberty up to her chest in water, and so on. I doubt whether many people actually believe these dire predictions, however. If they did, prices for oceanfront property would be collapsing. That isn’t happening, which suggests that a lot of people pay lip service to global warming hysteria who don’t actually think it has any scientific basis.

If they don’t believe it, they’re right. Here, as in so many instances, global warming alarmism is built on a skinny foundation of truth. Sea level is indeed rising, as it has been for something like 15,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. At one time, sea level rose rapidly, as the giant glaciers that covered most of the Northern Hemisphere melted. For the last 6,000 years, the melting and consequent sea level rise has been relatively constant and modest:

 

At The Week That Was, SEPP comments:

Geophysicist Dennis Hadke compared the claim of drastic sea level rise with what is actually occurring in ten coastal cities with long and reliable records of rise (from tidal gages). He calculates linear fits, regression lines, for each of the ten cities. Not surprisingly for TWTW readers, he finds:

There has been no dramatic and consistent sea-level rise in the past century, and projections show no dramatic rise is likely to occur in the coming century.

There is no correlation between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and sea-level rise.

The work of Hadke concurs with retired NASA meteorologist Thomas Wysmuller discussed in the January 28 TWTW. Wysmuller explored the correlation between CO2 and sea level rise and found no measurable linkage between Sea Level and CO2. As Wysmuller stated:

For the past 2,000 years, Sea Level rise was unchangingly linear, increasing between 1 & 1.5 mm/yr. The maximum rise is about 6 inches per century. This has continued for the past 135 years, even though CO2 concentrations have increased by 38%.

It must be remembered that in addition to the ocean rising gradually–very gradually–as ice continues to melt, slowly, the Earth also subsides. But subsidence is local, depending on soil conditions in a particular place. Cities that are built partly on landfills, like Miami, are especially likely to sink. When you read in the newspapers about alarming conditions caused by rapidly rising sea levels, it is almost certain that what is mostly happening is that the land is subsiding.

Alternative facts

The next person who cites Kellyanne Conway's reference to "alternative facts" as an example of a lie is going to have my shoe in his ass.

Why is it so hard to understand that there are press “facts” and there are other facts that the press leaves out.

Tyler O'Neil writes an entire article about the real meaning of "1984" and appear oblivious to the fact that reality is NOT the media narrative.

Like the fact that when Antifa attacked Trump supporters at his rallies the press reported the “fact” that Trump’s rallies were violent, omitting the fact that the violence was all committed by Bernie and Hillary supporters.

There’s the fact that the rallies in Charlottesville involved “Nazis” - deluded jerks who could hold a convention in a phone booth but who actually marched peacefully - until they met an equally despicable gang of masked rioters (Antifa) and, because the police were told to stand down, the riot started.

There’s the “fact” of global warming and there’s the alternative fact that none of the global warming models match reality. Alternative facts are facts that the media, as they bring "1984" up to date, chooses to ignore.

Sea levels are falling

Don't tell the Virginian Pilot, their heads will explode.

Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy

A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

And every lie gets re-printed on the front page of the Virginian Pilot. They're no more gullible than the average scientific illiterate that works for the media, they're just true believers in the Church of Global Warming.

Here’s How Wrong Past Environmental Predictions Have Been

In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of “The Population Bomb,” declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies.

In an article for The Progressive, he predicted, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”

He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned, “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

Despite such predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award.

Read the whole thing.

Let me tell you what science is. It is research into nature. In chemistry, my specialty, it's the ability to combine elements and molecules to produce a new compound. It could be new and unique or it could be a repeat of an old experiment. But if it's done right it will always get the same result. A chemist will predicts that if you combine A and B under stated conditions you will always get C. If his prediction does not come true he will change his mind and admit that he failed. In the so-called "science" of global warming predictions have proven to be totally and utterly wrong. However the fake "scientists" get more money and their past failures are ignored. Instead they get prizes and awards.

Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans

The Obama administration is anti-science.

My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic

By ROGER PIELKE JR.

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research—which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.

I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.

More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?

I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.

Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.

Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.

When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.

The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right: There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.

Yes, storms and other extremes still occur, with devastating human consequences, but history shows they could be far worse. No Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, by far the longest such period on record. This means that cumulative economic damage from hurricanes over the past decade is some $70 billion less than the long-term average would lead us to expect, based on my research with colleagues. This is good news, and it should be OK to say so. Yet in today’s hyper-partisan climate debate, every instance of extreme weather becomes a political talking point.

For a time I called out politicians and reporters who went beyond what science can support, but some journalists won’t hear of this. In 2011 and 2012, I pointed out on my blog and social media that the lead climate reporter at the New York Times,Justin Gillis, had mischaracterized the relationship of climate change and food shortages, and the relationship of climate change and disasters. His reporting wasn’t consistent with most expert views, or the evidence. In response he promptly blocked me from his Twitter feed. Other reporters did the same.

In August this year on Twitter, I criticized poor reporting on the website Mashable about a supposed coming hurricane apocalypse—including a bad misquote of me in the cartoon role of climate skeptic. (The misquote was later removed.) The publication’s lead science editor, Andrew Freedman, helpfully explained via Twitter that this sort of behavior “is why you’re on many reporters’ ‘do not call’ lists despite your expertise.”

I didn’t know reporters had such lists. But I get it. No one likes being told that he misreported scientific research, especially on climate change. Some believe that connecting extreme weather with greenhouse gases helps to advance the cause of climate policy. Plus, bad news gets clicks.

Yet more is going on here than thin-skinned reporters responding petulantly to a vocal professor. In 2015 I was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Paige St. John, making the rather obvious point that politicians use the weather-of-the-moment to make the case for action on climate change, even if the scientific basis is thin or contested.

Ms. St. John was pilloried by her peers in the media. Shortly thereafter, she emailed me what she had learned: “You should come with a warning label: Quoting Roger Pielke will bring a hailstorm down on your work from the London Guardian, Mother Jones, and Media Matters.”

Or look at the journalists who helped push me out of FiveThirtyEight. My first article there, in 2014, was based on the consensus of the IPCC and peer-reviewed research. I pointed out that the global cost of disasters was increasing at a rate slower than GDP growth, which is very good news. Disasters still occur, but their economic and human effect is smaller than in the past. It’s not terribly complicated.

That article prompted an intense media campaign to have me fired. Writers at Slate, Salon, the New Republic, the New York Times, the Guardian and others piled on.

In March of 2014, FiveThirtyEight editor Mike Wilson demoted me from staff writer to freelancer. A few months later I chose to leave the site after it became clear it wouldn’t publish me. The mob celebrated. ClimateTruth.org, founded by former Center for American Progress staffer Brad Johnson, and advised by Penn State’s Michael Mann, called my departure a “victory for climate truth.” The Center for American Progress promised its donor Mr. Steyer more of the same.

Yet the climate thought police still weren’t done. In 2013 committees in the House and Senate invited me to a several hearings to summarize the science on disasters and climate change. As a professor at a public university, I was happy to do so. My testimony was strong, and it was well aligned with the conclusions of the IPCC and the U.S. government’s climate-science program. Those conclusions indicate no overall increasing trend in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or droughts—in the U.S. or globally.

In early 2014, not long after I appeared before Congress, President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren testified before the same Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He was asked about his public statements that appeared to contradict the scientific consensus on extreme weather events that I had earlier presented. Mr. Holdren responded with the all-too-common approach of attacking the messenger, telling the senators incorrectly that my views were “not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion.” Mr. Holdren followed up by posting a strange essay, of nearly 3,000 words, on the White House website under the heading, “An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr.,” where it remains today.

I suppose it is a distinction of a sort to be singled out in this manner by the president’s science adviser. Yet Mr. Holdren’s screed reads more like a dashed-off blog post from the nutty wings of the online climate debate, chock-full of errors and misstatements.

But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.” He made the letter public.

The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. In the letter, Rep. Grijalva suggested that I—and six other academics with apparently heretical views—might be on the payroll of Exxon Mobil (or perhaps the Illuminati, I forget). He asked for records detailing my research funding, emails and so on. After some well-deserved criticism from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Rep. Grijalva deleted the letter from his website. The University of Colorado complied with Rep. Grijalva’s request and responded that I have never received funding from fossil-fuel companies. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.

But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point. Studying and engaging on climate change had become decidedly less fun. So I started researching and teaching other topics and have found the change in direction refreshing. Don’t worry about me: I have tenure and supportive campus leaders and regents. No one is trying to get me fired for my new scholarly pursuits.

But the lesson is that a lone academic is no match for billionaires, well-funded advocacy groups, the media, Congress and the White House. If academics—in any subject—are to play a meaningful role in public debate, the country will have to do a better job supporting good-faith researchers, even when their results are unwelcome. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike, and to the administration of President-elect Trump.

Academics and the media in particular should support viewpoint diversity instead of serving as the handmaidens of political expediency by trying to exclude voices or damage reputations and careers. If academics and the media won’t support open debate, who will?

Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years

The Democrats Won’t Autopsy Their Own Corpse

Now, you and rest of the unshaven she-beasts and spindly femboys could take this opportunity for reflection and introspection following the election instead of retreating to your campus safe spaces for vegan cookies and awkward hugs. You could try to figure out where you went wrong losing so many voters who you used to have sewn up. The idea is to figure out how you might be able to prevent similar results in the future. Some call it a “post-event analysis.” In the Army – for the goatee n’ scarf gang, that’s the one that fights on the ground – we call it an “after action review.” Coroners call it an “autopsy.”

And you’ll never, ever do it. Why? Because you are liberals and you already have your answers.

Everyone is racist.

Everyone is sexist.

Everyone is stupid.

Everyone but you, that is. You, the ones the racist, sexist, stupid people beat like a NFL player’s wife.

And speaking of the NFL, have you noticed how its own autopsy of its own dying ratings also seems to have a predetermined outcome, one that studiously avoids any unwelcome conclusions?

Oh, it’s too many ads.

Oh, it’s too many penalties.

Oh, it’s the election.

Anything missing? Anything significant to, say, the kind of people who used to like football? I dunno, maybe the NFL’s coddling of spoiled jerks who disrespect the flag?

...

And:

Yeah, I played the #Science card. Case closed. Who needs to even talk to the idiots who are clearly too stupid to understand that their role is to rubberstamp the political manifestations of liberal fads and urban mysticism. I mean, some of those people work in fracking and just don’t understand that despite the ever-growing series of “This is it, we’re doomed, we really, really mean it this time” milestones falling back in society’s collective rear-view mirror, the weather obsessions of blue city neurotics are much, much more important than them feeding their families.

Read the whole thing.

Scientist Predicts ‘Little Ice Age,’ Gets Icy Reception From Colleagues

Science in the age of Obama.

Professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University is being attacked by climate change proponents for publishing research suggesting there could be a 35-year period of low solar activity that could usher in an “ice age.”

Zharkova and her team of researchers released a study on sunspot modeling, finding that solar activity could fall to levels not seen since the so-called “Little Ice Age” of the 1600s. Zharkova’s conclusions may have huge implications for global temperature modeling, but her analysis is not accepted by some climate scientists.

“Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy,” she told The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) in an interview on her solar study.

In fact, Zharkova said some scientists even tried to have her research suppressed.

The "97% of scientists" lie.

Dem Party Platform Calls For Prosecuting Global Warming Skeptics

Thought-crime will be prosecuted.

Democratic operatives responsible for creating their party’s platform this year have unanimously adopted a provision calling for the Department of Justice to investigate companies who disagree with Democrats on global warming science.

A panel of Democrats voted Friday to approve a final draft of the party’s platform to promote “Progressive Democratic Values,” which apparently includes investigating energy companies who “misled” shareholders about global warming.

Climate Change: The Scam

Because the underlying thread is that the government needs more power to force you to do things. Whether is global cooling, global warming or climate change the answer is more government.