Of late the globalist warming crowd has targeted the poor cow for the cause of the earth burning up before our very eyes.
Along with humans, of course. We remain public enemy number 1, but the lowly cow has become a target because of all that methane. And many alarmists want to exterminate cows to put an end to it. So you know what they think the solution to human pollution is.
But about that methane. Supposedly, it’s one of the most potent and dangerous of the greenhouse gases. We don’t know about that, as we are not methane scientists or cow proctologists, but here’s what we do know: The most dangerous gas in America these days — and indeed in the western world — is the gaslighting of the people about climate change by international corporations, the corporate media, the emerging Unified World Government, and its court jester, George Soros.
Well, you know what they say. Nothing is absurd so long as everything is absurd. Or to put it another way, when the absurdity captures everything — media, financial institutions, governments, schools, civic organizations, Bam Bam’s Bowling and Strip Club — when there is nothing to pierce the veil of nonsense and to let truth in, the absurdity itself looks like truth.
In other words, there is consensus. There is settled science. And only heretics who are going to hell and crazy people who are also going to hell because they vote for conservatives or visit Bam Bam’s can possibly believe in an alternative narrative.
Of course, in the real world, there is no such thing as settled science, and scientific consensus was never meant to be taken as incontrovertible proof. Just the opposite. Scientific consensus is meant only to be foundational starting point to begin testing that consensus and trying to undermine its foundations. It provides a pathway toward its own destruction.
Throughout history consensus has time and again been shattered in just such a way. Lavoisier destroyed the consensus that a fire-like element called phlogiston existed and in the process he discovered oxygen; the idea that the sun revolved around the earth was another consensus fiasco that was knocked down, but not before disbelievers were condemned and even jailed.
Now, as we report in today’s edition, another consensus is in serious jeopardy, namely, that human-made climate change has plunged the earth into such a dire crisis of survival that we need to destroy ourselves and our standard of living to save ourselves.
It’s an absurdity protected by the veil of the world’s elite, and it needs to be pierced no less than the absurdity that the earth was the center of the universe.
Nobel laureate John Clauser — whose Nobel came just last year — is trying to do just that by joining a growing group of scientific dissenters who say there is no climate crisis at all, at least not a human-made one. Clauser’s dissent is the loudest and the latest, but the numbers are spiraling upward.
At least Clauser is trying to be loud. Most do not know he exists because the corporate media ignores — and the regime tries to cancel — all those who upset the approved narrative. Instead, the media continues to gaslight us with horror stories of record temperatures, super hurricanes, melting polar ice caps, and death by cow farts.
Poor maligned cows.
To prove the point, right on cue as we were writing this, the Washington Post has just published a story with this alarmist headline: “A new era of climate-linked disease threatens humanity”! If only we had a nickel for every time humanity has been so threatened.
It’s all bunk, and the truth is out there if only people will look for it. Granted, it’s hard to find sometimes.
But what about this year’s record global heat?! people ask.
Well, as we reported several weeks ago, the EPA’s data for 1,066 weather stations across the United States shows that 81 percent reported either a decrease or no change in the number of unusually hot days since 1948, while only 19 percent reported an increase in the number of unusually hot days.
That’s not to say we haven’t been heating up at all. But, as scientist Judith Curry, the former chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, reports on her blog, this year’s heat, part of a warming trend since 2015, is mostly due to natural variability, that is, an increase in absorbed solar radiation “driven by a slow decline in springtime snow extent, but primarily by a reduction in reflection from the atmosphere driven by reduced cloudiness and to a lesser extent a reduction in atmospheric aerosol (in 2020 there was a change in ship fuel regulations that reduced the amount of sulfate particles in the atmosphere and made low clouds less reflective, she wrote): “Any increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing CO2 (which impacts the longwave radiation budget) is lost in the noise.”
Then, too, though global warming was as pronounced in the first half of the 20th century (1910-1945) as in our time (remember the Dust Bowl), it was not due to carbon dioxide, as, Curry has reported. On her blog, she noted that in 1910 the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was estimated to be 300.1 parts per million; in 1950 it was only 311.3 ppm; and in 2018 it was 408 ppm.
“So, the warming during the period 1910-1945 was associated with a CO2 increase of 10 ppm, whereas a comparable amount of warming during the period 1950 to 2018 was associated with a 97 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration — almost an order of magnitude greater CO2 increase for a comparable amount of global ocean warming,” Curry wrote. “ … Clearly, there were other factors in play besides CO2 emissions in the early 20th century global warming.”
But what about those melting ice caps?!
On her blog, Curry reports that in 2023 the Arctic sea ice is healthy, with sea ice extent for July being only the twelfth lowest on record and with snow mass balance (accumulation minus melt) for July above average relative to 1980-2010.
And while the Antarctic sea ice is seriously thin, it’s not because it’s warming there. In fact, Curry reports, Antarctica has a significant cold anomaly, running 3oC below average. Rather, there was an early seasonal start to the Antarctic ozone hole, she reports, that, for complex reasons, are bringing winds that are breaking up the sea ice.
But what about all those supersized hurricanes?!
The data don’t support that they exist in any greater effect than back in the day. That there are more numerous, more powerful hurricanes is a myth. Funny enough, but Curry was herself once a climate alarmist, and particularly so on hurricanes, as she reported in one of her studies:
“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” Curry told John Stossel in an interview last month, adding that she became a climate alarmist rock star after the study. But then, she said, some researchers pointed out serious flaws in her work, and, as Stossel wrote in Reason:
“‘Like a good scientist, I investigated,’ says Curry. She realized that the critics were right. ‘Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability.’”
She went on to discover a climate change industry that rewarded climate alarmism, or, as Stossel framed it, “a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex.”
More and more scientists are catching on to the reality of that complex, kicking at its walls to crack them and to let the light of truth expose its absurdity. It’s only a matter of time.
It would help if presidential candidates would give these truth-telling scientists a hand. Right now only Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy have told the truth that anthropogenic warming is fake and that the climate change agenda is a pretext for radicals to control of all society.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is close behind Trump and Ramaswamy in sensible climate policy. While he believes the climate crisis is real, he also says the climate change movement has been co-opted by totalitarians to impose ever more control over society. He opposes the climate movement’s “obsession with carbon” and would end all energy subsidies and let the market determine winners and losers, rather than the government.
As for the rest of the candidates, they simply flunk the test. They need to have the courage to stand up and call out the climate change movement for what it is, an ideological movement for authoritarian control by elites. And they need to say it loud and clear: The climate change crisis is a manufactured crisis to scare people into submission, just like the COVID crisis.
No doubt it won’t be long before The Washington Post publishes another story about how the climate is threatening humanity in one urgent way or another.
If Nobel laureates can stand up and say the truth, so can presidential candidates.
All of us are waiting for them to step into the fight. The should do it for us, and, oh yeah, they should do it for all the poor maligned cows.
Their moos are on the line, too.