The Suicidal Narrative of the Modern Environmental Left

Should you ever doubt the importance of the “narrative” to the modern Left, all you need to do is look around you. It’s the in the air we breathe, and the water in which we swim, attached to the products we buy and behind just about every news story we read or see. At every turn, we are admonished, hectored, harangued to get with the cultural-Marxist program.

On a plane recently, the attendants handed out complimentary dark chocolates. The brand? Something called Endangered Species Chocolate, a company that bills its products as “the first ever chocolate bars made in America from Fairtrade certified West African cocoa beans that can be fully traced from farm to chocolate bar. ESC has committed that only fully traceable cocoa beans sustainably grown and harvested under Fairtrade standards will be used to make their chocolate.”

In case, like me, you had no idea fluffy chocolate bunnies were an endangered species, or that a guilty nibble at a Hershey bar could lay waste to vast stretches of the veldt, the company offers this helpful explanation:

The cocoa used by ESC is grown by West African farmers who follow rigorous standards for protection of workers’ rights and the environment. When a customer purchases ESC’s Fairtrade certified bars, West African farmers earn a fair price and an additional Fairtrade social premium to invest in business and community projects such as improving education and healthcare, protecting their environment and improving their economic well-being.

Who could be against that? Westerners from Dickens’ Mrs. Jellyby on have sought to improve the plight of sub-Saharan Africans, but this statement of virtue-signaling posits that West African farmers are currently not getting a fair price for their cocoa beans; in our mind’s eye, we picture some nasty Belgian—call him Mr. Kurtz—terrorizing the natives from his Congolese redoubt.

Similarly, on a recent trip to the health-food store I bought a bag of moringa, a currently voguish “superfood” of powdered plant protein. Yum. It’s made by Kuli Kuli (which, like Endangered Species Chocolate, sports a nurturing “green” logo). Here’s what the packaging has to say:

Once eaten by the ancient Greeks and Romans, moringa leaves have been used in traditional medicine for many centuries… our moringa is sustainably sourced from women’s cooperatives in West Africa, where we work to improve nutrition and livelihoods. Nourishing you, nourishing the world.

If it was good enough for Sophocles and Marcus Aurelius, it’s good enough for me. But that bit about the women’s cooperatives is a masterstroke—hey, West Africa is just like Park Slope in Brooklyn, only sunnier! You can practically see the West African women, relaxing after a hard day harvesting moringa leaves, sipping a sustainable latte and reading the New York Times, and perhaps helping to save the planet themselves with a delicious bite of Endangered Species Chocolate.

It’s all just advertising, of course, and thus harmless enough. It also goes to reinforcing the narrative: that selfish man is the cause of species endangerment, that primitive societies are superior to developed ones (but then who would buy the locally sourced cocoa beans and moringa leaves?), and that traditional medicine—which is to say, no medicine at all—is somehow superior to what those pill-pushing quacks foist on you before they climb in their BMWs and head out to the links for a round or two of golf. Were that true, the ancient Greeks and Romans might all have lived into their 80s, instead of dying in their 20s and 30s, as unsustainable folks tended to do back then.

Which brings us, ineluctably, to “climate change” and this piece in the Times: “The More Education Republicans Have, the Less They Tend to Believe in Climate Change.”

Yes, you read that right.

An exhaustive scientific report unveiled this month concluded that the earth is experiencing the warmest period in recorded history and that humans are the dominant cause of the temperature rise observed since the mid-20th century. That consensus does not extend to the American public. Climate change divides Americans, but in an unlikely way: The more education that Democrats and Republicans have, the more their beliefs in climate change diverge.

About one in four Republicans with only a high school education said they worried about climate change a great deal. But among college-educated Republicans, that figure decreases, sharply, to 8 percent.

This may seem counterintuitive, because better-educated Republicans are more likely to be aware of the scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change. But in the realm of public opinion, climate change isn’t really a scientific issue. It’s a political one.

You’re darn right it is. The author’s underlying assumption is that the more you know about “man-made climate change,” the more eager you should be to chow down on Endangered Species Chocolate or shovel some women’s-collective moringa into your smoothie before you leave your ant-farm apartment to hop on the mass-transit system on your way to a day job that somehow involves you, personally, saving the planet—not so much by what you do, but by what you don’t do.

But that’s not a future we on the Right want to embrace. I take this poll as a heartening sign that the more you educate yourself about the transparent fraud of “man-made climate change,” the less you’re likely to believe in their genteel fictions of peaceful, happy villages in Liberia or their apocalyptic notions of the End of the World as We Know It, just about any day now. As we’ve learned time and again, mountebanks and charlatans are always promising that the end of days is just around the corner, if only we will repent; find Jesus; join their cult; give away all our possessions; or at least sign up for a lifetime supply of snake oil, delivered by Amazon drones right to our doorsteps.

We’ve seen this movie before, of course. In April, Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute detailed 18 different instances when “[t]he prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong.”

Never mind that the Earth’s climate is always changing; we wouldn’t be here at all if it hadn’t. Never mind that there’s little humans can do to interfere with planetary processes, most of which are beyond our ken. Never mind that we flatter ourselves if we think so. Never mind that to characterize carbon dioxide—which we exhale so that the Amazon rain forest and those West African moringa plants might inhale—as a dangerous “greenhouse gas” is profoundly anti-human.

It’s what you’d expect from a political philosophy that denies God and sees itself as its own worst enemy: a narrative that must end in suicide, and all in the name of the greater good. All we ask our friends on the Left is not to take us with you.


About Michael Walsh

Michael Walsh is a journalist, author, and screenwriter. He was for 16 years the music critic and foreign correspondent for Time Magazine, for which he covered the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. His works include the novels As Time Goes By, And All the Saints (winner, 2004 American Book Award for fiction), and the bestselling “Devlin” series of NSA thrillers; as well as the recent nonfiction bestseller, The Devil’s Pleasure Palace. A sequel, The Fiery Angel, was published by Encounter in May 2018. Follow him on Twitter at @dkahanerules (Photo credit: Peter Duke Photo)

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

274 responses to “The Suicidal Narrative of the Modern Environmental Left”

  1. I don’t know what to say about the left and environmentalists that isn’t scornful and/or insulting.


    Why not? Because it has been said so many times before. These fools think that somehow we’re all going to drown, even though it was warmer in the 1930s (when Earth had about 20% of current industrial production). It was warmer during the Medieval Warm period (that they discount). They just refuse to admit that their THEORY is wrong.

    But why do they persist? This has been going on for 25 years now. Why? Because the money (trillions of dollars) and the political control is too much to resist. Even George W. Bush was a global warming believer.

    Is humanity causing the Earth to warm? I doubt it, but I can’t 100% prove it. Maybe, just maybe we’re putting enough particles in the atmosphere to tip the balance, either between some steady temperature and slight warming, OR between steady temperatures and an overdue ice age!

    Do I believe that industry and Biiiiig Oil and Biiiig everything else should just be able to run amok? Don’t be ridiculous. At the same time, the left wanting to regulate industry and energy into bankruptcy caused eight years of substandard growth. I like clean air and clean water. Compared to fifty years ago, both are remarkably improved. I also like cheap, abundant energy. We can have that, too.

    • There was an article earlier this week in the RealClearPolitics market section which noted the interesting fact that all these people who are concerned about global warming don’t seem to let their alarm factor into their housing/office choices, e.g., Al Gore’s 10,000 sq. foot house (he also has several other houses), Michael Bloomberg travels by CO2 spilling private jet to his various homes (he’s not mentioned in this article), Goldman Sachs just located their offices in downtown Manhattan where the office is only 30 feet or so above sea level, all these Hollywood and political celebrities that have vacation houses on the coasts (that they claim will soon be flooded), etc. If all these people really believed what they are preaching, they should move to MT or some other interior location far away from the effects of oceans rising, but of course they aren’t. They preach what they, themselves, don’t practice.

    • Actually, the anthropomorphic warming theory can’t be proven to be wrong. Rather, each of the mathematical model hypotheses that have been put forward to predict warming due to CO2 are unsupported by the data. They mostly overestimate the warming response and the correlations are all over the place. When you develop a hypothesis that does not correctly predict reality, then as a scientist you must accept the null hypothesis that your hypothesis is incorrect and develop a new one. They keep trying and trying but have failed. Thus there is NO anthropomorphic warming THEORY. There are many disproven hypotheses, and as such it does not rise to the level of a theory, which must be supported by many hypotheses that have supporting data. Science at present does not support this AGW philosophy.

      • You’re correct, but it’s never been about science anyway. It’s always been about the use of brute force — government — to redistribute power and resources according to the Left’s wishes. There is no such thing as “scientific consensus” and any semblance of true science simply ceases to exist with the first injection of politics — or political money.

      • Well said but I believe that you want to change “anthropomorphic warming” to “anthropogenic warming”. Anthropomorphic refers to the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.

    • I would also add that without the energy pumped into the system from Biiiig Oil & gas, the current population of the world would be completely unsustainable, and as such, few of the AGW promulgators (and everyone else) would not exist…..

  2. Progressives’ words might suggest suicide but their actions are plainly homicidal.

  3. a political philosophy that denies God and sees itself as its own worst enemy: a narrative that must end in suicide
    Of course my Roman Catholic Church, in the person of one Jorge Bergoglio, is a religious philosophy that acknowledges God AND sees itself as its own worst enemy, just as much climate suicidal as those who think they only answer to themselves.
    As for the airline-chocolate-with-bundled-dispensation, thanks, I’ll bring my own.

    • It’s called the Catholic Church. Pasting on the word “Roman” was a Big Lie trick of Protestants and Tudor cronies who wanted to create the false impression that the Church that had been in Brittania for 1,000 years already, long before the Norman invasion that brought the ancestors of the Tudors to the isle was somehow alien to the country.

      Consider what else you are wrong about.

      • Wrong. The Protestant churches referred to themselves as the Holy Catholic Church after the reformation and the former religion as the Roman Catholic Church. The word catholic simply means “general, universal, concerning the whole. Protestants in saying that we “believe in the holy catholic church,” we are confessing that Jesus Christ himself is the church’s one foundation and that all who truly trust in him as Savior and Lord.
        The people desired a change in their church as the Roman Church had become too corrupt and political, hence the reformation. It was the church that became alien and hence the peoples treatment of it.

      • It is the Church of Rome as opposed to the eastern Church. Study The Great Schism 1053.

  4. The part of climate change that humans ARE responsible for is mostly caused by land clearing. Most of the land clearing nowadays is done in the third world. So environmental activists don’t want to do much to actually reduce human impact on the climate, it’s not PC

    • Thank you for that. I was only thinking of cars and farming to feed millions more mouths..

      …and inviting them into the Civilized World and giving them cars paid for by their betters.
      Do cars driven by Third Worlders somehow not pollute?

  5. The Left can commit suicide anytime they wish! May I suggest a circular firing squad as more efficient while saving the planet!

  6. I really like this site. I enjoy the very well written articles and the insightful comments. So glad I found you guys!

  7. “earth is experiencing the warmest period in recorded history”

    Earth: billions of years old
    Global temperature records: decades old


    • The sentence is pretty clearly referring to recorded history, not billions of years of pre-history.

      • I’m not sure what your point is, but my point is to illustrate that ‘recorded history’ is a blink of the eye in geologic terms.

      • Ah I see your point now, I didn’t understand it initially. I thought you were saying that geologic time had far more extreme temperatures than today, and were therefore misinterpreting the original statement.

      • Recorded history goes back between 5 and 10 thousand years. The temperature record is no more than 160 years and even then it is extremely incomplete.

      • Not true at all. Temperatures can be deduced from things like the gases trapped in cooling volcanic rock, ice cores, tree cores and other nice little things like those.

      • You’re nuts. There were many variables that affect those proxies – not just Earth’s average atmospheric temperature.

      • That is still not “recorded” by definition. The rest of that is just estimates with wide margins of error, often with extreme limitations of geography (ie there are no trees on most of the planet’s surface and other nice things like those).

      • Add in instrument error and the like – and anyone who can tell you what the ‘average’ temperature of the globe was 2,000 years ago to an accuracy of a tenth of a degree is flat-out lying. (Tenth of a degree +-10 degrees I’ll buy, however.)

      • Michael Morel Abraham_Franklin • a day ago
        The sentence is pretty clearly referring to recorded history, not billions of years of pre-history.

        True, but the fallacy in your thinking is to assert that only history recorded by humans matters. In point of fact, the planet itself holds records for history going back billions of years before humans appeared. Were this not so, we would know nothing about Earth except what our forebears recorded after they invented writing. The truth is that we have learned a great deal about the planet from the records made in fossils, geological strata, ancient ice cores, and so on, and not only are we not in the warmest period of Earth’s recorded history, we’re not even close. Likewise, we are not even close to the carbon levels recorded in the atmosphere during the ice ages, which is evidence that there is no legitimate reason to label carbon dioxide as a noxious poison that will destroy us all.

      • I hear what you are saying, I was making a different point. I thought the guy who made the comment misunderstood the statement he commented on, but he’s made it clear now. Anyway nevermind.

      • Of course, there may not have been many humans around during those eras – the planet not being hospitable to the species.

      • ancient ice cores, gases trapped in volcanic rock, you said it yourself and hoisted yourself on your own petard–those things and others can tell us what the atmosphere was composed of in long ago times and yes, all 5 (now 6) great extinction events are also associated with elevated amounts of Co2 in the air, actually a couple of them, it was just about where it is now,,,,,,,,,,

      • You’re an ignoramus. There are many variables besides temp that affect those proxies. And, you just running your mouth or lying – the correlations you claim are nonexistent.

      • You’re scientifically illiterate.

        That CORRELATIVE study is laughable for its DISREGARD of other variables which also may have been affecting their dependent variable, extremely limited location sampling, the potential error in dating supposed CO2 elevation and temperature elevation (plus or minus several thousand years), and the insufficiently cautious “conclusion” that it “proves” what the authors think it does.

      • Correlation does not prove causation. But math can, and did provide a high degree of confidence that there was correlation, sampling variations and imprecise dating factored in. Let’s see peer reviewed science that confirms ‘the hoax’.

      • Where are the mid troposphere warm spots? Get back to me when those are detected.

      • Even within that framework, the sentence is patently false. It was written to support a narrative that rests on falsehood.

    • So there I was, reading a story about temperatures in Germany, Leipzig to be specific. The story was about how the temperatures had risen significantly since records have been kept there, etc. etc. I was impressed. Leipzig, Germany, educational center, science, why, there must be centuries worth of temperature records. Fortunately I read to the end of the story: records since … 1880s.

      • And, the validity and reliablility of those “records” is unknown and one location does not provide anything close to a thorough index of Earth’s average climate.

      • Or how the temperature was measured, measurements that reflect only the temperature where the measurements are made.

      • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
        On tuesday I got a great New Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDailyProUpdateWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da302luuuuu

    • And, trends of every duration wherever one cares to look that always reverse themselves for unknown reasons.

    • Did they ever hear about the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period?

    • I thought it was warmer in the 15 century, when Greenland was green.

  8. The NYT headline is misleading…of course. The study showed that more educated Republicans are “less worried” about climate change and not, as the headline says, “…the less they believe in climate change”.

    No one denies that the climate changes, but educated Republicans do not necessarily believe in the voguish and faulty consensus conclusion that it is all our fault and therefore correctable.

  9. What is absolutely hilarious about the Times article is that the author continually equates consensus with science. Consensus indicated the world was flat. Consensus indicated the Earth was center of the universe. Consensus has not been a reliable indicator when it comes to science.

    Based on the statistics in the Times article, I would posit an hypothesis that ‘feelers’ are attracted to the Democrat party, and that ‘thinkers’ are attracted to the Republican party. That might account for the disparity.

    • “Consensus indicated the world was flat.”


    • You’re full of baloney. You listen to the scientifically illiterate Rush.

      Scientific consensus – the agreement of independent investigators or reproducibility of findings – is a foundational cornerstone of science.

      Your claims about flat-earth “consensus” among scientists is a lie – it never happened.

      If “thinkers” are attracted to the Repub Party, you must be an exception.

      • I don’t think the agreement of investigators has much bearing here (or in any science). The current investigators support AGW. Rather, real scientific consensus is built from a well constructed theory which has been supported by many hypotheses shown to be correct. Your “reproducibility of findings”. The first part is just crowd belief. For instance, the overwhelming consensus of independent investigators rejected Pete Mitchell’s chemiosmotic theory of ATP production, which was supported by his data. Have I misunderstood something here? This does not sound like you. Too humanist….

      • Yes – you misunderstand. And, your lack of understanding of the scientific process is showing — again.

      • Then, this would be your lack of understanding. From my extensive experience in the scientific community, I have much less faith in my scientific comrades abilities to avoid the herd mentality than yourself.

        I believe it was Max Planck who stated that new scientific hypotheses do not become accepted by convincing opponents of validity, but rather, because those opponents eventually die and less dogmatic scientists take their place. Perhaps it is his lack of understanding of the scientific process that is showing as well….

      • You need to recalibrate your focus.

        What you failed to see is that I’m not talking about the “scientific community” — I’m talking about the process of science.

        Of course scientists – your “scientific community” – are flawed people. That is, in fact the beauty of the scientific process – it’s self-correcting for human error (one way of correction is by consensus of independent findings).

        And, science is hard. Along the way, more mistakes will be made than accuracies. But, that IS the process. Ultimately, the scientific process yields predictability – predictability that is widely agreed upon (scientific consensus) by independent investigators.

      • “Scientific consensus – the agreement of independent investigators or
        reproducibility of findings – is a foundational cornerstone of science.”

        The word “eventually” or even “inevitably” would be well placed here….because as you note, agreement among independent investigators will not be present along the way. And indeed, the focus on current scientific consensus as applied to AGW in this article illustrates the danger of allowing scientific “consensus” to influence public opinion…..

      • The so-called “consensus” on AGW is a LIE. It does NOT exist.

        Most rigorous scientists have been laughing at it from jump because of its fatally flawed methodology, garbage data, and untestable claims.

        Even some apolitical, logical, competent CLIMATE scientists are highly critical of AGW.

        There is NO scientific consensus on AGW – it is nothing more than a Leftist LIE.

      • We are in agreement on the leftist AGW theory being a lie. BUT if “Most rigorous scientists have been laughing at it from jump because of
        its fatally flawed methodology, garbage data, and untestable claims”, they sure suck at saying so……

      • The media strenuously suppresses their say-so.

        And, it’s like most politics – serious scientists stay out of it because they are busy doing science and because they understand that it’s bullshiite-based.

        Then, there is the tendency not to criticize your own enterprise (science) too much for fear of giving ammo to the enemy. The last thing scientists want is a black eye that might turn public sentiment further against their funding source – the tax-payer. Hence, science “spokespersons” will defend fellow scientists even when they know them to be incompetent or charlatans.

        Are you naive or just an inherently shallow thinker?

      • No, I just believe in reality, rather than your carefully constructed ivory towers of science BS…..

      • Now what happened to POINTED insults? I deserve MORE than the Childish ones! Are you sure you’re not Denisovan?

        Happy Thanksgiving Homs!

      • You are wrong as wrong can be. Prior to the 5th century BC, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone thought of the world as anything but flat. It was the *consensus*.

        And you are wrong about the foundational cornerstone of science, too. Science is not about findings or consensus around findings. Science is about reproduceability of the quantifiable *results* of testable predictions through experimentation. Concensus has no place in science.


        I never said anything about flat-earth consensus among scientists. My point was about consensus as a concept.

  10. Nobody actually cares about climate, even on the left. If a liberal got job offers in LA, Phoenix, Seattle, Tampa, DC, New York, London, Oslo, Barcelona, and Singapore, they’d weigh salary, health care costs, perks, home prices, crime rates, local schools, commute distances, the arts scene, and the bar scene before they’d give a thought to climate, even though those cities might as well be on different planets. That’s because nobody actually cares about climate until they’re shoveling snow in McMurdo or lost in the middle of the Sahara. It’s all virtue signalling in an environmental passion play.

  11. “concluded that the earth is experiencing the warmest period in recorded history”
    This is a LIE. Not even CLOSE!!!
    Greenland WAS GREEN not ICE, GRAPES were grown in ENGLAND!! Yes England actually had a Wine industry at one time.
    It was also Colder, Maldure(SP) Minim.

  12. Does this mean the GOPe is more skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory than Trump supporters?

  13. I prefer the Non-Organic Death Squad Chocolate, it is more tangy and a smoother consistency.

  14. People gotta believe something, and preferably something new and hip (with the sheep they’re following). That is the opening for the goat. Vive le goat I suppose. Sheep need led.

  15. “earth is experiencing the warmest period in recorded history” Really????

    Warmer than the Roman Climatic Optimum when wine grapes were grown in northern England (Britannia)? Warmer than the Medieval Climatic Optimum when Norse settlers grew barley and hay, and raised cattle and sheep in Greenland? It is too cold for either to happen now. Of course, only an educated person would have read widely enough to know these things, and thus develop a considerable skepticism regarding the statement that “earth is experiencing the warmest period in recorded history”. Go figure.

  16. The odd thing is that everyone knows this is BS and everyone knows that everyone knows. It is cultural Marxist mythology and therefore mandatory and sacred.

    • That’s exactly right! Even the self-declared Righties buy into it.

      The Lib-Leftist extremists are able to shift the sentiment in their direction simply by insistent repetition. They did it with the charge of “racism” and “misogyny,” why not manipulate the easily duped with a charge of being “anti-science” or “anti-evironment”? It works!

  17. You’re dancing around the Central Point. That’s why “conservative” is now a derogative term. The Central Point is White Men and Everything they built are “evil”. Not kill and rape evil, but “not fair to womyn and minorities” evil.
    Western Civilization is a White thing. These barbarians and Third World savages have NO STAKE IN IT. “Enlightenment” means NOTHING TO THEM. The Left is a Jim Jones Death Cult. They aren’t “caring for the Earth”, they are OPPOSING MORALITY, WESTERN TRADITION AND LAW. They are stoners, profligates and bums.
    “Progress” to them is sex, drugs, alcohol, and vice, without RESTRAINTS OF LAW AND MORALITY. Anything else is just cheap talk, fake moralizing and using overly emotional appeals to get stupid women who like to be seen as “Heroes” without the sacrifice and hard work to SUPPORT THEM.

    • That’s right. But, you’re not allowed to say so.

      Even the self-described Righties are humanists who deny the inequality of men.

      You can’t call a stupid person stupid, a lazy person lazy, or an ignorant person ignorant. Truth is “disrespectful” and “oppressive.”

      A drug addict isn’t a person of weak character – he’s a “victim” of a “disease” – and, now it’s inflicted on him by evil drug companies!! A bimbo who knowingly offers her body for a chance at stardom is a “victim” of hedonistic, power-abusing producers!!

      • That’s why “conservatism” cannot ever conserve anything. Their overly emotional appeal to emotions and talking about hurt feelings is just a ploy. What do I care about peoples’ feelings? What am I their Mother? You cannot make sound policies or expect anyone to listen if you deny Reality. What nonsense is this? I don’t care how they “feel”. People can see at this point that these losers are reaching high and especially low for their pretended slights. Its a way to get freebies and avoid the hard work they despise. Let us not patronize the stupid. Rewarding stupidity is hardly an education worth supporting.

      • It’s the outcome of democracy – rule by fools.

        Can you cite any successful human enterprise that is governed by a democratic process? Business? The military? A religion? Academia? Of course not because it’s an absurd way to run anything. The Founders understood this and that’s why they set up a pretend democracy.

        By what rationale does one conclude that the collective decisions of a mass of stupid, ignorant, lazy, self-serving, hedonists will yield wisdom?

      • I prefer realistic and rational to ideal.

        The Chinese and Vietnamese have it about right. Generous economic freedom – entrepreneurial market capitalism without fraud or exploitation – constrained within a framework of political rectitude as determined by a highly virtuous, rational, intelligent, unemotional elite.

      • But we could never duplicate that since we are culturally different since birth and thus our elite cannot achieve that rectitude.

      • Yes – that’s right – every dominant culture dies and is replaced.

      • I don’t know what “civil war” would look like in this day and age, but war is always in the future (or has been throughout human history).

      • Come on hominid, what China and Viet Nam have going for them is a highly efficient propaganda and censorship machine that beautifully filters out news of the unvirtuous, irrational, unintelligent, hysterical behavior of the “elite”. Such behavior is as abundant on average and over time in Chinese and Vietnamese economic and political life as they are with elites anywhere else. But examples do manifest themselves to the rest of us once in a while. We’ve just witnessed the top four hundred of China’s “highly virtuous, rational, intelligent, unemotional elite” abase themselves before a newly self-anointed ‘Fuhrer with Chinese Characteristics’ (to coin a term) and hand the country over to one-man rule. When has that ever worked out beyond one or maybe two generations – at best? If the Germans couldn’t make that approach work nobody can.

        Your diagnosis of democracy is quite correct. But, as bad as democracy is when it’s over-applied/mis-applied or being used as a tool to seize power by decidedly anti-democratic leftist radicals, as it is these days, it’s nowhere as corrupting or destructive as rule by self-proclaimed philosopher kings.

        The secret to proper democratic rule is not to use it beyond the town meeting level. That’s why we have a (once) limited republic instead.

      • You’re buying the humanist propaganda.

        Democracy is stupid at any level.

        Do you imagine for a moment that the US rulers are not corrupt and even criminal?? Have you not been paying attention??

      • Democracy is indeed stupid at any level. In most of the affairs of our lives it should simply be irrelevant, as it would be if we still lived in a free society based on Enlightenment principles. But…when it comes managing affairs we somehow decide to manage politically, some form of government “of, by, and for, the people” is ultimately preferable to the “philosopher king” approach of self-selected (and ultimately self perpetuating) “elites”.

      • If you carefully analyze what you’ve written, you’ll see that you are in agreement with The Hominid. You’re just reluctant to fully face the reality because of your life-long indoctrination in humanist lies. It’s not easy to break those bonds. Your criticisms are based on assumptions that are not inevitabilities.

        Again, show me a sensible business, military, or other enterprise that is controlled through democracy rather than a ruling elite. You can’t because there are none – and, there are none because it would be unrealistic.

  18. After presenting such a rational case, the author elects to throw in HIS favorite delusion – god – and contradict his own thesis.

  19. ” Or consider the Goldman Sachs headquarters, just a couple of hundred feet inland, and barely elevated abov the sea: I guess that tells you what the smart money thinks. Would they really have put a billion dollar building there if they thought there was anything to this sea level rise thing?”

    from “The Climate Alarmists Definitely Don’t Believe Their Own Propaganda” (manhattancontrarian. com/ blog/ 2017/11/15/ the-climate-alarmists-definitely-dont-believe-their-own-propaganda)

    • What does Goldman Sachs have to do with global warming alarmists?

      • OK, but it just seems that GS has an incredibly minor role in the climate debate.

      • It is an anecdote representative of a larger truth. All too often the climate alarmists are coastal-city elitists, here and around the world. If they were serious about “cities drowning due to rising sea levels” in a decade or two (something they have consistently claimed since the 1970s), they would relocate themselves, their families, and their business inland. But, no, they want all the rest of us to pay to supposedly undo damage they have supposedly led the way in causing so they can continue to enjoy those views the rest of us cannot afford. That makes them contemptible scum.

  20. Why doesn’t the author just stay out of “health” food stores? There is plenty of healthy food in ordinary supermarkets.

  21. If one is extremely susceptible to appeal to authority (the consensus), more education offers more exposure to people with lots of letters after their names pushing the global warming narrative — the average liberal arts major (let alone Women’s Studies and other recent “disciplines”) are often more than willing to take the word of “august experts.” On the other hand, for those inclined to critical thinking and who are familiar with the foundations of the scientific method, more education points out how thin the narrative’s basis really is (and how much it really relies on “group-think).

  22. Until someone compels us to eat ‘Endangered Species Chocolates’, what the author describes that he found on the wrapper is nothing but a branding exercise – which, the last time I checked, is an attribute of capitalism. If he feels put off by the brand’s statements, then he can go get himself a Hershey Bar.

    • You could call it a branding exercise, I guess. I would have to agree with the author that it’s BS virtue signaling. And I find myself wondering how anyone could come to believe that BS virtue signaling is good material for a branding exercise.

  23. It strange that only US conservatives are against environmental protection. Almost every other counties conservatives have no such problems with climate change, I think the hint is in the name as in to conserve. Still they arn’t as easily bought as republicans

    • Who told you the ridiculous lie that US conservatives are “against environmental protection?” Was it the same person who failed to teach you spelling and grammar?

      • Yes my spelling is poor, but that is besides the point. As to who informed that opinion? The policy’s of your current administration, the retoric in republican media and the commentary of its base.

        I can accept people not believing climate change but as a conservative I can not accept reckless disregard of responsibility in persuit of maximising profitability as government policy.

      • How many Third Worlders have any other country eliminated?
        The Guardian is based in England, right? If farming IS the biggest polluter, slow down farming, stop feeding the Third World, and the pollution will right itself!
        BUT INSTEAD, all but 2 countries in Europe chose to IMPORT MILLIONS of the scum and give them free cars. Do cars driven by terrorists somehow pollute less? Or do they get Carbon Credits for the Europeans they run over?

      • Millions and terrorists?, By what you say my country should resemble Syria with people running each other over mad Max style!. you should of noticed by now that right wing media loves to exaggerate twist and consistently push this idea.

        And no none gets free cars in my country unless you are profoundly disabled. And im pretty sure our cars polute just as much as anyone elses.

      • I’m not even talking about the criminal/terrorist inclinations of the scum you’re letting in.

        I’m strictly talking about the environmental effects of keeping MILLIONS more people alive and breeding on YOUR dime, and in the Civilized World, where they have access to MORE polluting tech.

        Let’s say they don’t get free cars. Do they have more access to cars than in their own Failed States?

        Do they have access to electronic gadgetry that they couldn’t dream of in Third World Hells?

        If you believe in AGW, then you should be trying to REDUCE your population, not add to it. And the Civilized World has done that. We breed less than any previous generation, whether out of eco-guilt, feminism, or it’s too expensive to have our own kids AND pay for the Third World’s mega-breeding hordes, we breed less. Not one Civilized World country is even AT Replacement Reproduction. But rather than pat ourselves on the back for making more elbow room, or saving the greenspace, or lowering the population to the point where automation won’t have such an effect, we let in Third World Hordes.

        They breed more, they pollute more, and that pollution gets added to OUR tallies instead of whatever Hells they crawled out of!

        Even if we left them in their own Third World Hells, their very EXISTENCE causes pollution, because the Civilized World somehow feels duty-bound to keep them alive with MEGATONS of food, money, and medicine. But why? Their bad hygeine would kill them off if we stopped interfering. Recently, some savages on Madagascar dug up and danced with corpses, reintroducing diseases from the 50s–the 1650s! But we aren’t quarantining them away from us…why?
        Agriculture is the biggest cause of air pollution in Europe. Cut it back to where it only feeds Europe, stop feeding the Third World, stop letting them in, and AGW and overpopulation become something I made up.

      • I agree we would all be better off if we had a few billion less people in the world. Infact that reminds me of a brilliant TV series called “utopia” about a secret organisation that believed just that and set out to unleash a virus upon the world. It’s a shame it got cancelled.

        The only big issue is that we in the west have dirty hands, as we have messed around and medled in nations and have paid a price for it.

        As for the other points, I’ll agree to disagree.

      • We have “messed around and meddled” to stop others from stealing what belongs to us and our allies. Do you believe the Civilized World is the ONLY one to have “messed around and meddled”? Not, say, Mother Russia?
        Do you deny there is a difference between terrorism and STOPPING terrorism?

        If we are to solve the world’s problems, we HAVE to “mess around and meddle”. And that sadly includes doing disreputable things to stop terrorism, but should not be confused with terrorism itself. We are instead fighting a halfass “War On Terrorism”–where we stop anytime the enemy complains about casualties! War doesn’t get time outs, and even if it did, the bad guys should certainly not get UNLIMITED time outs!

        Wouldn’t it be better, instead of letting them into our countries, to replicate the success and stability of our countries in whatever lands they came from?

        As to your TV show, it sounds interesting, but again, that is ACTIVE Eugenics. I am prescribing the exact opposite: They want us to stop messing with them, I agree, but that also means we stop artificially keeping them alive. Instead of doing something, we STOP doing something!

      • Also, why is it the savages want to pour into nations built by the Civilized World?

        Could it be they have some residual memory of when the countries they occupy were under the control of the Civilized World, and conditions weren’t so dire? Or is it because only the Civilized World offers so many freebies to enemies? They would be treated as terrorists if they invaded their fellow terrorist countries. The other 54 countries in Africa don’t have cushy Welfare programs. South America puts them to work, and has a strong Christian heritage, where their Moslem BS is not permitted to gain dominance. Only the Civilized World puts up with them and pays them to try to dominate us…and out of some misplaced sense of guilt for trying to make them better in THEIR countries instead of OURS!

        Alternately, if we ARE to be the Third World’s Humane Society, then let’s BE the Humane Society, and neuter the strays!
        No less august a personage than Bill Gates says we’ll have 9.5 BILLION people in the world if the Third World keeps breeding–BUT he claims they’ll stop themselves at some future date. Why? They haven’t in the last 400 years, what in Heaven, Earth, or Hell will compel them to in the NEXT 400 years, especially if the Civilized World is paying them to breed, and paying to keep their excesses ALIVE? What possible incentive do or will they have to cut back?

  24. Humans need a devil and a dire end. .As religion wanes, natural “demons” and terrifying fates MUST replace them.
    Rest assured, if global warming was 100 % solved tomorrow, a new, even worse danger would appear by lunch time.

  25. Some day, the liberal climate change luddites will use AGW as a justification for committing mass-murder and genocide in the name of “saving the planet”. They are not far removed from the Germans of the 1940s who also believed they were “saving” humanity while engaging in mass-murder. People who can justify murdering a child in the womb or a person with down’s syndrome are capable of anything.

    • Ometeo. The justification of human sacrifice by the Mayans. Interesting parallel s.

  26. Thank you! This is what I have been telling the professional societies I belong to for several years, but you said is better than I could!

  27. Herein Walsh illustrates why no cable enters my house. Pop culture and advertising is a parade of virtue signalling sycophants. It is nauseating.

  28. Uncontrollable factors in climate change you’ll never hear about: orbital variations, solar cycles, and volcanic activty, which is always occurring somewhere on this little blue and green planet.

    Going to take my ‘69 Corvette out for a spin on this lovely afternoon…nothing like the smell of raw, non-emission controlled exhaust from an American made big block V-8 engine.

    • Those things degrade the lefts arguments, you will never hear them discuss these things

      • I know…these uncontrollable macro-factors just don’t help the narrative…like this: too much CO2 is what’s going to end all life…a gas that is less than one-half of one percent of total atmospheric volume…right on!

  29. If the climateers were really concerned about man-made global warming/climate change, there are lots of small, but when added together significant sacrifices they could make. Here are just a few:
    1. Give up hot showers/baths that waste energy needed to pump, then heat the water. Cold bats and showers will also cut water usage significantly.
    2. Give up using their electronic devices like computers, cell phones, TVs etc. Where do they think the electricity that powers these conveniences and toys comes from?
    3. Give up their ownership and usage of fossil fuel powered vehicles (cars/trucks/SUVs), as well as private jets, RVs, boats, jet skis/snowmobiles, etc. They can use public transportation, bikes, or walk like our ancestors did and improve their health at the same time.
    4. Give up going to places like Starbucks for expensive, energy consuming hot drinks that also require some form of transportation to reach them, and instead stay home and drink water.
    5. Give up air conditioning in the summer and in most warm climates. This is a 20th century luxury that our ancestors, and even most Europeans survived without.
    6. Give up that second or vacation home/condo, and reduce their residence size to no more than 400 sq ft/person which again will save all sorts of fossil fuels used in the construction and needed to main, power, or heat/cool it.

    These are just a few little sacrifices that climateers can make to show their real concern for the environment, unless redistribution of wealth is what the real goal is.

  30. Nature Geoscience recently published two papers discussing AGCC models. The first was published on 19 Jun 2017. The title is: “Causes of Differences In Model and Satellite Tropospheric Warming Rates.” It makes the following points:
    1.Tropospheric warming trends in the 21st century have been less than predicted by the models.
    2. There is a low probability (0 – 9%) that this can be explained by the naturally occurring multidecadal oscilations (El Niño/La Niña., AMO, PMO, NSO, etc.).
    3. It is also unlikely due to variations in climate sensitivity in the different models
    4. The difference between predicted and actual temperatures are due to modeling errors.

    The second article is titled: “Emission Budgets and Pathways Consistent with Limiting Warming to 1.5ºC,” and was published on 18 Sep 2017. The thrust of this paper is that the Paris Accords should be accepted by all countries, and do not need any clarification or adjustment of the goals. A rise of 1.5ºC is achievable because the projected warming has been overstated by the modeling.
    NOTE: The abstract is insufficient. It is necessary to read both the full article and the Supplementary Information. If you are not a subscriber, you can purchase PDF versions of articles for $32.00 USD.

    So there you have it. The “settled science” knows that the computer modeling is accurately predicting virtual runaway global warming. That,heretical publication, Nature Geoscience, says there are problems with the modeling.
    BTW: Before you scream “Deniers” check the authors. They are all recobnized AGCC adherents. In fact, one of the first article authors is Dr. Michael E. “Hockey Stick” Mann.

    Causes of Differences In Model and Satellite Tropospheric Warming Rates

    Emission Budgets and Pathways Consistent with Limiting Warming to 1.5ºC

    • Please stop presenting facts. You will make the liberal global warmists heads explode.

  31. Let’s examine the core assertion of the environmental left and its associated prescription.

    As the article states the assertion is the global warming is real, it is menace to our civilization and humans and in particular human generation of carbon is at fault. And the prescription is to turn the economy inside out, make food more expensive, make energy more expensive, and destroy jobs and opportunities for advancement for billions of people all over the world.

    All in the name of an unprovable hypothesis. The environmental left cannot:

    1. Prove that we are in irreversible trend of increasing temperatures.

    2. Prove that carbon emissions are causing this rise in temperatures

    3. And most importantly prove that green energy efforts would actually have any effect upon rising temperatures if in fact they are on a permanent upward trend.

    So radical environmentalism is not about science. It is about political power. The radical environmentalist want government run by them to be in control of how we produce and consume energy. And for that very simple reason they need to be told to go pound sand.

    • i seriously doubt your ability to understand the science involved

      • I am not claiming to understand the science involved.

        I am simply claiming that the people who purport to be scientists are not.

        Here is a simple test. If we stopped funding research in global warming, would the problem go away? I think it would. So the problem only exists because liberal governments are paying for it to exist.

      • I agree with your first two sentences but that last paragraph, oh boy, no problems don’t go away if we stop funding them and bury our heads.

      • My point is that true scientists seek the truth. They do this irrespective of federal government funding. I honestly think that the global warming cabal is a bought and paid for movement funded by a political constituency. Tom Steyn being a prominent example.

      • ok but scientists cant work at home with their own test tubes. they need massive funding to conduct hi level be able to hire assistants, computers, etc. they may take on one project that brings in funding to be able to pay for other side projects they want to work on.

        so yes like very endeavor these days some scientists will chase after the funding. its simple economics and capitalism. but to think that 97% of the worlds scientists are in cahoots in a,massive hoax is well beyond the statistical possibilty of likelyhood of being true.

      • That 97% has been debunked several times, and worse, most of the “97%” weren’t even scientists!

        But you’re admitting they take on a project with a predetermined goal, to “prove” Global Warming, to pay for what they really want to do? How is that any different from the “scientists” in the 1960s who “proved” smoking was good for you?

        Simple economics and capitalism is what will stop more pollution, not Government picking winners and losers.
        Speaking of which, how does bringing in MILLIONS of Third World scum and GIVING them free cars LOWER CO2?
        Could it be redistribution of wealth is the real goal, not helping the planet?

    • No hypothesis or theory can ever be proven, only disproven. The AGW hypotheses, however, have been disproven many, many times…..

  32. “earth is experiencing the warmest period in recorded history”

    If only people could read and understand English. Most would then read the above statement and notice the prepositional phrase that specifies, if only vaguely, a time limit. Unfortunately, the Marxist-democrat lemmings and their world sycophants, see only what they want to see. Namely that “earth is experiencing the warmest period”. That’s enough to panic and scream that humans control our planet’s climate. Absurd to be sure but quite expected of idiots, charlatans and leftist redistributionists.

    • As always with proggies, everything depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. They are masters of statements which are at once superficially true and completely misleading. It can certainly be true that we are in “the warmest period in recorded history” because “recorded history” in this instance — temperature observations taken according to scientifically valid methods — date back no more than about 150 years. Let’s deconstruct this further:

      • The planet is billions of years old. The most recent century and a half is thus no thinking person’s idea of a valid sample of temperature trends, but inconvenient truths such as this never stopped proggies in their relentless pursuit of power over others.

      • What comes to mind when reading the words “recorded history?” For me, it suggests the past several thousand years, all the way back to and including the sacred scriptures of the world’s great religions. See what they did there?

  33. “The More Education Republicans Have, the Less They Tend to Believe in Climate Change.”

    The only kind of “education” those of the Left consider worthwhile is some variation of Pick-your-favourite-oppressed-identity Studies, fields in which critical thinking is not only unnecessary but actively frowned upon. Such “disciplines” don’t lend themselves to an ability to understand scientific method, statistics, error analysis, or anything else that might allow the oh-so-educated Lefty to understand the so-called “science” of “climate change.” In fact, such fields emphasise follow-the-herd, Politically Correct, conformity, which is the last thing you want when dealing with an evolving science.

    I couldn’t prove it, but I’m going to guess that you’ll find few Republicans taking Gender Studies or Black History degrees, leaving just that many more Republicans studying things that require actual thought. Maybe that’s why
    “The More Education Republicans Have, the Less They Tend to Believe in Climate Change.”

    • lol. ridiculous comment i dont think republicans are studying science.! Evolution is just a theory! the world is 6 days old.

      • I suggest that you refrain from falling for the Left’s self-serving dismissive propaganda. I agree that some elements of the Right tend to take their religion way too seriously, but that in no way affects their grasp of math, physics, etc.

      • “I suggest that you refrain from falling for…”

        Too late for that.

      • Thank you for that.

        But the thing is, we don’t let “education” make us abandon our sense formerly known as common.
        And rather than pointing out where we’re wrong, the Left likes to call us “stupid” or “Anti-Science”, and if they can throw “racist” in there, they get bonus points.

      • I often hear those things…from progressives, the people who still think ObamaCare is a success, fetuses aren’t human beings, and Keynesianism isn’t communism lite.

        For the life of me, I can’t figure out why they imagine themselves to be the paragons of intellectual excellence. Must be that “deeming” thing they’re so fond of.

        Insincerely yours,

        Cletus B Neckbeard, B.S. Finance

        (The “S” stands for Science, BTW)


      • Indeed. Feel like being cruel the last few days. Some things you read and say “damn…” Others, “DAMN!

      • Me too.
        The old troll poker has been coming out of its sheath with a mind of its own lately.

      • Yield to it, M’ Bruvva. Might make you feel better. I doubt any of the good guys will think poorly of you for it. I try to give as much respect as it seems to me they deserve but, lately, any seems like too much.

      • Might make you feel better.

        Well, we did that, don’t-get-mad, get-even style, and landed in hot water, again: a perma-ban from the so-called “News” channel. The little snowflake of an owner took offense to my treatment of the Uuuhhh Star, eight hours after one of his super users explicitly whitelisted me. Said UuuhhhStar then repeatedly replied to my posts, which are still up, from three to seven hours after I could do nothing about it. She’s one of his mods , and it’s preposterous to suppose she was unaware of the banning at the time.

        Anybody who stands up for any one of the snakes in Hue’s bag of dirty tricks is even worse than they are. I eagerly await my next engagement on neutral ground with this particular speshul

      • Ha ha ha If that’s the bunch I’m thinking of, they fired me my first time out, years ago. Scum.

      • This one isn’t NFE, just “News.” You replied to me there Thursday night. Clown actually claimed his channel has a “rightward” slant. So does every other honey trap on Disgust.

      • My crapdar is conditioning me to not pay that much attention anymore to the complete name. It’s a condition similar to the one that makes my eyes glaze over when I see a link with the word “fact” or ‘truth” in it, particularly if the word “political” is anywhere in the name.

        With the news sites, though, it seems lately to have “American” or “Patriot” as the intended buzzword of deception. Kinda irritating to have to dissect the situation so often.

      • Shouldn’t have broken my vow to stay the eff away from channels of unknown provenance. Turns out it was a reeeally good one. Won’t be making that mistake again!

      • Ha ha Easier on the temperament.

        It irritates me that I can’t ^ the fellas at PRB but the trolls there are so repugnant I don’t care about rehiring.

      • I see it as a sign of respect for an honorable foe. That they might be worthy of cleaning my blade over.

        I try not to hand that out to idgits.

        But sometimes ya just get all grumpy.

        What can I say? It is an imperfect world.

      • So with a BS in finance you should understand that Trumps deficit financed tax cut is ‘Keynesian stimulus’. If not, that was a bad investment.

  34. The Left wants democracy and equality, on the one hand, but wants to shut down capitalism and industrial society, on the other. It lives in a world of ideological fantasy, and imagines it is the party of “science.”

  35. When the so called “elites” begin to move inland, sell their cars and jets, build sustainable compounds and not ones that gobble up electricity produced by fossil fuels, then, THEN i will become concerned over the changes in climate.

    As an older person, I welcome the idea of global warming. Fewer people die because of warm weather than of cold weather. Especially us old folks.

    All the climate change foofraw is about MONEY. Who gets ripped off and who are the rippees.

    • I agree. Nearly every aspect of increased warming is better for mankind.

    • More old people die in heat waves than die from cold weather.

    • So let’s spend trillions to abandon our coastal cities? (Miami will be first… Miami Beach alone plans $400 million on flood mitigation.) As opposed to investing in green technology.. we’ll be buying all of that from China.

      • Where are these floods?

        Why hasn’t Al Gore sold his coastal properties? Is he planning on opening an underwater tourist trap?

  36. Leaving aside any discussion about the accuracy of the climate models, the worst case scenarios that are being bandied about involve 10-20 foot rise in sea level hundreds of years in the future. The reliable data so far is that sea level (on average) has risen by approximately 60 mm in the 40 years of satellite data. Buoy data from before that time is not accurate. Best scientific forecasts are for 120 mm in the next 40 years based on current rate of increase as estimated over the last 10 years(Harvard study,
    Of course the current argument was that when CO2 levels exceeded 400ppm it was game over, now it’s 2C rise and it’s game over(400 ppm having been passed). Nowhere is there a cognizance that as little as 150 years ago new york did not have electricity, 100 years ago there was no passenger traffic by air,70 years ago there was no nuclear power, 48 years ago man first walked on the moon. The CO2 problem will be solved. It is being worked on right now. The deniers are the people who want to tear down modern civilization and return to our rural past. Give yourselves a shake people! Either you trust in science and technology or you don’t. If you don’t, move to Haiti and take up voodoo.

    • You are missing the point. You state that the CO2 problem is being solved and it is. Then there are those, like the author of the article, who DON’T WANT the problem to be solved. They are the “deniers” who deny that CO2 is a problem at all.

  37. Coming from a man of the arts, but, obviously, not of the sciences. Individuals will take their causes to further extremes. Adherents of religion, of health and fitness, and even political causes. This doesn’t change the fact of human caused climate change, that Jesus walked and taught, that eating well and staying fit is healthier. The posts I’m reading here do not sound like they’re based in science. The article by Mr Walsh sounds like he’s a bit bemused by the efforts of Some small companies to address a potential calamity.

    • If humans cause climate change, why don’t we wipe out the Third World, rather than invite them into the Civilized World, where they can use tech WAY above their pay-grade to pollute Orders of Magnitude more than they could without it?

      Why is it “good” that the Civilized World is BELOW Replacement Reproduction–but no efforts have been made to limit the overpopulating Third World?

  38. I’m a landscaper. Have been for the last 35 Years.

    30 years ago, I put a New Lawn in the day before Thanksgiving. It came up, beautifully.

    Best lawn I ever did.

    Today? It’s TOO COLD to even think about putting down seed.

    So much for Global Warming.

    The Planet is getting COLDER.

    Just ask the Antarctic Penguins, who’s eggs aren’t hatching, because IT’S TOO COLD.

    Grow up!


    • I’ve lived my 69 years on the coast – the dry side and the wet side – and can tell from direct observation that the sea level hasn’t changed one millimeter in that time. There’s been plenty of erosion and accretion, but the level hasn’t changed.

      • What’s the difference between my DIRECT OBSERVATION on a daily basis over 69 years and someone else’s? Are you an idiot?

      • your observation is not verifiable and at best only applies to the spots you observed at.

      • you keep suggesting that I am an idiot. I think what you really want to say that I am a jerk. that would put you in agreement with my wife.

  39. “About one in four Republicans with only a high school education said they worried about climate change a great deal. But among college-educated Republicans, that figure decreases, sharply, to 8 percent.”

    We have a more sensitive BS meter.

    • You cite a blogger with a degree in geology? That’s the best ‘evidence’ there is?

      • The issue is not who said it, but what is said. The pro-global warmers have cooked the data for decades.

  40. The author is basically correct. Climate change is essentially a political movement; it seeks power and economic domination. It is not unlike the Nazis science of which proved that blacks and Jews were inferior races and the Aryan race was supreme, the “Übermenschen. Stalin scientists sent political opponents to insane asylums whose treatment resulted in the diagnosis.

    Science has been controlled by authorities since the Greeks.

    There is no reason to consider any reporting on this topic from the NY Times as insightful. They simply hate Trump.

    • If Trump said that the sun orbits the earth than anyone who says otherwise, going back to Copernicus, must be ignored because they hate Trump. Trump is always right because Trump is infallible. That is a circular argument.

      • Wow we’re going to listen to you, since you can’t tell the difference between then and than;-) Hey, there’s a difference between their, there and they’re as well!! Yeah, who knew!-)

      • Thanks for the correction. But the earth still orbits the sun.

      • Not anymore, it orbits President Trump, you’ll survive it I’m sure!!

      • Yes it is a circular argument and I can understand why you invented it. Straw men and all that. For all his idiocies, I don’t think that Trump has yet tried to argue that the sun orbits the earth. You’re more likely to get that argument from a left-wing Democrat who views science as socially constructed, and therefore, if and when the time comes when it’s politically expedient to believe that the sun orbits the earth, that’s how it will be.

      • Thanks for that YouTube link.

        Laugh or cry. I’ve been trying to decide for about twenty minutes so far.

      • Yes, 1984 was meant to be a warning, these idiots take it as an instruction manual.

        20 years ago, it would’ve been laugh all the way, “Oh, those wacky idiots”, and “It Can’t Happen Here”™
        This was literally a comedy skit 20 years ago.

        And I admit, I laughed at this 20 years ago.
        When it’s reality, and people can lose their jobs for not agreeing, it’s not so funny.
        If you had told me 10 years ago, that the President of America would meet with domestic terrorists and commend them rather than commit them, or claimed a dead thug as his son, I would’ve laughed at you. 30 years ago, we were worried about Global COOLING, not warming, and warming was called “Climate Optima”.

        And an ex-KGB agent claimed credit for creating the modern left.

        Not to pile on, but Apple just fired their “Diversity Chief” for suggesting that whites are diverse. Since when does a tech corporation need diversity?
        Look at the 30 companies that make up the DJIA.
        Somehow….all were built without “diversity.”
        However did that happen?

        And what kind of job is “Diversity Chief”? Sounds like more Jesse Jackson Grievance Engineering to me…

        Right now, though, the worst example of doublethink is the Moslem Cult. They seek “peace”, but their definition of “peace” is when all non-Moslems are dead or subjugated. Liberals who don’t bother reading the Quran, think they seek OUR definition of peace, and support Islam against Christianity. If they didn’t pretend to be a religion, they’d be COBRA, another artifact of 30 years ago…

      • Neither Trump or the NY Times has the power to control the energy balance of the planet. Either can screw up our politics, and help destroy our nation.

  41. Here’s the scoop asshole–weather changes quickly, climate changes very slowly. The largest extinction ever took at least 6,000,000 years from start to finish. the Permian extinction. It took life around 10,000,000 years to recover, think about it, we Humans have only been around for about 3 million years. There have been 5 great extinctions. They all took more than 100,000 years to occur, except possible the fifth. They ALL ainvolved an increase in Green House gases. From the beginning of the industrial revolution has been about 200 years—that is also how long it’s taken for the 6th extinction, which we are causing, to occur. period end of story–perhaps literally……….

    • Stupidity changes slowly, that is with a real education;-) please extinct yourself, you know for the common good!!

      • Real intelligent asshole, real intelligent, your mother either,
        1) fucked her 1st cousin or, 2) dropped you on your head…….

      • Heh, heh, heh, still showing off all that intellergints I see;-) Stop breathing intelligent peoples air already!! Why don’t you suck on the end of that pipe sticking out the back of your car, it’s got the proper mixture of gases for your kind of intellect;-)

      • Pretty much the same kinds that cause climate change…………

      • Well, it’ nice to see you finally came around. Now you’re getting it. Those gases coming out of all those tail pipes are deadly. unfortunately you don’t have to get that close to the source to die from them……PS–I don’t own one– I take the bus, about once a week, you can thank me later for giving you a couple more years……..

      • So, you finally came around, yes, the gas coming out of a cars tailpipe is deadly, the more tailpipes, the more deadly, until it gets to the point where it starts to literally change our environment. I’m glad you at least learned that today. As for owning one, no thank you, mines a bus and since I’m a disabled vet… its free—-

      • So why invite the Third World into the Civilized World and GIVE them free cars?

        Or do tailpipes not pollute&poison if they’re driven by Third World scum?

        The Civilized World is lowering in population, and thus pollution. That should NOT be used as an excuse to bring in MILLIONS of Third World scum to “help” us pollute, we should enjoy the surplus resources and the greater Standard of Living with the fewer people, right?
        Explain why Liberals support bringing in the mega-breeding Third World?

      • already feeling the pressure from over population I see, relax dude, when it gets too critical they will swarm your house………..

      • But of course!

        We already have 7.2 BILLION people on this planet, and no less august a personage than Bill Gates claims we’ll have 9.5 BILLION.
        UNICEF claims that Africa ALONE will have as many people as the whole WORLD did in 1994–and they’re in a position to know, being one of the charities that feeds the scum and gives them meds to keep Lord Darwin at bay.

        Third Worlders already ARE swarming my country, and I’ve had two separate break-ins. How did you know? But it’s not “critical”, if they can still breed, they’re well-fed in their own countries, they just want to steal more than we give them. Same reason they attack my house. Not to survive, but to live better. And like any burglars, the proper way to deal with them is one of Dr. EPGAH’s Anti-Recidivism Pellets, trans-cranially!

      • I don’t know how to tell u this but no matter where the tailpipes are, our air is still connected to theirs…..

      • I don’t know how you forget this, but if they stay in their own countries, the Civilized World doesn’t give them free cars.

        So it’s the difference between tailpipes and NO tailpipes, not where the tailpipes are.

  42. Remember, LIBRULS planned to put CO2 into the atmosphere in mid 70’s because of Global Cooling!! We were all going to starve due to short growing seasons!! Nuclear Winter was the cry that Global Warming replaced. IDIOTS!

  43. If Liberals really believe their environmental hysteria, they should lead by example:
    – abort ALL their unborn children;
    – have themselves sterilized so they cannot conceive any more children;
    – and commit mass suicide in order to save the planet from overpopulation.

    • Or just wipe out the Third World, who produce nothing but more of themselves.

      Instead, they use some Escape Clause in the Global Warming BS to invite MILLIONS into the Civilized World, where they can use tech way above their pay-grade to pollute Orders of Magnitude more!
      Why aren’t the Liberals up in arms about that? How does THAT help the environment?

  44. Did the author just play the climate-is-always-changing card?!??! That doesn’t even qualify as response-worthy on a message board after a typical climate change article. This author certainly does not to have any person the planet spend time contemplating this hack job.

    • Really it was written to pee off Uber Dolts, seems to have worked;-)

    • Yes, he should’ve played the “Keep the Third World from gaining tech way above their pay-grade and polluting us all out of existence, if they actually believe that BS” card, right?

      Seriously, how many rapefugees have been GIVEN cars in the Civilized World, when they couldn’t afford them in their own countries? How does polluting MORE help Save The World?

  45. The only people who believe in man-made global warming are those that want to enslave and oppress peoples. Good thing well-educated Republicans have been able to see through this hoax.

  46. The premise is that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to realize man made climate change is a hoax (as long as you are Republican) doesn’t hold up. If ‘education’ the the key to understanding, then logically we would defer to the 98% of scientists that say man made global warming is a hoax.

    Why isn’t that accepted? Marketing. We think we are not succeptible to marketing. If that were the case, most advertising would cease to exist. There are groups like The Heartland Institute, funded by oil and gas producers creating pseudo science. Right wing media ‘markets’ that, as their business model depends on outrage. Fossil fuel producers fund Republicans. So climate deniers are all operating for their own financial best interest.

    Meanwhile, the Chinese recognize that green energy is the biggest growth industry of the 21st century. We meanwhile focus on coal (even though there are many more jobs in solar in the US than coal.) China will own this market, and we’ll buy from them. And Trump is a good businessman? He’s a marketer, full stop.

    • A good post, but I think that you meant to say that 98% of scientists think that global warming is NOT a hoax. Of course that 98% figure is itself a hoax, because no one ever polled 98% of scientists.

      • Any article that discusses temperature change starting with 1988 as a baseline, as that did, is intented to deceive, not enlighten. Why do all Republican climate change articles baseline then? Because it was abnormally hot. Look at a longer period and a child could see the trend. Try one from scientists, not a politically driven publication with an agenda and you see.

      • What about this? I suppose these 30 plus thousand are all right wingers!! Here’s algore and Bill Nye failing a simple experiment..
        Then there’s literally thousands of failed dire doom and gloom predictions..
        One could go on for some time debunking this obvious bull, there’s lots more where this came from…

      • Your choice of fringe site belies your professed interest in science. That 31k is hilarious.. you have to check a box on an online form that says ‘I’m a scientist’. I’ll stick with the actual scientists at NOAA, than you.

      • Your insistence that political views and science are intertwined shows us all that you don’t even know what science is. There is no mixture of science and politics that can be called science.

      • I agree. That is what I have been pointing out, that all the climate denier sites are not scientific in nature. I linked to NOAA.

      • Okay…. You linked to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, which is a Cabinet-level department of the Executive Branch of the United States federal government because it’s scientific in nature, and not political?

        Thanks, Matthew. Now we all understand that you’re just as clueless about politics as you are about science.

      • The military is even more political than NOAA!

        War is “Politics By Other Means”.
        That’s why we’ve been fighting endlessly, but not actually WINNING, since WWII!

      • The US Military? Not only is it politicized (controlled by the Department of Defense, another Cabinet-level department of the Executive Branch of the US federal government, and ultimately under the direct command of the POTUS), it is utterly devoid of climatological expertise, and has no brief to even study the Earth’s climate.

        Next you’ll be citing the US Postal Service, or maybe the Boy Scouts of America because they’re so de-politicized that they accept girls now. Get a grip, son.

      • No one in government is honest and/or has expertise in climate science. But you do. Sure, tell me to get a grip on reality. You are in a cult and I challenged your dogma, logic and facts don’t matter. You can’t cite any peer reviewed science, it’s just one vast conspiracy. No wonder the base is evangelical. Only people who believe that dinosaurs walked the earth with man could be so challenged with science, math, or common sense. Luckily America’s eyes are opening.

      • Why do all your links on climate lead to the government? Just curious.

        Why do warmists routinely pretend the Medieval Warming Period didn’t happen? Just curious.

      • Here is a summary of the math.. scientists have tested the ‘natural variability’ as a cause of recent temperature changes and found it highly unlikely. You won’t find similar mathematical analyses promoted by deniers.. because they can’t. The math come out with one answer.

        “A 2009 study by Michael E. Mann et al., examining spatial patterns of surface temperatures shown in multi-proxy reconstructions finds that the Medieval Warm Period, shows “warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally”

      • That site refers to a review of published papers on climate change, not a poll of actual scientists. I am not unsympathetic to your viewpoint, but your claim that “98% of scientists agree” is itself not very scientific.

      • I’ll concede the exact figure, as that’s not the point. How about ‘overwhelming majority’. Another key point is ‘peer reviewed’, which is actual climate scientists, not involved with the study, confirming the methodology and conclusions. Can you cite any peer reviewed papers supporting deniers?

    • Please let us know when when “real” science even begins to get something right on AGW, Meanwhile the sane people will continue to crap on the FAKE science;-)

    • If education had anything to do with it, perhaps. If a grasp of facts and knowledge had anything to do with it, we’d all denounce you for your “98% consensus” lie, which is even worse than the more usual “97% consensus” lie. We’d say you’re a fool for thinking that science and consensus are somehow dependent on one another.

      Green energy is the biggest energy market for the Chinese because idiots like you are working to convince our political masters to subsidize the purchase and installation of their crap in the US.

      I’d suggest you supplement your income by getting a job counting the dead protected raptors at practically any “green energy” installation out west. For years, those places have been applying for, and receiving, federal licenses to essentially kill all the eagles and hawks and owls and condors they want, along with thousands of other bird species, with their giant propellers and nuke ovens — as long as they count the mangled carcasses and report the numbers to the Energy Department. That sounds like your kind of gig, big boy.

      • Solar and wind are now competitive with coal on price alone, and will be much cheaper soon. The issue is storage, and there is massive corporate investment to solve that, which would put a stake through the heart of coal. And I’ll take a few dead birds to solve a much bigger problem.. I don’t get distracted by ‘whattaboutism’.

        “Last week, Xcel Energy announced a multi-state wind capacity project, anticipated to be the largest in the United States. Spanning seven states, the project covers eleven new wind farms and would generate 3280 MWs at a cost of $3.5-4.4 billion. In its announcement, Xcel emphasized the cost-savings attached to wind power, arguing that it would save Xcel customers in the Midwest $7.9 billion over thirty years.”

      • And how much land will it take up?

        You could get the same energy, much cheaper, with a compact nuclear reactor.
        Cue the “Whatabout Three Mile Island”?

      • Solar and wind (and to a large extent, hydro) are steps into the turn-of-the-20th-century past of small, widely-dispersed generation facilities. In general, estimates of cost-per-kWh for these “new” technologies exclude two rather important things — storage (as you mention) and transmission costs (a HUGE consideration which NOBODY wants to talk about). When you stick your bird-Cuisinarts forty miles west of East Bumfuck, Texas, that juice has to get to market somehow. Another serious financial consideration that remains (purposely) in the shadows is the impossibility of replacing traditional generation with “renewables” because “renewables” have such miserably low power ratings per unit and especially capacity factors. When the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine, you’re SOL. With a capacity factor down around 30-35%, wind and other “renewables” literally require large central generating stations with high capacity factors to back them up. Storage technology that will change this situation is not even in the foreseeable future.

        Considering the effects of solar and wind on protected and endangered raptors, the numbers are not “a few,” but rather a few tens of thousands every year. If I go out behind my house tomorrow and shoot a single red-tailed hawk out of the sky, I can be arrested and face serious jail time, loss of my property (especially my evil shotgun) and massive fines. Wind farm operators just file a little paperwork with the federal government and everything’s hunky-dory. Reflective solar-array operators don’t have to worry so much because their feathered victims are incinerated to ash in midair.

        FWIW, I enjoyed your quote about Xcel Energy. You probably don’t know that Xcel is a huge multi-state and international electrical energy broker with its fingers in many pies indeed. But its flagship operations and the primary sources of Xcel’s revenue are its 13 coal-fired generating stations. In fact, with its recent moves into wind generation, Xcel Energy has become crony capitalism personified.

      • Of course I know Xcel. So now corporations too are part of the conspiracy.. they can’t make sound business decisions either. Maybe they should hire you.

  47. The military assesses threats, regardless of politics. They are clear that it is a threat. Is the US military a bunch of lefties?

    “For more than a decade, military leaders have said that extreme weather patterns and rising sea levels are aggravating social tensions, destabilizing regions and feeding the rise of extremist groups such as al-Qaida and the Islamic State. Closer to home, scientists estimate that rising sea levels threaten at least 128 U.S. military bases, some of which are already flooding.

    “The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today … are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security,” says a 2007 report by the Military Advisory Board, an elite group of retired three- and four-star flag and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. “It is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects.””

  48. Suicidal is right! The Only thing the Left isn’t superficial about is their deep commitment to masochist personal and cultural suicide.

  49. Wife threw an extra blanket on the bed last night as a blue norther reached down to Houston TX. And the sea’s 1mm purported rise was overridden by tides and waves several orders of magnitude larger, or was it 1mm lower? No matter, 1mm is within the noise of the measuring apparatus. But the “scientists” (a.k.a. grad students lead by a grant groveling leftist professor), cherry pick a 1cm portion of wave height and call it sea level increase, then apply for another government grant. And so it goes.

    • We can send a man to the moon on but it’s too hard to measure sea levels? The silliness of these ‘arguments’ don’t make a convincing case.

      • Mr. Snow, I am a degreed oceanographer, specifically a physical oceanographer. We specialize in waves, currents, tides, etc. What the global warming idiots are trying to foist off on you is that sea level rise is on the order of millimeters. Consider that in some places on this planet the tides are on the order of 60 feet. That is 18,288 times larger than what the loons are claiming sea level is rising. Add to that periodic waves in constant motion. A change of sea level on the order of millimeters is utterly lost and insignificant in the dynamics of ocean surface movement, however you wish to measure it.

      • As an oceanographer, please explain the orders of magnitude difference between your sea lever rise estimates and the NOAA figure.

        “Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year”.

      • How much does silting from rivers raise sea levels? How about boats? How many tens of thousands of super tankers, shipping container boats, carriers and yacht’s of all kinds out there displacing how much water?? How many are added each year?
        How far away is the moon traveling from the earth and how does that affect the tides and sea levels? Don’t know do you?? Here’s NOAA faking their data…

      • one-eighth of an inch per year is well within “noise” and is not considered measurable. This is more liberal hocus pocus nonsense.

      • ‘They say we had a cold snap recently. That’s not true, when I look at the thermometer in 2 minute intervals, it doesn’t change.’ Sure you’re an oceanographer.

      • This is not a sample interval issue. Temperature change during a cold snap is many orders of magnitude greater than constantly varying sea level. With sea level averaging must be employed and the quacks suggesting climate-related sea level change are simply cooking the books and juicing their own hare-brained models. — Physical Oceanography, U. Of Washington, Seattle, class of 1973

      • Sample interval is of course the key issue. Climate deniers measure small intervals (always starting with a high year). Scientisrs measure longer periods. Averaging needs to be employed, which is precisely why your ‘but there are tides’ comment is quackery.

      • NOAA cooks their models for political purposes. Deep state operatives.

      • Sea levels are constantly changing. Some areas have tides greater than 50 feet. How can you expect to get accurate measurements in the order of fractions of an inch, or millimeters. Everything is rounded and approximated and here is where the deception enters. If you round and fudge numbers you can come out and trumpet inconvenient truths – all deceptions. The ocean surfaces are continually in motion and, depending on where you decide to take your readings (slant your data) you can even claim sea levels are declining. Get a life and forget the nonsense the Left is foising on you. Read some good literature.

  50. We are near the coldest temperatures that have existed since the end of the last Ice Age……

    One Picture Equals 1000 Words…..

    [the brief written essay below the picture provides a quick overview to the myth of man made global warming. We will be lucky if we don’t retreat into another Ice Age. Carbon Dioxide is a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and has no significant impact on the global temperature, and is at among the lowest levels it has ever reached in Earth’s history. Carbon Dioxide is critical to plant life, and crops, and the small increase in it since the industrial revolution over the past 100 years has increased plant life by about 20%]

  51. During the Medieval Warm Period, all areas studied has warmer temps than they have now. It was known as a period when grapes grew in Britain and wine was plentiful, harvests were good and population increased.