You may have noticed that nearly all of the doomsday theories seem to begin with the phrase, “if current trends continue.” But, as I have just reviewed, current trends don’t continue. Global temperatures go down, then up, then stay flat. Population growth tapers off, new oil reserves are discovered, agricultural yields increase at even higher rates. Doomsday forecasters always overestimate gloomy trends and underestimate human ingenuity in problem solving.
Booker told the vegan magazine VegNews earlier this month that he became vegan after coming to the realization that eating eggs “didn’t align with my spirit.”
So it’s a religious thing with ‘Fartacus‘…
While claiming he does not want to lecture Americans on their diets, Booker says Americans need to be nudged into fake cheese because the planet cannot sustain the “environmental impact” of the food industry.
Nudged? Now he wants to impose his religion on others.
NPR is a hotbed of liberal idiocy. The fact that my taxes fund this tripe highly offends me.
I recently graduated with my Bachelor’s in environmental science, and I’m very interested in protecting the environment and teaching others about climate change. I want to know ways in which I can better explain myself to others, just regular people who might not have the education that I have about climate change, because from where I’m standing, it’s blatantly obvious what’s going on, and it just seems like we really need to come together and actually make a change, or there’s going to be a really bad end.
In this paragraph ‘education’ is synonymous with ‘indoctrination’. I would agree with his statement that ‘we need to come together and actually make a change’. The change that needs to be made is for NPR to quit promoting known falsehoods. Here’s another example of the falsehoods promoted by NPR:
Nothing the environmentalists are suggesting would cause harm.
Then why are you waiting for the government to adopt your policies? Just start living your life the way you want the government to force the rest of us to live. Be an example. Go live in a cave.
The belief in human-caused warming exceeding a level that what would be relatively benign, and maybe even beneficial, is just that — a belief. It is not based upon known, established, and quantified scientific principles. It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
Got that. Let’s repeat:
It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body. It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change. Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet’s carbon cycle. The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.
Mooney relies on a staple of alarmists, what Andrew Revkin calls the “single study syndrome” (e.g., see his NYT articles here and here). The mainstream media broadcast scary papers but never mention those that contradict the doomster climate story. For example, a new paper by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate: “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity.” This is one of several paper suggesting that the climate is much less sensitive to CO2 than the major climate models assume. Letting people learn about this science would ruin the science is science is settled narrative.
The biggest newsmakers in the crisis have involved psychology. Consider three findings: Striking a “power pose” can improve a person’s hormone balance and increase tolerance for risk. Invoking a negative stereotype, such as by telling black test-takers that an exam measures intelligence, can measurably degrade performance. Playing a sorting game that involves quickly pairing faces (black or white) with bad and good words (“happy” or “death”) can reveal “implicit bias” and predict discrimination.
All three of these results received massive media attention, but independent researchers haven’t been able to reproduce any of them properly. It seems as if there’s no end of “scientific truths” that just aren’t so. For a 2015 article in Science, independent researchers tried to replicate 100 prominent psychology studies and succeeded with only 39% of them.
This is easily seen in the ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ hoax where actual results are replaced with easily manipulated computer games (or ‘models’ as they are called). The results of these computer games, which can’t even accurately reproduce yesterday’s known weather, purport to predict the climate 30, 50, 100 years out. These results are then said to show catastrophe in the making unless we raise taxes to prevent it.
And if you don’t ‘believe’ that a) man is causing climate change and/or b) that raising taxes will miraculously reverse the trend, you are a ‘climate-denier’ and don’t ‘believe’ in science, as if science were a religion instead of a method of understanding the physical world.
I blame leftists who’ve dumbed down the education system so badly that people can’t think critically anymore. If a ‘scientist’ says so, it must be true. Disregard the fact that all of predictions made by these ‘scientists’ have failed to come to pass. The ice caps are still there, the glaciers haven’t melted, and the seas haven’t risen.