Gender specific meets realism

I am having a hard time keeping up with culture these days. It could be just me, I’m not sure. I have finally realized that culture does change over time. I’ll give them that. How much it changes though, or should, is still up for debate in my view.

But the one thing that the evolutionists on the left always tell us is science is fact. And that is the way it is. Argue with that and they call you a denier. But if that is the case, then why do they keep trying to change science? I thought science was science.

Here is a simple example. Suppose you got into a time machine and went back to 1935. You walk into a senior science classroom to talk to them. Then you mention the words gender dysphoria and gender expansive. What do you think their reaction might be? No one would know what you are talking about or they could think you are joking.

Do that today and there might be one or two eye rolls but other than that everyone knows what you are talking about. “Oh, that.” They would probably get the drift pretty quick.

I decided since I am one of those people liberals always call a denier, phobic or neanderthal, then I should have an appropriate term for myself. I will label myself gender euphoric — which means I am very happy with gender the way it is, and have no inclinations to change it or the science behind it. I’m at peace with it and prefer people not try to redefine what is already defined. It should be settled science, as far as I’m concerned. .

But that would probably be exactly the wrong thing to be today because the left can accept any new definitions for sexuality, but they cannot accept or permit that one. Though in their way of defining it, a person’s final sex shall not be determined until they die. Then the evolution or chances of it are over.

Even in their way of thinking, my problem is not in keeping up with culture. No, they would label me a maladjusted adult due to my failure to adjust to their new definitions and standards. A cultural abomination. They can call it what they like and I’ll call it reality.

Right Ring | Bullright

Turn For The Worst In Roman Church?

People who know me or have read my ramblings know I am not a big proponent for conspiracy theories. The more elaborate ones rampant in marginal politics anyway.

However, I’ll make an exception and go full conspiracy mode here in one case. And former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now present Pope Francis, is right smack in the middle of it.

Before I get too far down the path, I have to say I followed many of his statements. I see the lectures. Like everyone, I shake my head at the ridiculousness of Pope Francis.

If you are looking for a reference of other write ups then try this one from Townhall:
The Fool in the Vatican — It’s a good start.

After all that going on for years, I wonder what is behind it or if there is more to it? I conclude there is, but I am not sure exactly what. Let me offer a few ideas. Another disclaimer is necessary: as always, this is not a Pope bashing agenda. I would ask Jesuits to seriously question what is going on here? After all. it is their home field.

I don’t have to list all the controversial things he has said, which would seem to go against the Catholic precedent and doctrines. He has not been shy about making remarks that has him acting more like Obama than the Pope of the Catholic Church. No, then the reasons for this? And there could be many. I racked my brain trying to come up with some.

But Francis has to know he is turning off many of the “faithful”. Those are ardent, proud traditional Catholics. So what’s the deal: does he care, is he ignorant to it, or is he in denial about it? Is he aware he is stepping outside usual CC lines by venturing into controversial, politically charged areas? Why does he feel obligated to do it?

I could easily plead the ignorant case. I could also say he is in denial. But I won’t. I give the man credit for knowing what he is doing. But why?

I come to the conclusion he just doesn’t care if he is pissing off (or pissing on) a lot of that “faithful” flock. I believe he is well ware. So is he intentionally trying to be divisive? I do believe there is intent behind it. Is it a not so secret anti-Catholic agenda?

I think he has calculated that he doesn’t care about numbers. He really doesn’t care about orthodoxy either. I think, while it might be malicious. he has decided if many people balk and walk away in protest or disgust, so be it. I think he decided that the remnant left (a pun) would be better off thinning the ranks. If dissatisfied leave, it’s better for him. He obviously has no interest in either pandering to the disgruntled or appealing to them. In fact, he may be out to send them a strong message that they are not welcome.

If it comes to a point of choice between him and and them, it is them who are not welcome in the Church — not him or his leftist allies. And he has dug in on that note. Is it a full throated takeover of the CC? You might call it that.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always had my disagreements with the Roman Church, which is why I am a protestant evangelical. But, like Catholics, I look for reasons and explanation why he is doing this? No, I don’t believe it is really God’s call he is following. I think there are other voices, and it’s not divine revelation. In fact, I don’t see anything divinely inspired about it. It is secularism (humanism) he seems to follow. It’s equally divisive.

At any rate, he has already decided that alienating a whole lot of Catholics is justified. As I said, what will remain in who likes it is more important to him. Actually, it is the only thing that does matter to him. He is adhering to a worldview, not necessarily a Church-view. And the Church can take a hike.

What gives me the idea those dissatisfied are not welcome? Look at his statements. Time and again when he makes a wild statement on current policies of governments and says “you are not Christian” if you don’t agree. So if you don’t like open borders, you are not a Christian. Next, if you don’t like socialism, you are not a Christian. He always frames it in those terms. Basically, he is saying if you disagree with you are not a Christian and also a bigot. You are both. He marginalizes anyone who does not accept Leftist orthodoxy. (far left at that). Now we come to the genesis of it all.

Politics. He has determined politics is the act of the Church. He would rather see the Church playing politics than following God’s commands. And he is out to make the CC chief Church of Politics. That is because everything he is concerned or talking about is part of a politically-driven agenda. He is fine with that. In fact, he is endorsing it in what he is doing. He is telling you disagreement is not an option and you are not Christian if you disagree.

So if that Secular Humanism corrupts the Catholic Church, too bad. Celebrate it!

Now I made my case about it. What is yours?

Right Ring | Bullright

Obama Factor, Live From Berlin

Talk about misinterpretation by media, now even Fox is doing it.

Obama goes to one of his favorite places, Berlin. Ah, time to lecture the Europeans on politics. And to talk trash about American politics.

He talked about division but in a partisan way. He complained some people turn it into a circular firing squad, as the Democrat primary heats up and expands. So he warns of inter-party fighting,

Then media, like Fox, falls for the easy bait and says Obama is sounding moderate now. They jump at the chance to agree with him. What was the event? It was his Obama Foundation doing a Townhall at Brandenburg Gate. From the Foundation:

(Mission) “Obama join[s] hundreds of emerging European leaders for a town hall conversation to discuss the future of Europe and the importance of leadership in creating lasting change across the region.”

Well, nothing overtly political about that, is there? No doubt about what he is doing.

The statement he made about a circular firing squad:

“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States and maybe it’s true here as well, is a certain kind of rigidity. Where we say “ah ha, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be” and then we start, sometimes, creating what’s called a circular firing squad where you start shooting at your allies, because one is straying from purity on the issues. And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens.

So I think whether you are speaking a s a citizen or as a, you know, political leader, or an organizer, whether you are in a non-profit space, a civic space, or you are in the political arena; you have to recognize that the way we’ve structured democracy requires you to take into account people that don’t agree with you. And that, by definition, means that you are not going to get 100% of what you want. But you should take some time to think in your own mind and continually refine and reflect “what are my core principles” because the danger is if you don’t know what your principles are that’s when you compromise your principles away.

So you have to know ahead of time “here’s what I am willing to compromise on and here are the things that I’m not.” You can’t set up a system in which you don’t compromise on anything, but you also can’t operate in a system where you compromise on everything – everything is up for grabs. That requires a certain amount of internal, ah, reflection and deliberation.”

The only thing is theory does not overcome reality for Obama. He never was that compromiser. He was always a rigid my way or the highway person. He told McCain, the election is over, “I won.” He did not compromise on Affordable Care Act. He repeatedly lied about what was in it. His advice is not for himself. He’s such a hypocrite and phony. They would only eat that up in Europe, where he could get away with it.

Don’t buy the crap sandwich though. Obama’s only fear is that infighting of Democrats could weaken the party. Wait, that is not moderate when you think about it.

But we’ve seen that movie before. In past primaries, Democrats made a friendly arrangement deal between candidates not to attack each other. That’s how they operate, under normal circumstances. And likely what will happen this time. Look, Obama being objective or wise is hogwash.

Actually if they can ever get a chance, they love to stoke infighting on the right. They even find candidates on the right to do it. Obama is just worrying out loud that the Democrats might hurt themselves. But hey, we saw that even Hillary and Bernie could not bring themselves to attack each other. Obama does not sound moderate, and that is not his position to moderate. He just doesn’t want any infighting to start. In other words. let the hard left run rabid. Kow-tow to it rather than buck the hard left. How about Chuck and Nancy on the wall? Their objective is not to compromise.

That is the same message he is giving them on quasi-political operations. In fact, the effect of what he says is meant to weaken the other side. He knows the loudest radical voices get the attention and action because they drown out others – by design. They don’t want any other voice heard. You don’t compromise if you are the only voice in the room. Still Obama is embarking on a global political structure, much like the Soros machine. The other thing he is really selling here is incrementalism. Start something, no matter how flawed, that your opponents cannot get out of and then just keep piling on it. (he calls it building)

It is disguised as sounding moderate. And he knows full well the dangerous momentum of the socialist left. He must be ecstatic. He knows if anyone must stop the criticism it would be moderates speaking against that far left. It’s those moderates that should be forced to bite their tongues and not make waves.

This word salad only gives the appearance of moderation, when it is the opposite. He doesn’t want Democrats to rise up against the commie left.

You only have to look at who Obama backs to see which side he is on. He loves “Beto,” Robert Francis. He’ll do nothing to get in Bernie’s way either. He’s down with all the commie crap. And look, he organized a coup against Trump, so don’t think he is not strategically aligned with the hard left. He said it there, he does not want a weakened party or movement. Now does that sound moderate?

So Fox can prance around all it wants trying to paint Obama’s remarks as a voice of moderation. But that doesn’t work. We know who he is and so does the left. They also misrepresented the intended message. Does the context not matter of who he is talking to? They are still playing down the threat Obama poses, well into the future. I thought that crazy mantra was debunked by now.

Right Ring | Bullright

Morality of the Beast

It’s a strange new world, and the religion of the left has taken center stage.

AOC lectures us about the morality of Climate Change, while they joyfully push for late-term abortion even infanticide as hard as they can. But we are the deniers?

Reality check! Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore.
Politics of evil.

Right Ring | Bullright

Climate Of Religion

What we have seen is the overt politicization, weaponization and religiosity of the climate, or climate change, and the propagandizing of it. It should be no surprise that they politicized it to the max. That’s why so many people are outraged. But that was only the first step. Then they weaponize the climate, against the people of course.

Then they use the climate as the apocalyptic fear-mongering vehicle

When even the former head of Green Peace has to go on Hannity and call out the apocalypse hysteria of the Left, we are in a strange place.

He actually said that if we do the fossil full elimination they are calling for, it would decimate civilization. Or maybe that is what they want? He also said that our coal fired consumption is about 90% cleaner than it was decades ago.

But he said that today we still rely on fossil fuels for 80% of our electricity. Apparently they didn’t realize that when they tell us they want to switch to electric cars. Imagine the reaction when they all plug them in.

But they are telling us something with these Big Green Plans. They show us it is a religious movement now, full stop. The former Green Peace guy said what they are doing in incorporating kids into their message is equal to child abuse. Well, it should be criminal. The same person also said that the direction they are taking it, including using children (and emotions), is just to push their radical socialism or social justice platform.

I guess they don’t realize that we see exactly what they are doing. They turned it into a political issue, weaponized it, then made it a religious one. And they now feel comfortable turning that weapon on anyone they need to propel their political agenda.

Wouldn’t you think using and scaring kids would be a bit over the top? Not for them. In fact, it is right up their alley. The same way they have been using kids in their socialized healthcare schemes. Just roll out the children. What’s next, having children lobby and protest for late term abortion rights? Don’t be surprised.

As I said some time ago: is there anything too radical and extreme even for Democrats? Not anymore. Remember Claire McKaskill let the dirty secret out of the bag in the campaign, before she lost? She said those are the crazy Democrats and she was not one of them. But now that the election is over and AOC has taken over the party, with an assist from Bernie Sanders, it looks like they are telling us loud and clear that really all Dems are crazy Democrats. That’s the way it works.

We used to hear them say on the campaign that they would not be a lockstep vote, and they were independent minded, and that they would represent the people. Remember Trump called them out at rallies and said if they get in, they will only be Pelosi puppets and vote in lockstep. Rubber stamps. Again, Trump was completely right. But it only took a few short weeks for that to happen and prove it.

Bottom line is these people are not at all about preventing a catastrophe, they are all about creating one. And the faster they get there, the better. Have kids believe that the world is going to incinerate. We used to hide under desks in schools, remember. Now just tell them it is over. So we might as well blow through a hundred trillion dollars trying because it’s a lost cause unless. Unless they can save planet earth from destruction. Well, I wonder what kept planet earth from destruction years ago before they came along? They sort of sound like a revised version of Heaven’s Gate people over the Hale-Bopp Comet.

It does show us something. That the climate change and socialists, besides getting in bed with each other, are reading from the same script. It is all about belief. It is only based on that. Throw in a few anecdotes and current events to make your case, then round up the kids and give them their lines. Send them out to the public and watch people get sucked in. Or so goes the plan. However, what it really is based on is belief.(echoes of Obama) Have enough people to believe it and you can even summon a Hale-Bopp comet to come and rescue them. And they are betting all their marbles, and our money, on it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Weather Fruits at it again

Just how deceiving are the global warming climatologists? Well, take it from one of their propagandists at Accuweather.

Headline: “2018 officially ranks as the 4th hottest year on record for Earth

We all know how media uses sensational headlines. But this is beyond sensational.
Note the words “officially” and “for earth”- not for their records.

It is not until you read within the article that it actually says:

“The year 2018 followed the pattern of higher-than-average annual temperatures, as the Earth experienced its fourth hottest year on the 139-year record.”

Anyone has to admit that 139 years of record keeping is a pretty short blip on the earth limeline, even by Noah’s standards. Speaking of which, where were these people back in Noah’s day when he could have used a little weather forecast affirmation?

Anyway, here they are trying to send the powerful message that at no time in the earth’s history has there been a warmer year. Wow, 2018 must have been a real stoker!

And they sprinkle that message with agencies like NASA and NOAA to lend more “official” credibility to it. Heaven knows you are a denier if you don’t believe them, or if you are even skeptical. Then they call you a “science denier”…. when they only base their model on 139 years of records. Records that have been under some scrutiny.

See:

Climate experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) independently released new data on the global temperatures for 2018 and the most important climate trends of the year on Wednesday, Feb. 6.

Is that also the same science I hear that refuses to call a baby in the womb a baby? Yet even in the Bible it says about Virgin Mary that she was with child, not a blob or a zygote.

Now who would you rather believe? They call that science?

I was waiting for the part that would blame Trump for it. That’s a joke but they were not.

Welcome to the empty head club

Where sanity has been abolished. So add another firecracker to out roars against Trump. Now he is to blame for wildfires in California. When will it end? When will it ever end?

A leftover talent from yesteryear speaks out adding his voice to the anti-Trump sentiment.
Wild fires equal wild talk.

ET “Neil Young Slams Trump After Losing Home To California Wildfire

Neil Young wants action on climate change after losing his home to wildfires in California.

As fires in the state rage on, claiming homes and lives, the Canadian singer has written a post on his website slamming Donald Trump for denying climate science.

Read here: https://etcanada.com/news/385851/neil-young-slams-trump-after-losing-home-to-california-wildfire/

 

[Cue the soundtrack:]
Listen my children and you shall hear
The moronic hubris and the fears,
Of pompous jerks and talking heads.

You may not comprehend, at first,
All it portends for us;
But eventually you’ll see
All that is descent and good they flee.
©2018

Check with my agent, I’m sure someone can put a few chords to that.

Funny they can visualize that but can’t see the swamp gas kicking us in the ass.

Earth Prophecy from Hawking

Stephen Hawking says the Earth will be a fireball by 2600

By Margi Murphy, original – The Sun

Mastermind Stephen Hawking has warned that the human race will perish on Earth after we turn it into a sizzling fireball in less than 600 years.

He declared that humans must “boldly go where no one has gone before” if we fancy continuing our species for another million years.

If we don’t, the world will become overcrowded and increased energy consumption will turn the planet into a ball of fire because of our soaring energy consumption as the population rises.

Making a video appearance at the Tencent WE Summit in Beijing on Sunday, Hawking appealed to investors to back his plans to travel to the closest star outside of our solar system, with the hope that a livable planet might be orbiting it. …/

Continue: https://nypost.com/2017/11/06/stephen-hawking-says-the-earth-will-be-a-fireball-by-2600/

So that’s all she rode. Unless they figure out the next star. And when Loyd’s of London figure that out and confirm it, everything will be set to end.

Climate Change Red Team: deep bench forming

Trump Solicits Help From Conservative Group To Develop Climate Change Red Team

Chris White — 7/24/2017

The Trump administration has asked a conservative group known for promoting climate skepticism to help recruit academics for a “red team” on global warming, the Washington Examiner reported Monday.

President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have enlisted the help of the Heartland Institute, a group widely considered to be the central hub for the academic push against what conservatives call “climate alarmism.” The institute has become a type of boogeyman in liberal circles, mostly because of its skeptical position toward manmade global warming.

“The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency have reached out to the Heartland Institute to help identify scientists who could constitute a red team,” Jim Lakely, the group’s communications director, told reporters Monday. The Heartland Institute accepted the Trump administration’s offer.

“This effort is long overdue,” Lakely said about Trump’s idea to build a “red team vs. blue team,” which essentially pits climate skeptics against academics who argue that human beings are the primary drivers of climate change. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt first announced the idea in June, and has since suggested that the debates should be televised.

“The climate scientists who have dominated the deliberations and the products of the IPCC have gone almost wholly without challenge,” Pruitt said. “That is a violation of the scientific method and the public’s trust.”

Military and intelligence agencies use similar tactics to expose vulnerabilities to strategic systems. Skeptics say it would give needed balance to climate science, a field of research many believe has been monopolized by activists.

Environmentalists and scientists, meanwhile, say it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices that disagree with them on global warming.

“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientists Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.

They argue that the existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project. The authors also said that scientific bodies, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, provide a forum for scientific debates.

Elements within the Obama administration promoted the idea. Steve Koonin, a former Energy Department head during Obama’s tenure, for instance, suggested a red team-blue team approach in an April editorial to put the issue to rest.

“A Red/Blue exercise would have many benefits,” Koonin wrote. “It would produce a traceable public record that would allow the public and decision makers a better understanding of certainties and uncertainties. It would more firmly establish points of agreement and identify urgent research needs.”

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter

At Daily Caller

Know who your friends, enemies are

One of the campaign issues Trump sounded a bullhorn on, at least to evangelicals, pastors and churches, was getting rid of the Johnson Amendment.

That is the one burdening pastors and pulpits under political restrictions to the first amendment, by using 501 status as a lever against them. Holding them hostage you might say. Also placing restrictions on churches. Well, seemed popular didn’t it?

But over the years, so many have become programmed and indoctrinated to this policy. Like a lot of liberal theology, it becomes normalized. No excuses, plenty of complacency.

That’s where it is comes time to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, And so often the latter are closer than you think.

Hundreds of religious groups call on Congress to keep Johnson Amendment

Harry Farley Journalist 05 April 2017 | Christian Today

Nearly 100 religious groups are urging Congress to keep the ‘Johnson Amendment’ which limits churches’ political activities.

President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the law which blocks ministers from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or religious organizations from donating to either party. Many Republicans back him and argue the amendment infringes on religious groups’ free speech.

But 99 different groups have written to oppose the move.

‘The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws,’ they write.

The strongly worded backlash comes from across the religious spectrum from The Episcopal Church and Baptist groups to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu movements.

‘Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system,’ [they] say in a letter to top members of Congress.

……./

Continue reading at Christian Today

Here they come, in the name of ‘protection.’

Or basically all your liberalized arms of churches. We know how to interpret that. Many are the proud who call for boycott, divest, and gov’t sanction actions toward Israel.

Funny, they never seem restrained at all in pushing the progressive political line in churches. That, of course, was never really restricted. We see no applied restrictions on black or leftist churches. They don’t have to worry.

Though even speaking about abortion and protecting life has been deemed political, and too taboo for prime-time pulpits. Except if you want to protect baby killing that’s okay.

So now they reveal who they are. Take note. They will stand and defy the action we want. Just as the sanctuary cities stand in defiance to the law and will of the people. Or should I say much like the activist Sanctuary Churches? Get the idea? Or let them preach Climatology from pulpits. That is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?

Proverbs 27:6
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

RightRing | Bullright

Spring Cleaning in Climate Change Isle

Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch blows away the golden thesis of the Climate Change, Global Warming crowd. Turns out it may not be ‘crowd-sourced’ as well as they say it is. This is the number one phrase they base all their actions on: i.e. debate is over, the consensus is, scientists all agree, it’s an established fact, blah blah ad nauseam.

Let’s Talk About The ‘97% Consensus’ On Global Warming

Michael Bastasch — 03/05/2017 | Daily Caller

We’ve heard it time and time again: “97 percent of scientists agree global warming is real and man-made.”

Question one aspect of the global warming “consensus” and politicians and activists immediately whip out the figure. “You disagree with 97 percent of scientists?”

The 97 percent figure was often used by the Obama administration to bolster its case for phasing out fossil fuels, and President Barack Obama himself used the figure to undercut his critics. NASA even cites studies purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on the issue.

More recently, Newsweek included this figure in an article fretting about “climate deniers” in state legislatures trying to influence science curriculum. The author couldn’t resist noting that “97% of scientists who actively study Earth’s climate say it is changing because of human activity.”

Liberals use the figure to shut down debate around global warming. After all, how can you disagree with all those scientists, many of whom have spent their lives studying the climate?

But how many proponents of “climate action” have actually bothered to read the research that underlays such a popular talking point? How many realize the “consensus” the research claims to find is more of a statistical contortion than actual agreement?

Probably not many, so let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.

What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?

Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.

To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.

In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.

But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors self-rated 2,142 papers.

Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.

Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.

Other studies written before and after Cook’s attempted to find a consensus, but to varying degrees, finding a range of a 7 to 100 percent (yes, no disagreement) among climate experts, depending on what subgroup was surveyed.

Cook’s paper is probably the most widely cited, having been downloaded more than 600,000 times and cited in popular media outlets.

Criticisms

Left-wing politicians and environmental activists pushing for laws and regulations to address global warming unquestioningly embraced Cook’s study.

But not everyone agreed. Some global warming skeptics took a close look at Cook’s work and found some glaring issues.

Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation authored a major critiques of Cook’s study in 2013.

Montford argued Cook’s “97 percent consensus” figure was meaningless, since it cast such a wide net to include global warming skeptics in with hard-core believers.

To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent.” Neither of these points is controversial, Montford wrote.

It’s like claiming there’s a consensus on legalized abortion by lumping pro-abortion activists in with those who oppose all abortion except in cases of incest and rape. That “consensus” would be a meaningless talking point.

University of Delaware geologist David Legates and his colleagues took a crack at Cook’s work in 2015, finding the numbers were cooked beyond a basic wide-net consensus.

Legates’ study, published in the journal Science and Education, found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950.

Cook basically cast a wide net to create a seemingly large consensus when only a fraction of the studies he looked at explicitly stated “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” or something to that effect.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called Cook’s work “propaganda” created to bolster the political argument for economically-painful climate policies.

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age,” Lindzen said in 2016. “Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”

“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” Lindzen said.

Is There A Consensus?

Cook’s paper has become the trump card for alarmists to shut down those who disagree with them. Rarely a day has gone by without some politician or activists citing the 97 percent consensus, but few probably realize how meaningless the figure is.

But there’s a more fundamental problem with Cook’s 97 percent figure — consensus is not proof.

Experts can all agree, but that doesn’t mean they are right. Most political pundits and pollsters predicted Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential race, but were proven dead wrong Nov. 8.

Trying to shut down dissent by arguing “well, all these smart people disagree with you” doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t win anyone over. In fact, most Americans don’t even believe there’s actually a “97 percent consensus” among scientists.

“Just 27% of Americans say that ‘almost all’ climate scientists hold human behavior responsible for climate change,” according to Pew’s new poll from October.

That being said, most climate scientists likely do agree humans are contributing to warming in some way.

The throngs of climate researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) certainly believe most global warming, though not all, since 1950 was driven by humans.

That still leaves us with a lot of possibilities. Is 51 percent of global warming attributable to humans or is 99 percent? Scientists can guess, but no one knows for sure.

On the other hand, a 2016 George Mason University survey of more than 4,000 American Meteorological Society (AMS) members found one-third of them believed global warming is not happening, mostly natural or only about half-caused by humans. The survey found 29 percent of AMS members thought global warming was “largely or entirely” caused by humans and another 38 percent believe warming is “mostly” due to humans.

Other scientists, like Lindzen, see humans as having a minimal influence on the Earth’s climate. Climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute — where Lindzen is now a fellow — have shown climate models incorrectly predicted global temperature rise for six decades.

Climate models currently show twice as much warming as has actually been observed — a problem many scientists have only recently come to terms with.

 
Follow Michael on Twitter @MikeBastasch

**Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
Original article: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/05/lets-talk-about-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

 

H/T and thanks to Dave for forwarding — (who is still sipping lemonade at his villa somewhere in the Caribbean until spring – as opposed to the Fake News Spring.)

Groundhog Day: state of climate

In this current climate, my friend says it is time to protest Groundhog Day. Okay:

I’ve been to Punxsutawney and YOU, sir, are no Punxsutawney Phil.

No offense to other ground hogs out there. Stop ‘normalizing’ Phil.

Word is Phil is rightfully concerned. He saw what they are doing to “Fili” the Filibuster using the nuclear option. What could they do to him? His climate prediction is: six more weeks of ‘dangerous’. That’s par for the course in this scorched-earth political climate.

Hey hey, ho ho…. it’s off to protest we go!

No climate denier here.

RightRing | Bullright

CFACT exposes GW gurus latest tactics

As Solomon said, there’s nothing new under the sun. Global Warming gurus roll out new program — which is a lot like their past ones — to Use kids.

Weather Channel goes Orwell

CFACT

Friend,

The Weather Channel released a video featuring kids lecturing their parents about global warming.

Just how much should we believe these children understand about the complexities of climate science?  Where did they get their information?

Indoctrinating children and using them to influence their parents is something right out of a dystopian novel.  It is a favored technique of tyrannical regimes of all stripes.

Here are some examples of the erroneous “facts” (and their refutations) recited by children in the video that Marc Morano posted at CFACT’s Climate Depot.  (His coverage made the Drudge Report):

Dear Mom and Dad:

CFACT’s readers know that these are propaganda talking points that do not stand up when studied under the unforgiving lens of real-world scientific observation.

Increasingly adults are not falling for the climate campaign’s false arguments.  Leonardo DiCaprio’s new climate film couldn’t rank higher than number 61 in the ratings as Anthony Watts pointed out at Watts Up With That.

That’s why they target children.

Hey Weather Channel, 1984 was a warning not an instruction manual!

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director
See more at: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=87b74a936c723115dfa298cf3&id=5a6a4e31f9&e=72a9829d77

Hurricane Matthew not bad enough for GW gurus

GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS DISAPPOINTED THAT HURRICANE MATTHEW WASN’T WORSE

Government Slaves Info

[10/26/16] J.D.HEYES– Only the sickest, most warped and ideologically polluted minds would secretly hope for greater death and destruction to their own people and country, but such is the case with “climate change” zealots.

As pointed out by Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), it was former President Obama crony and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel who once infamously remarked that political leaders should never let serious crises “go to waste,” because they can use them to advance a political agenda where they could not do so before.

As for the recent Hurricane Matthew, it appears as though a number of political operatives and true believers in the global warming religion likely wanted it to be worse than it actually was (which, to many people, was bad enough).

See more: http://www.govtslaves.info/global-warming-alarmists-disappointed-that-hurricane-matthew-wasnt-worse/

And they had such high hopes and plans for massive catastrophe. Never let a crisis go to waste, you know.

Papal Protests and 2016 Elections

Pope Francis nas taken the liberty to weigh in on the election and call Trump a non-Christian in one swoop.

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel,”– Pope Francis.

He seemed to do it as Obama is also attacking Trump as being “unelecatable”.

Trump replied from Carolina that:

“They [Mexican government] are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.”

I know, some people frown on public criticism or commentary on the Pope regarding politics. But that is not me. In fact, these comments just beg a response to them. And I’m just one to accommodate it. Now it appears fashionable for this “Vicar” to do public cut and run comments from his Papal paradise, yet people are to supposed to remain silent.

This is not a matter of political correctness either. However, it is considered politically incorrect to criticize the Pope or Francis. Sorry for the disclaimer. I don’t hear him warning ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” No, he endorses the public stoning of non-compliant individuals, metaphorically.

Rather this Pope went on the campaign trail when he came here, aligning his position and public ad campaign with Tom Steyer and the far Left joining their big-government, Global Warming agenda.(Steyer sponsored his ad campaign message) Some may regard that as courageous or welcome his critique in our policy and political process. But I for one do not, especially as it is a one-sided, double standard approach.

Where are the Papal excommunications of Leftist politicians who support abortion, even up to and including the infanticide of partial birth abortion? Where is that public flogging or that multi-million dollar ad campaign? Don’t point me to general comments selectively littered in some of his speeches between his pros on Climate Change.

Show me where he singles out someone on the Left and calls them a non-Christian — or excommunicates someone. He might just start that one with the Oval Office Occupant and his anti-Life voting record. There are times when hypocrisy just stands up and screams.

I am grieved today because of what Francis said on Donald Trump. Not because of my predisposition toward either side of it. If it were someone other than this Pope, then he might possibly regret those statements. But that won’t happen. As with the uber-Left, unfortunately, shame is not a factor in their sentiments.

Remember, in August 2015, Pope Francis was said to have excommunicated Donald Trump, citing it “behavior recognized as un-Christian to the community of the faithful,” barring him from partaking in sacraments of the Church. ***(Update: Apparently it was a satirical site post here though in effect this is much the same thing)

So Pope Francis and the Vatican endorses the illegal invasion of our southern border.

Let the mass excommunications begin. Has a sort of an Inquisition tone to it.
But deporting illegal invaders is compassionateless.

Note: (my apologies for the mention of the satire excommunication) Later, the Presbyterian Church was calling on people to denounce Trump’s statements saying his church should look into his standing.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s Rendezvous with Terrorism Speech

Dr. Evil acted the part delivering his post terrorism address. But after assorted tries he finally attempts to nail down a message — a message but not a strategy. 4-Point BS.

First, was his comment he would call the president of France later to express his sentiments on the Paris attack. Then, when in Paris, he had a failed press conference getting hammered by questions on terrorism. Then he went to Manila and made statements on the terrorism attack, refusing as he does to call it Islamic terrorism. Then after San Bernardino was labeled an act of terror, he delivers his Saturday address talking about gun control So third bite at the terrorism apple, he has an address on terrorism. He finally called it terrorism only when he could not deny it.

Obama needed to mute the criticism of not making a formal announcement about it. Alas, still, maybe it is Americans fault for the non-inclusive prejudice against Muslims and our rampant Islamophobia? Hardly, they threw the terrorist couple a baby shower just months before. That’s a sure sign of Islamophobia.

All’s fair in warfare, or maybe not.

Obama has become the problem in the way Islam has become the problem. Complacency has led to being complicit. If he wants to manage this homeland terrorism how he managed ISIS, then we are certainly in for more pain with no gain. Obama’s complacency has brought us to this point. So if Sen. Blumenthal can declare Congress complicit for failing to enact gun control, then he should see the reality that Obama is complicit by his failures.

Islam is complicit by their complacency for years to do anything about it. There is a war within Islam, except there is only one side fighting it. Radical Islam is at war with us and only one side is really fighting it. But Obama is building a Climate Caliphate saying that will prove something to ISIS and Islamists.

The San Bernardino attack proved the fallacy in the administration’s terrorism theology. Remember that one? They claimed terrorists are caused by lack of jobs and poor socioeconomic conditions. Syed Farook was working for the government, with all the perks, as a so-called public servant. Scrap that theory, or label government employment a prerequisite for terrorism too. Nope. Oh, then it was droughts are the cause terrorism. There must have been a drought in San Bernardino. He was a health inspector of restaurants. But if only we could give them good jobs and good economic conditions, and prevent the climate from causing droughts. Then stop them from being victims, too.

Obama spoke from the Oval office:

Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.

Again he refers to it as a tragedy. Can we move on to the terrorism it was?

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.

Yes, thank goodness the FBI already determined it was terrorism, so you are a little late informing us of that. Still he emphasizes coworkers, as if that really had anything to do with it, except to provide them an opportunity for a soft target. But there he goes parsing the words that we have no evidence of connection to a wider conspiracy at home. (Disclaimer alert) Tell that to the dead and victims in San Bernardino. We know they were connected to terrorism abroad and she swore allegiance to the Caliphate. Pay no attention to that or his trip to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The obvious money connections mean nothing either. Oh, it must have been a lucrative government job to amass that arsenal of supplies by his lonesome, making that socioeconomic cause even more ridiculous. They must have dumped all that income into Islamic radical terrorism. So just lip service calling it radical terrorism.

Then he finally admits it is an act of terrorism, born of a radical religious ideology. The “perverted interpretation” some argue is more common and mainstream than many people accept. So this was cover for Obama’s ass to call it terrorism and implying a radical element to it. They were not just walking along, minding their own business, and fell victim to this perverted radical Islam, as victims themselves. No, there were only those real victims and the shooters were not victims. An ISIS spokesman prayed God would accept them as martyrs. Yep, martyrs that kill 14 and wound others in an ambush attack? Definitions shift like Obama.

Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure.

Wait, you mean the War On Terror term that you abolished in political correctness and naive strategic failure. A war you tried to undermine by scrubbing any reference to radical Islamism in our strategy, plans, or rules. And your war on the term “terrorism?”

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe.

Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been hampered and crippled by your P/C-fied policies and playing politics with our nations security. Treasonous by nature. If someone would have hindered our response after Pearl Harbor would we have allowed it? You mean those counter-terrorism measures our people carried out in spite of your undermining the central objective to root out Islamic terrorism in and out of the country. Kudos to them for that.

And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

No, most of us know that, though it could be called a cancer, there is a cure even a short term one you are unwilling to commit to. And making statements calling it a JV team is not the prescription, nor is the denial about the source of this terrorism and ideology. That even inspires the cancer to grow. Pampering Muslims does little to combat it in the immediate future and makes it harder to confront in the longer term. An effect not lost on the terrorists.

Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.

You do not have to tell us the threat is real. That is confirmed in real time. You’ve been in denial about it all along, deceiving, saying things like the world has always been a dangerous place. Seems you have no issue with tough talk when it comes to Republicans or even shutting down the government, or getting your way — any way you can, even abusing the Executive-Order pen. Tell us what groups like ISIS are hoping for. Inaction is what they are hoping for and counting on. We are being smart, then, by denying the severity of the threat, by relentlessly criticizing our own people for calling it a threat? Drawing upon every aspect of American power? Really, that is the height of deception you’ve been engaged in. You have constrained and criticized the use of American power. Instead, you use the bully pulpit to chastise American patriots. You take shots at Congress from foreign shores and play politics with our resources, including our military.

So in that manner we will succeed? This blind faith in you strategy has not been working to date, but still you say just believe and stay the course. (the one that brought us to this point) Strong, smart, resilient, relentless. Being strong and smart is not something we lack. It is you that has buried your head in the sand, as in Benghazi blaming it on a video for political reasons. Being nowhere to be found on the night of the Benghazi attack. Or going into Libya by sidestepping Congress. And look where that has led. Or your support and direct involvement in the Arab Spring from the beginning, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, a fruitful exercise.

Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary.

But it is not just the social planners of terrorism who are a problem. It is the terrorists on the street, in sleeper cells that do the damage, and lone wolves.

In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.

You mean the lackluster politically correct effort you made so far? But now France and others have stepped in to do something besides return armed bombers. Since now you have finally allowed hitting oil tankers. Wouldn’t it have been achievement if you had done some of that before, when ISIS columns were moving into the neighborhood?

Second, training and equipping to the tune of 500 million that produced four warriors.

Third, working with friends and allies sounds a lot like the first. Wait for others, lead from behind. Works every time.

Fourth, more American leadership from behind in the international community “to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all.” Let’s hope that proves more productive than the Iran deal. A leadership that you, Obama, have failed to demonstrate so far. I only wish you would show the same passion for that as you have for the global warming agenda.

This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done.

You mean those changes you have been so stubbornly against? Yeah, more of that. Or you mean the job of leaving it for the next president to deal with after you removed the thousands of support troops from Iraq and grew the numbers and support for ISIS?

That’s why I’ve ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Finally, after an DHS spokesperson said they stand by that policy, you will now “review”(look at) that visa program. Lets hope you don’t look at it like you did the Keystone Pipeline.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

It is actually a red herring. A great talking point on the left. We have a program plagued with problems now which you want to use to control gun screening.

Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.

Another red herring, the Constitution or anything else has not stopped or prevented you before from acting, such as in Libya.

We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield.

That makes no real sense. If they cannot defeat us on the battlefield, why would they want us there? I get it, you are not interested in a war, even if they have declared one on us. Yet you call on Congress to declare authorization for you to act.

Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional.

Right never forget what makes us exceptional, while denying we are exceptional. That makes sense. By the way, a good many people wish they could trust you.

Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear;

Let’s talk about that. We aren’t forgetting and haven’t. Just that we value our freedom and sovereignty more than you do. You want to entangle us and give away our sovereignty. How does that make us free or freer?

Now that you mention fear, you are building a Climate Caliphate based and founded on fear. And it seeks to limit our freedom and economic freedoms. How is that compatible with what you advocate? More specious words meant more to deceive rather than heal a climate of frustration with your use(abuse) of power.

RightRing | Bullright

Gas emissions thick in Paris

Obama goes to Paris to break wind at the Climate Conference Summit. As usual with him, the flatulence was flying.

“One of the enemies we will be fighting at this conference is cynicism. The notion we can’t do anything about climate change,” Obama lectured.

Obama’s only enemies are his critics. He claimed to have seen “the effects change first hand in Alaska, where the sea is already swallowing villages and eroding shorelines….where glaciers are melting at a pace unprecedented in modern times.”

It will be compared to the MLK speech where he said “I’ve been to the mountain top.”

What is unprecedented in modern times is the amount of flatulence Obama is spreading from the US all the way to Paris, along with his global carbon footprint.

Sickening really to hear this much hyperbole spewed at once. Obama claimed in the last 7 years we made “ambitious investments” in green energy. If you translate that he made some ambitious spending on his enviro-agenda that speaks for itself. Big shout out to Solyndra. What some call stupid Obama calls ambitious, but spending just the same.

There were two good statements as the pious president exited Paris. Krauthammer told O’Reilly that even if they had a principled strategy to deal with ISIS, Obama cannot be trusted to carry it out. Then Bolton said it was not a meeting on Climate but a religious event and Obama was delivering the last sermon. Bookend statements that say it all.

Reference: see USA Today

RightRing | Bullright

Climate Caliphate on the march

Move over ISIS, there’s a new Caliphate in town. It’s called the Climate Caliphate and it’s about ready to bust a move all over the global stage. Exhibit A: Climate Conference, Paris.

“Look, I think it is absolutely vital for every country, every leader to send a signal that the viciousness of a handful of killers does not stop the world from doing vital business,” Obama said in his latest press conference, with the president of France, on the upcoming Paris summit.

I guess what that really says is that the climate is a far bigger threat than the Christians and infidels could ever be. Take that ISIS.

“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,” Obama told the Coast Guard earlier this year.

John Kerry is definitely on the advisory board for the Climate Caliphate.

“When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them,” Kerry noted in February 2014.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/23/obama-climate-change-summit-paris-message-terrorists/

In honor of that here is a catchy tune. (Circa 1982)

ISIS, you got some heavy competition.

Obama sees fear in rear view mirror

November 22, 2015 The Hill

Obama says GOP doing the terrorists’ work for them

President Obama said Sunday that the Republican running for president and in Congress continue to respond to terror attacks are doing what the terrorists want them to do.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/261031-obama-criticizes-house-legislation-on-refugees

Obama says “if Republicans running for president and in Congress continue to respond to attacks by playing off fears, they are doing what the terrorists want them to do….fear.”

Of Course Obama is only consumed by the fear of Global Warming. That’s perfectly rational. Everyone should be scared to death of global warming. The more of that the better.

And The Hill

Approximately 66 percent think Obama has no clear plan for defeating the terrorist organization, according to the CBS News poll.

Crazy Obama-hood

Welcome to the wacky world of Obama. Cue the Twilight Zone theme. A place where a clerk goes to jail for not issuing a marriage license but an entire city in California refuses to follow federal law and nothing happens. A place where incompetence is the excuse and justification for more incompetence.

In fact, when the Attorney General is asked about sanctuary cities going on for decades, Loretta Lynch claims that she needs time to study it. Time is not on our side, people.

The IRS targets people politically and the DOJ claims there is no grounds to prosecute Lerner or anyone else. The administration lies to everyone to get Obamacare passed but you lying to the government will land you in jail. The government breaches a dam contaminating an entire ecosystem but it calls you a denier threat if you don’t buy their global warming propaganda. The DOJ will launch an immediate civil rights investigation if you don’t sell a cake to someone or participate in their wedding ceremony. But a city openly refuses to cooperate with federal laws and statutes, and DOJ says we’ll have to “study” up on the matter.

Obama tells people to quit popping off about the circumstances or criticizing his ISIS policy. Instead, he says, put out their own strategy and show him. That’s election campaign rhetoric. It is radical Alinsky rules: make your opponent put forth a plan or strategy to prevent him from criticizing yours. The thing is he is the president, with access to all the information. He doesn’t want you to criticize his strategy unless you put forth a plan of your own, which he can then criticize and mock taking the focus off his. Just read Rules for Radicals, it’s just like the ISIS pr Al Qaeda terrorist manual. Then he deports five more detainees from Gitmo back to the ME, while also conniving a scheme to bring remaining Gitmo combatants to US mainland prisons. And imports tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, with a fictional screening, just to add a little more spice to it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch: (the capitol)

Tick, tick, tick…