Politics Of A Pandemic

Some people refuse to believe this pandemic is anything more than a flu hoax, oversold and over-hyped. The reasons are assorted but they don’t seem to be changing their minds.

I made the decision early on as to whether to follow the conspiracy side or accept it as a real pandemic threat. I chose the pandemic side and haven’t questioned that decision. Maybe the same can be said for the conspiracists.

Not that I’m anti-conspiracy, I just like to choose them wisely. This one didn’t fit for me unless I missed some mountain of evidence. We have plenty of valid ones out there, as far as I’m concerned. But no matter which side, people seem dug in on what they think of it.

However, I have seen enough damage now. There is a list of things affected by the Asian Contagion, China virus. No, they don’t add proof to the cause but they do say something about the severity of it. Just to mention a few things we know though the list is growing:

    • Food shortages on everyday items
    • Masks in public everywhere.
    • Economic damage
    • Small businesses get slammed with costs as it continues.
    • Job losses, or eliminations.
    • Enormous costs in deficit, continuing
    • Shortages of medical supplies
    • Regular procedures at hospitals suspended.
    • No family gatherings (a plus to some people)
    • No church
    • No schools
    • Stay at home – isolation
    • (The list goes on, evolving almost weekly.)

Now the problem is the hoax-conspiracists can just as easily say it is all further proof of the successful damage of the hoax. They can weave it right into their plot. Then they will blame the hoax itself, and its creators, for these ongoing sufferings we see and feel. They see the hoax as the cause of it all. The effects are suppose to validate the hoax theory.

I take the different approach. I just add it as more damage that this virus from China has caused. It is a mounting tally. And I see China as the cause of it all. So all the damages are collateral effects of the pandemic. You can see those effects range from medical to economic, to the seemingly unrelated normal things.

Never the less, in my mind anyway, all of it traces back to China by way of the pandemic. So you cannot buy your Chunky Soup at the grocery store because of the pandemic. I’m all for understanding temporary shortages for due reasons but these droughts seem to be dragging out for extended periods, making you wonder when things will be the same again?

Has this crossed the line now to the point when things migjht never be the same, at least for some time to come? I didn’t think so at first but now I am not so sure. Maybe this has pushed these negatives so far that it cannot return to normal? Again, for that I hold China responsible for it all.

Even the mask wearing, which sort of irritates me, seems more a part of the foreseeable future than I hoped. Are we living in a period of unprecedented change? I do hope not because there are plenty of people who would like to take advantage of that. Far worse than even gouging and hoarding.

And those sorts of people lead me right back to the subject of this piece, politics and opportunist politicians. Sure there are others too, but they functionally follow the same formula. That is to extort the problem for all it’s worth, for personal and political gain – often the same thing. But make no mistake, it has been politicized, used and extorted.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Coronavirus Sequel

I’m just going to post the link to this article. You have to go there to read it yourself. However, it is very interesting and not stupid. The article answers the question.

A mutant coronavirus more contagious?

May 05– “Scientists have identified a new strain of the coronavirus that has become dominant worldwide and appears to be more contagious than the versions that spread in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new study led by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory.” /…Read

Chilling and disturbing.

Personifying COVID-19

If there were ever a virus that could lend itself to personification, then it would be COVID-19. Normally a virus is a virus, a disease a disease, as the plague was the plague. But in this one there seemed to be differences. I only say seemed; it might be debatable.

Maybe that is because we know more about it now and because of the public awareness of the virus itself, whatever the reason. Like hurricanes and storms can be personalized in a similar way because people feel personally threatened or affected by them. This time it is even more than that. And it seemed to grow more personal.

(pic credit: CDC.gov)

It became a personal thing to many people by also affecting them in a personal way. Their job, occupation, family, businesses were all collateral damages. Even religious practices and schools were not immune. Their way of life was in its path. The economy was threatened.

It supposedly attacked, because all the information has shifted since it first appeared, a certain profile of people. Those were older compromised people with co-morbidities. Almost as if it had an appetite. And it consumed victims like it had artificial intelligence. (I’m just saying)

Particularly bad was the extreme infectiousness. It was found especially contagious from people who were asymptomatic. So it could be spread to anyone, but certain people were more profoundly affected. Some were killed. Some bodies could not handle it. It seemed to screw with the immune system in ways we couldn’t quite understand. We is the public.

Symptoms were another irregularity. At the beginning we thought the symptoms were basic and then, as time went on, we heard of other symptoms not known originally. Then we heard of things like leg cramps and sense of smell disappearing. Now we hear about strokes and blood clots in younger people. Like many things, original reports are often wrong or erroneous. This was no different. We weren’t prepared for misinformation either, but we should have been. We’re savvy people in America.

The death rate was considered high at first, maybe even approaching 2%. Of course, no matter what the death rate was, no one would want to be one in that percentile. Still, the risk was considered slight by any measure. In fact that seemed to be one of the few positives – even if you did contract it, your chances were fairly good for a benign outcome. You just had to weather the so-called storm. Many assumptions at the beginning turned out to be wrong. We should have been prepared for that too. First news is often wronng.

It also came from a communist country who would have every reason to try to deceive people about it. They were no friends in the cause. They actually were part of the cause. And they worked to interfere with our response to it. We might have expected that too.

One could make the case, if one wanted to, that it seemed as if Coronavirus had a mind of its own. Once it escaped homeland China it lived large. Sure, the Communist Chinese knew this was happening but they enabled it. They turned it loose. But then this virus seemed to have an agenda of its own to affect the entire world, as fast as it could. It showed up in places over the globe. And of course top destinations would be on it’s itinerary.

It did not affect all people the same, which frustrated us in our isolation. Some escaped death by the skin of their teeth. Others, as well as some medical professionals, were not so lucky. I also heard of young, middle-aged people taken down with none of the co-morbidities. There is no sense of equities.

I’m not so sure we should not be personalizing COVID-19. It does not have to imply it is a biologically created weapon. But it could still operate as one. It did not even need the extra help it got from China to do its damage. Not to mention the aid and assist it got from some elected politicos too busy with their axes to grind against a sitting president to recognize the danger of the slithering serpent.

No, I’m not done exploring this idea, or whatever it means. Though I do have to stop at least for now. I am convinced it is not a bad way to look at it. We recently learned the virus does not like UV or sunlight. But it does like subways. I’ll leave it there.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

I Wonder….

I am featuring a new segment on this provocative blog. It will be called “I wonder.” I may probe some of the strangest questions of current politics and culture.

In this first installment, I wonder… how Democrats can run on a platform against high healthcare costs? When Dems have run on healthcare over ten years, yet these costs are the direct result of their policies and actions.

Healthcare premiums and deductibles of have exploded, exponentially, while Dems claimed they were fixing healthcare. And how’d that work out for you?

Now Dems want people to support and vote for them based on those high healthcare costs.

I’m still wondering… and they are still wandering.

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

Facebook Faceplant Hearing

Notable points from Facebook, Zuckerberg hearings.

House notes on Energy and Commerce hearing
2012 Election

“In 2012, the Obama for America presidential election campaign worked with the company to allow users to sign into the campaign’s website via Facebook. According to accounts at the time, the Facebook application gave the campaign access to both those that signed into the campaign, as well as the “Friends” of such persons — “the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists.” This gave the Obama for America campaign access to “hidden voters” for which they otherwise lacked contact information.

Carol Davidsen, Director of Integration of Media Analytics for Obama for America, via Twitter, stated that “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.” This in turn allegedly allowed one political party to download and retain individual user data which was not provided to other political organizations. “

It worked well for Obama. The problem comes when someone else from the conservative side finds a way to use Facebook. Zuckerberg was also asked but completely ignorant about details of past privacy lawsuits. This proved he was just an empty suit. 

Sham, most Republicans were simply not up on the technology or prepared. Pandering was on full display. Zuckerberg also could not address the data collection of non-FB users.

Overall, he kept returning to his canard that Facebook does not sell data. I think that line might haunt them. But marketing people’s personal data to companies at a profit may as well be. Their commodity is your personal information. If I market cars in a lot I can say I am technically not selling them, but I am getting paid for doing it.

Congressmen and Senators were more interested in looking to get broadband access for their districts and constituents, which Zucky was happy to say he would work toward.

On the censoring part, Zuckerberg had no answers. He claimed they would have over 20 thousand content screeners (FB conflates with security) by the year’s end. And he said they were working on creating more AI (artificial intelligence) tools to do censoring.

So the censoring will go on, and will be automated. He also referred to users flagging or reporting offensive content. So is it a mob sourced censorship platform too? To posture, pander, promote FB should not have been the objective for Congress.

Then, Mr. Zuckerberg, are you willing to help us with making the regulations etc.? Oh, he would be more than happy to have his team assist. Sure, sounds like a plan. 🙂

PS: Georgia Republican Rep Buddy Carter said he doesn’t want to legislate morality. Great. But Zuckerberg and his Facebook fascists do — and are hard at work trying.

Right Ring | Bullright

Old theories on Dems validated

This requires some contextual background. Conservatives have tossed out various psycho-theories about the left and what drives Democrats. I have considered them dysfunctionally deficient, making reasoning impossible. You could have a formal debate with numbers and statistics but it would mean nothing. They can ignore inconvenient facts as easily as they ignore the results. It does frustrate people.

Take a major issue as an example. The wall and border security, not even going into the entire problems. If you sat down to reason or convince Democrats, it wouldn’t work. So if the left has such aversion to a wall, numbers or facts don’t work. What is it, you might wonder why? If it were economics, you could make that argument. But you would be wasting your time and sincere efforts.

That is because it is philosophical to them. They are philosophically opposed, no matter what the facts or what you say. They will invent excuses, just make things up, call you names, or twist whatever you say. You see how vehemently they are opposed. It also includes ideology and emotion. Don’t expect them to care about the consequences of not building a wall either. They don’t care. They can’t be forced to care about something they have already made up their mind is not important.

They only care about other things much more: like sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, amnesty, stopping ICE from doing its job, protecting illegals. Almost anything else. They’ll give you the state’s rights argument. They don’t care about that. They’ve been fighting against state’s rights for years and opposing the will of the people.

So how else can one explain it? What is behind it. If it is a mental deficiency, what is it? Well, I found something interesting to help explain it. Just consider the source.

Sooner or later you will come across this story, if you haven’t already — because it is being shoveled out especially by media. I took the time to read it. I will link the article, not as a personal endorsement, but this was my takeaway nugget from it.

“I wanted to know why the Lib Dems sucked at winning elections when they used to run the country up to the end of the 19th century,” Wylie explains. “And I began looking at consumer and demographic data to see what united Lib Dem voters, because apart from bits of Wales and the Shetlands it’s weird, disparate regions. And what I found is there were no strong correlations. There was no signal in the data.

“And then I came across a paper about how personality traits could be a precursor to political behaviour, and it suddenly made sense. Liberalism is correlated with high openness and low conscientiousness, and when you think of Lib Dems they’re absent-minded professors and hippies. They’re the early adopters… they’re highly open to new ideas. And it just clicked all of a sudden.”

Now some of this data is from varied places. But it still would apply across borders.

This high openness, to belief and apparently progressive ideas would help explain it. Couple that with low conscientiousness and you have a volatile cocktail. A vehicle. I knew they were conscience-challenged but there it is. Do you think they would care about turning on a dime, contradicting themselves or hypocrisy? No, all that only matters if they care.

That’s why they beat conservatives over the head about double standards of hypocrisy. That works. To the left there are no double standards, only the now standard. Past is not prologue, it becomes irrelevant. All the matters is the immediate situation and need — whatever it takes.

Now that makes sense too, because they don’t care about the future, really, or the consequences of what they do. And it’s also why they continually apply the same failing policies. So there is a plausible, real validation that is measurable.

Explains a lot about Obama, Clintons and the DNC. So if you have people open to a radical agenda and ideas, with low conscientious objections, you have a pretty influential bunch that can be led (molded). Throw some white guilt on that bonfire. And all this, linked to the established plantation and identity politics, is an incorrigible force with only one uniting thing, ideology and control. Add in the anti-God agenda and what do you expect?

Right Ring | Bullright

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.

Lights Out

The dimwitted left has lost whatever small piece of its mind that may have remained. Now they attack General Kelly and the ‘Empty Barrel’ called that name racist.

It ain’t working! Ha, Planned Parenthood issued a statement that they stand with black women and the black community. There’s an endorsement of culture for you.

So former presidents(Stripes) are having a fundraiser at Texas A&M, excuding Trump. Well, bite my asparagus! That’s bad? Exactly why we elected him.

“Deep from the Heart: The One America Appeal” is part of an effort launched last month by former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, all of whom are scheduled to attend the concert Saturday.

Their thousand points of light have gone dark. All more of a political appeal.

But their incessant, incestuous lectures continue against voters and we the people?

Planned Parenthood lets us know they are still in business: (from Planet Absurd)

‘Human Rights! Human Rights is the goal! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Just in case there was any flicker of light left, PP makes sure to snuff it out.

Where, what “Matter”?

noun (Dictionary.com)
1. – the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2. – physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3. – something that occupies space.

4. -particular kind of substance: matter

5. -situation, state, affair, or business: trivial matter

6. -an amount or extent reckoned approximately: a matter of 10 miles.

7. – consequence for serious thought.

Wikipedia – “In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space; this includes atoms and anything made up of these, but not other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound. More generally, however, in (modern) physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because a universal definition of it is elusive; for example, the elementary constituents of atoms may be point particles, each having no volume individually.”

Now that I have looked, it seems nowhere can I find that “matter” is a criminal investigation. Or maybe it is close to #5 or #7? Well, if Loretta Lynch told Comey to call the Hillary “criminal investigation” a matter, and he did, I expected to find a proper notation or legal definition somewhere. But no.

Legal dictionary says Matter is “a substantial, essential thing, opposed to form; facts.”  — Substantial, essential “thing“? – keep looking.

According to Science: (Live Science), there are five stages of matter: Solids, liquids, gases, plasma, Bose-Einstein condensates. Yet I see nowhere any stage morphs into a criminal investigation.

Or maybe we have discovered a brand new type of matter that has been so far elusive for millennia? I’d like to be first to name it “Lynch matter”: i.e the criminal investigation of a corrupt politico or politician. Elusive, slippery, evasive by nature.

But I still sort of like the term “criminal investigation,”… that’s just me.

RightRing | Bullright

Westinghouse down but not out

Forbes
James Conca , | Contributor

Westinghouse Bankruptcy Shakes The Nuclear World

On Wednesday, Westinghouse Electric Company filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in New York to restructure itself as a result of costly problems at the AP1000 power plants it’s building in Georgia and South Carolina.

Westinghouse has obtained $800 million in debtor-in-possession financing from a third-party lender to help fund and protect its core businesses during this reorganization.

Its Japanese parent company, Toshiba, declared that its nuclear power business has already lost $6 billion, which could go up to $10 billion, and is seeking ways to limit its liability. Toshiba shares have lost over $7 billion in market value this fiscal year.

Westinghouse selected the Shaw Group, led by James Bernhard Jr., to spearhead construction. Bernhard, a wheeler and dealer, ../

In the meantime, Westinghouse turned to a real nuclear construction contractor, Fluor Corporation, to get the nuclear plants back on track, but it is too early to tell how successful they will be. Even with the cost overruns and delays, these reactors should get completed and they should still have lower life-cycle costs than renewables or new coal.

More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/03/31/westinghouse-bankruptcy-shakes-the-nuclear-world/#10d7370f2688

It’s unclear to this simple laymen why they originally would have gone with the nuke-upstart Shaw Group? A big company like Westinghouse and Toshiba…like shouldn’t they have seen this coming? On the other hand Fluor — a company even I worked under a short time — is an old standard, and dependable.

Why did it take them so long, and make it so costly, to turn to them? Just seems they were out to cut corners(costs) from the beginning and got burned. What else explains it? Plus some inner-industry ego rivalry. Now they’ll pay for their errors.

But then the way media were starting to report the story as if Westinghouse was finished. And likely it will be spun into an anti-nuclear power story, which it is not if you read this report. In fact, nuclear energy should be enjoying a resurgence. Thanks Westinghouse-Toshiba [sarcasm], you didn’t do the sector any favors.

This insidious epidemic must stop

There is a terrible disease racing across America, affecting liberals and Democrats. Can it be contained or is it yet another epidemic? Sanity is such a terrible thing to squander.

Unhinged: Liberals Suffering From Nightmares, Insomnia, Binge Eating Since Trump’s Victory

Derek Hunter — Daily Caller

Liberals across the country have been struck by nightmares and insomnia since Donald Trump won the presidency is November.

“I have not slept a full night since the election,” fashion designer Ariane Zurcher told Yahoo News, and she’s not alone.

President Trump is haunting the dreams of many Americans and is being blamed for lost sleep and weight gain.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/18/unhinged-liberals-suffering-nightmares-insomnia-binge-eating-since-trumps-victory/

 

It must be striking right at the heart of academia. What will they do? The diseease has been festering in certain populations for decades, in the margins. But now it’s gone mainstream. I don’t know which is worse the disease or all the related symptoms?

 

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.)

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

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.

I’m offended by Muslims

Yes, you read that right. It’s not politically correct, you say? No, but it is correct to say. (Sorry Hillary, Obama, et al)

News for Muslims: I’m offended we have to sacrifice and fight this battle of Islamic terrorism. What are you doing? What have you done about it? Do you plan on doing anything about it? But our men, women, civilians, and soldiers are killed and maimed by this ideology, which happens to align itself with Islam and Muslims’ faith.

War with Islamists is a 100 year war, but also a permanent one. No one wants to think this is a permanent state of the world. It’s a way of life. Yet our leaders are crying and whining about global warming being a permanent condition of this world. They want us to change our entire lifestyle to reflect that reality their scientists’ claim. No, they demand we do.

I’m offended by Muslims. They all offend me, since they haven’t been able to stop ISIS or any of the other 100 plus terrorist groups. Have Muslims at large ever prevented or intercepted a terrorist plot? Even if they did it would only be one plot, one act. Can they show me a mosque or network that they shut down? No. Do they want us to police it?

But when France was attacked, a Muslim group ran out to say they condemned this act on the strongest possible terms. What’s that mean and what is that worth? Are they just going to come out every time and condemn the act? Are they also condemning ISIS for their existence? Sorry, I’m having a hard time qualifying their condemnation.

Yet they, Muslims and Islamists, tell us that the real problem is people like me that suggest the whole religion might be to blame. That’s the problem they are concerned about and that’s the problem they want all of America (everyone) to actively work on. They want our government stepping in to prevent that injustice. Their biggest worry is that their religion is being slandered somehow by the victims and citizens of the world.

Some people say they are afraid to speak out or come forward to criticize ISIS or Islamist radicals. Yet they are not afraid to come out to criticize us for “hating” on Islam. Isn’t Islamic terrorism giving Muslims a bad name? Wouldn’t you think they would be concerned about that enough to take a stand and do something to stop it? We’ve been waiting over 12 years now. It hasn’t happened and doesn’t look like it is going to happen. It has declared war on us and civilization. It is left to the world to deal with and combat it. That is insulting and offensive.

RightRing | Bullright

Blimp goes AWOL

So its run came to an end after causing real damage.

There were no injuries reported. NORAD said a military recovery team was on the way to the area. Moreland Township is about 20 miles east of Williamsport, and about 120 miles northwest of the proving ground. At one point the blimp climbed to 16,000 feet, NORAD said.

The blimp had a tether of approximately 6,700 feet — more than a mile — attached when it broke free, Aberdeen Proving Ground said.

The dragging cable knocked out power to around 30,000 people in Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf’s office said in a statement. By Wednesday night power was restored to most customers, with 311 without electricity as of 11 p.m., power company PPL Electric said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fighter-jets-track-military-blimp-drifting-over-pennsylvania-n453106

But then you gotta love the claim number to call if you had damage from the blimp, which caused mass power outages. Yep, just another day in government work!

Global Warming groupies meet Ted Cruz

A simple question of how is it wrong becomes such a tough unanswered one except that “we concur with 97 % of scientists [who]concur that there is global warming.” That’s what we got from the Sierra Club president. They have no answers for what they call “the pause”.  Sounds more like an episode from Rod Sterling.

Ted Cruz Exposes The Deception Global Warmists Have Been Peddling

Justin Koski October 8, 2015

See Western Journalism video

Ted Cruz questioned Sierra Club President Aaron Mair, and his assertions that the Earth is warming, despite satellite data showing otherwise.

Video Transcript:

Cruz: Is it correct, that the satellite data over the last 18 years demonstrate no significant warming?

Mair: No

Cruz: How is it incorrect?

Mair couldn’t answer the question. He instead needed a sidebar with a colleague to formulate a cop-out answer.

I do find it highly interesting that the president of the Sierra Club, when asked what the satellite data demonstrate about warming, uhm, apparently is relying on staff.

Cruz then pressed Mair on the phenomenon known as “the pause.”

Cruz: Global warming alarmists call that “the pause” because the computer models say there should be dramatic warming and yet the actual satellites taking the measurement don’t show any significant warming.

Mair: But senator, 97 percent of the scientists concur and agree that there is global warming.

Cruz: Your response is quite striking. I asked about the science and the evidence – the actual data. We have satellites. They’re measuring temperature. That should be relevant. And your answer was, “Pay no attention to your lying eyes and the numbers the satellites show. Instead, listen to the scientists who are receiving massive grants who tell us do not debate the science.”

Mair then uttered what was interpreted as the Club’s official position.

Our planet is cooking up and heating and warming.

For the remainder of the questioning, Mair blindly repeated his talking point, refusing to retract the position when confronted with the damning evidence.

Mair: I’m saying I concur with 97 percent. We concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming.

Cruz: But, but, but sir, would you, would you answer the question?

Mair: We are concurring with the 97 percent of the scientists. We concur with 97 percent.

Cruz: So does that mean you’re not willing to answer the question?

Mair: We concur with the preponderance of the evidence. But I concur with the 97 percent of scientists who concur that global warming is a fact.

Cruz: That undermines the credibility of any organization if you will persist in a political position regardless of what the science shows, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence and regardless of the data. That is not consistent, I would suggest, with sound public policy.

They sound like they concur with the 97 percent of scientists they pay to support their own position. Are we supposed to just trust them?

Article at: http://www.westernjournalism.com/ted-cruz-exposes-the-deception-global-warmists-have-been-peddling/

Isn’t that like pleading the 5th amendment to every question asked? So: ‘we agree with those that agree with those that agree and pay us.’ What’s the problem with that?

PPhood runs amok in body parts agenda

During the release of the video showing Planned Parenthood discussing selling body parts from babies, the left claimed to be offended. Not by what was going on but what was reported and the way it was reported/exposed. Then they played their old “context” card with the “they edited it” excuse. How much editing did it need? Well, it was a 2 hour and 42 minute meeting, so there has to be some editing. Though they did release the whole length thing if you care to watch it. And it was just as damning if not worse. But who cares about that when they can just claim, “but it was edited”. Whoopee. So what?

It helps to remember what things Leftists despise and have no patience for. They attack people buying or wearing fur coats made from animal fur. Oh, they turned that into a damnable sin. However, now when it comes to body parts of fetuses they put all their compassion behind ‘but its for research.’ Even the media is spinning the outrage to being its for research. The video made no attempt to avoid the research angle. That was not denied or hidden. In fact, “research” is what makes it appalling. But research does not mitigate PP’s agenda. MSM seems to think it does. And they don’t like fat cat salaries of figurehead CEO’s in wasteful industries.

But now the left blows up in righteous outrage over the exposure of the story but not the process or policies of abortion taking place in Planned Parenthood. So the PP 400k president, Cecile Richards came out to apologize…but only for the way the staff person spoke about the process. She went on to praise and thank tissue donors. Babies would probably be tickled that they are being labeled a “donation” and shipped off to medical research.

“Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion, this is unacceptable and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.” — Cecile Richards in her apology (soon to become a Democrat fundraiser #StandWithPP; Cemetery of Choice).

Maybe the person did not show enough compassion in speaking about it? No, that is not really possible because abortion requires a lack of compassion for babies in the first place across the industry. Desensitization. Adding more compassion for babies would incriminate themselves and procedures. So it was not for lack of empathy which PP took issue with the staffer. By the way, it was not just a staffer, but it was the head of the national operation. And not a staffer but a doctor. So the CEO was wrong on both counts.

One of the lateral issues discussed at length was the waste issue, tagging and protocol. They talked about incineration and cost. If you mention biological tissue disposal of anything else, you’d get ethical red flags and possible outrage over it. Here we’re dealing with literal human tissue as a waste byproduct of the industry. Try to find a parallel to compare it to.

Since a major point is how callously she talked about graphic details of life and extraction procedures, with similar ease she navigated the national map of which areas are more promising for tissue mining. One she was very confident about was the St. Louis area. Go figure. While California already seems ahead in the tissue game.

This all fits Planned Parenthood’s propaganda campaign. It provides another area they can probe the patient about, donating tissue. So if they can offer them a feel-good purpose to say “the tissue is donated to help people,” it becomes an abortion selling point to assuage those ethical dilemmas and worries of “patients”. They’ve merely spun it into another positive benefit of abortion. I assume the tissue parts most in demand would be later developed, creating an incentive for later abortions. We know that. They are always looking for more selling points.

RightRing | Bullright

Love it when a plan comes together, not

The Global Warming fanatics are still pushing their snake oil. But who is buying it? That could be a problem, or so you would think. This article encapsulates a series of comments at one recent attempt to refute the truth.

Commenters excoriate a Science paper that denies global warming ‘pause’

By S. Fred Singer | July 1, 2015 | American Thinker

Perhaps the most inconvenient truth for global warming theorists has been the absence of any statistically significant warming trend in the past 18 years – in spite of rapidly rising atmospheric levels of the greenhouse-gas carbon-dioxide. Many are simply ignoring this unanticipated result – for example, the encyclical letter issued by Pope Francis on June 18. Conventional climate science, as employed in IPCC models, has been unable to explain these observations.

Coming to the rescue, Dr Tom Karl, head of NOAA’s National Climate Data center (NCDC) asserts that the temperature plateau (aka ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’) is simply an artifact of the data. After he and colleagues adjust some recent SST (sea-surface temp) readings, they claim an uninterrupted warming trend in the 21st century. […/]

I loved this one comment in particular.

Scott Martell

“In all this they are not seeking for theories and causes to account for observed facts, but rather forcing their observations and trying to accommodate them to certain theories and opinions of their own.” – Aristotle, On the Heavens II.13.293a

[See list of dissent comments]

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/commenters_excoriate_a_emscienceem_paper_that_denies_global_warming_pause.html

Lots of questions raised by their claims but don’t expect any explanations from the G/W – Climate Caliphate.  These days it is all about “settled science” and “settled law” responses to any problems, questions, or skepticism. Both of which are pretty unsettling.