Remember back in April when Boulderite Wynn Bruce, 50, set himself on fire to show how much he cared about “climate change”?
Yes, sir. He walked up the steps of the Supreme Court and doused himself with (presumably) organic gluten-free hemp-based moonshine, and flicked his Bic for the last time—poof—the smoke from his charred remains contributing to the greenhouse gases which drove him mad.
Now this Bruce was a fool, doing a foolish thing in service to a foolish idea. The ultimate responsibility for his self-murder belongs to him. But the proximate responsibility belongs to the midwit scientists, manic activists, and prevaricating rulers who helped convince Bruce that there was a “climate emergency.”
These awful people are also pegged, the Guardian reminds us, in the self-immolation of David Buckel, 60, a “civil rights” lawyer, who gasolined himself in 2018. He “left a two-page note emailed to media outlets minutes before his death stating that ‘my early death by fossil fuel reflects what we are doing to ourselves.'”
Which it isn’t.
Incidentally, it’s my guess these misled men flamed out instead of choosing something less painful like hanging, because hanging would have involved nooses, and nooses are “racist.”
In describing the crispy climate critters, the paper said the “duo were vegetarians and dutifully did their recycling.” Which seems to me a setup for a joke, but I have been unable to think of the punchline. Maybe you can have a go.
…research has shown that half of people between 16 and 25 years old believe the Earth may be doomed, while three-quarters feel anxiety when they think or hear about climate change. Some speak openly of not wanting to bring children into a hotter, harsher world.
Living in climate truth is like living in a nightmare. It’s absolutely horrible and I can understand why the vast majority of Americans don’t do it,” said Margaret Klein Salamon, a clinical psychologist turned climate activist.
There are two crucial inferences here. The first is that people’s idiot fear is taken as evidence that there is, indeed, a “climate emergency.” How else could so many people turn weepingly wimpy about the weather unless there was something important happening!
This is, of course, exactly backwards. How is it that anybody can suffer anxiety, depression, or worse, by fretting about future forecasts when even a casual glance out their own weather windows should prove to them there is nothing of interest happening?
That they do suffer must therefore have an exterior cause. And that cause is, inter alia, Margaret Klein Salamon, “a clinical psychologist turned climate activist.”
This woman is an idiot. Not in the clinical sense—I wouldn’t dare attempt any sort of clinical diagnosis of her mental maladies. I speak colloquially. Idiot, a person who speaks authoritatively, using devices such as nonsensical hyperbolic exaggeration, about matters in which she is ignorant.
The weather a nightmare? Since any check of records confirms the weather is not a nightmare, she must be describing her perfervid fantasies. Perhaps she is simply lying for effect. Or maybe she is just simple.
Whatever the explanation, you have an idiot clinical psychologist, it appears, adding to the angst of her patients by speaking nonsense to them.
But while that mistake is down to her, the nonsense she imbibed was not her creation. That is the fault of the scientists. Who hear these stories, as we do, and decide to either cheer on the lunacy because they agree with it, or they remain silent because they benefit from the madness.
The former sin, that of belief, is small, or no sin at all in weak-minded scientists. They were trained to push certain theories, and push them they do, not only not questioning them, but not understanding how to question them. The cadre of crude thinkers used to be a minor part of science, and harmless. But because (as we have often discussed) of the Expansion Team Effect, they are now a pestilence.
Unlike the good doctor above, I can back this metaphor with observational evidence. In 2014 one estimate of the number of “science” papers published annually was 1.8 million. By 2017, this was 2.5 million. Here’s a graph showing the skyrocketing number (cuts off midway 2019).
This is not progress, and can’t be. Do you think genuine new important ideas come that fast? Indeed, some prominent scientists decry the rise of “zombie science” and the deleterious effect it has. Publishing at these levels is like shoving more crap through a stuck drain hoping it will unstick it.
Even so, it is the silence of the good scientists that is the sin. These men know that the imaginations of activists, and the preposterous exaggerations of rulers, are just that: fantasy and fiction. But they remain silent anyway, either because of cowardice or because silence benefits them.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.
RE: casual glance out their own weather windows
42 degrees this AM at 43.5 N – Summer Solstice a day away – no 80 degree days predicted this week
(I was expecting a ruling today on whether Juneteenth was racist – or was that last year?)
I saw this “expansion” when I edited a medical journal between 2003-2010.
During this period China’s contribution to world research publications went from not very noticeable to comparable to the USA. Suddenly nearly half my (expanded) journal was occupied by papers from China.
Most of the papers *seemed* OK (apart from stilted language), from what little an editor can tell; but does scientific knowledge grow that fast? Certainly not, nothing like.
How much was hasty, dishonest and non-rigorous work, how much plagiarism, how much multiple publishing? – I do not know – but it was certainly dodgy. And the same trends were happening in the UK and US and have continued – fuelled in the UK by university job evaluations based on ‘research’.
I read a pretty convincing analysis that suggested the expansion in ‘science’ publishing was simply a function of the number of employed scientists – who each published (on average) about one paper a year (controlling for multi-authorship).
Therefore, the expansion in science publications is mostly because there are a *lot* more professional, career researchers than ever before.
The deep question is why our civilization funds more-and-more, less-and-less able, honest and motivated, ‘scientists’? And the answer is nothing to do with real science, because the real (honest, competent) science is now utterly, many-fold, buried by mediocre, dishonest and careerist garbage.
And the modern ‘science’ profession is dominated by exactly the kind of people you would expect to find in such a bureaucracy: i.e. managers.
The “duo were vegetarians and dutifully did their recycling.” Unfortunately, their charred remains are considered hazardous waste, and unsuitable for composting.
This is always an epistemic problem: first we have to be sure that a real happening is taking place; for that we need a referential: if I knew that the third decade of the third millennium was going to be a long draught, then I could not say that some emergency was at hand. However, if I could say with certainty that the decade was supposed to be rainy and it wasn’t, then I should be looking for an alternative explanation. This however has been short-circuited. Further along the path, if then some causes are determined and they are real and effective, we must still be able to say whether they are relevant for an emergency to be declared. Say what we spit into the atmosphere in CO2 is helping the overall increase. By how much? Then, is the overall increase relevant? Would it be mitigated or inverted by any measure imaginable? Can we do it without destroying out livelihood? Are the consequences bad if the increase goes on unabated? Is what we experience as bad weather really the consequence of said increase? Would it change anything at all? In essence, we have the reality question: is there an emergency and, if so, why? Then the action/reaction-effect question: would any measure curb the ill effects, if any? Would the cure be worse than the disease? Finally the human factor: why resort to totalitarian solutions, when millions die from causes that could be dealt with a million-fold cheaper and faster?
Of course, this has a link to garbage science: who has the time to think things through, when you have to publish? This is the academic counterpart to the “we must do something about it or be seen doing”. Say we had put Newton under this kind of pressure; or Gauss; or, say, Higgs: what would have happened? Newton had a patron that had him exempted from taking holy orders in the Church of England. Without it he would have been expelled from Cambridge. He would have perhaps thrived anyway, but there would have been no 1684 Summer visit from Halley and therefore no Principia.
Great article, well said, well written. The madness concocted around climate is the same as that concocted around Stupid-19, Russia Collusion, and any number of similar politically motivated hoaxes concocted by an evil and hostile elite to terrify people into compliance thereby increasing the elites’ own power.
Most people cannot fathom such a widespread web of wickedness and lies, malice and folly, and so believe the insane excrement oozing from the elites’ small-screen orifice, rather than believe their own lying eyes, which tell them the climate is like it always is, people are not dropping like flies from the coof, and Washington’s full of shit, as always.
Your last point — that evil proceeds because good men who know better refuse to speak out — has always been the case and will only change when those men start to feel real pain. That’s unfortunate, but it’s ever the case that men doing well cannot imagine their wonderful ship hitting an iceberg — even if they were warned of the damned icebergs well in advance — until the ship actually hits it, then OOPS! — man the lifeboats!
Like nothing else, Fossil Fuels created the fantastic wealth the Western World now enjoys.
We have used that fantastic wealth to rise countless millions from their monotonous low-paid jobs, to a university education and even onward to full University Professorships. Hooray!!!
What else can we do with this Tidal Wave of ‘Midwit’ Academics, except to change Academic Standards so any slightly below average intelligent person can publish and ascend to Full Professorship?
A cohort study follow a large group of people over time, typically years. Often a food frequency questionnaire, FFQ, is part of a cohort study, tens to hundreds of foods. Years later the members are questioned about health effects. There are statistical adjustments to the many associations examined. There can be many thousands to millions of potential claims at play. One part of a UK cohort study produced over 2,500 papers. Over 50,000 FFQ studies have been published since the mid 1980s. There appears to be a FFQ-Cohort science guild in operation. All of their claims are questionable.
The cowardice of academics is gargantuan. There is no more craven class.
MikeW beat me to the “compost” line, with a better retort than mine would’ve been. Good job.
Real power is the ability to distort reality to start wars and concentrate wealth.
Conditioning the population to accept the preposterous is the ultimate litmus
test. We now have an entire gay pride month and one day for mom and dad.
Saw a great T-shirt for fathers day which read: “I’m here cause dad’s not queer.”
That’s all we’ve got left to register resistance…
–>”or because silence benefits them.” Bingo!
Follow the money. The scientists and the “scientists” are all in on the grift. Most people have learned to keep their head down, go with the flow, cash their paycheck and get on with their life. Scientists have gotten cancelled for wearing loud shirts. Academics get fired for being disagreeable. Universities require loyalty oaths. Lavrentiy Beria is emulated far and wide–by many who have no clue who he was.
Everything not permitted is mandatory. They champion diversity–and demand conformity. Survival is a powerful incentive.
It does not surprise me that a few kooks would self immolate over a non-existent threat. People are just losing it everywhere; just looking for an excuse.
Here in our village, where excitement may typically manifest by stumbling upon a fox taking a midday nap in someone’s hedge, or ducklings may be found paddling across a local pond, or maybe a cow nursing it’s calf on a public footpath, we were recently exposed to the full cruelty of the internet as it crossed into reality.
A few weeks ago around 1 am, four teenagers smashed their car against the concrete column of a local petrol station that is about 600 meters from out residence. The ensuing explosion woke us all. They were apparently driving in excess of 100 mph on a winding country road leading to a residential zone, lost control, the car was split in half on impact, one of the passengers was decapitated, another was dead on the scene, a third was airlifted from the nearby cricket pitch and pronounced dead later that night in hospital. The fourth, the driver we understand aged 17, escaped with minor injuries.
Why did this happen? Apparently there is a TikTok challenge going round to get traffic speed monitoring signs to illuminate in excess of 100 mph. There is one near the petrol station. I can envision these young fools sitting with their smart phones aimed at this sign filming while they drove; maybe live streaming.
Residential area, schools, 30 mph speed limit. Three dead. Madness.
How else? A possibility is that these two inferences are incorrect. Another possibility is, as Picard said,
“fear is an incompetent teacher.” Ignorance is the reason why some people confuse climate with weather though.
Good scientists are out there. One really cannot expect them to teach outside an academic setting. The scholarly atmosphere is thin in blogosphere. Why spending time looking for trouble as if they don’t have a full time job? Plus, nowadays scientist are only good if they say what you want to hear.
Health Effects (CO2-Plant Production of Health-Promoting Substances: Medicinal Plants)
“Ignorance is the reason why some people confuse climate with weather though.”
Ignorance is the reason people think climate and weather are separate things, when in reality weather is the daily manifestation of climate. Smugly claiming they are different is like saying waves have nothing to do with the ocean.
I’m sure Briggs can distinguish between weather and climate, and understands their inseparable relationship. I get the impression he uses “weather” to trigger the climate hysterics because he knows they can’t resist screaming “you’re ignorant because weather isn’t climate!”
Ironic, though, how people who can’t resist that nonsense will reliably shout “it’s weather, stupid, not climate!” if you cite an unseasonable severe cold snap to question “global warming”, but will equally reliably point to any heat wave as uncontestable evidence in favor of their argument/religion.
Exactly so. Nobody experiences a climate. But everybody experiences weather.
From now on you can only quote Kirk.
Darwinism in action!
You might say they preferred to die as they lived… crispy and in two separated piles.
Akshully Briggsy, some might prefer to take this as demonstrable proof that humanity is getting so much smarter thanks to the unappreciated hard work of academic progressives and equality enthusiasts!
And well, in a way, there are now certainly a growing number of smart people who know how to benefit from a racket when they see one!
Are you also one of those people who like to point out the distinctions between sex and gender too?
Dr Tim Ball – Historical Climatologist
Book: ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’
Book: ‘Human Caused Global Warming, the Biggest Deception in History’
There is no science any more, only scientism. Like any religion you’ve got to be careful about being outed as a heretic because the believers will administer the harshest punishments.
Do you use the terms climate and weather interchangeably? An answer of no implies there are differences between them.
So you admit that weather is not the same as climate. lol.
You assert that climate change is not a threat. Do you evidence to support your assertion? Are you aware of the heat waves in south Asia and the long drought in the SW US?
You mean this terrible, devastating drought?
Just one example of the fallacy to treating climate change as a totally manageable problem by humans is the rush toward electric vehicles. They are not renewable due to the heavy use of finite minerals and metal in construction that can not be usefully recycled. The vehicle method must necessarily involve some sort of fuel cell application. Unfortunately, although the science behind fuel cells is over half a century old, little effort is being made to improve it or apply it to everyday use. I might add the same applies to the Sterling engine. The climate enthusiasts seem committed to the most difficult and inconvenient solution they can impose on the public. At the rate they are going, the public is going to react so strongly that no progress at all will be made. For an illustration, observe the reaction to an increase in inflation now affecting the Western world and more is on the horizon.
Briggs, you’ve outdone yourself with this piece. Bravo!
You didn’t answer my question: do you think the current heat waves in South Asia and drought in the US are normal variation or not? Do you have evidence to support your position?
I did indeed answer, though it took some thinking. Normal, as that link proves. Among many many many others.
Hard to search for them, I admit. Google censors, for instance.
But where are you going with this sweetheart?
That’s an odd question… Let’s change a word to demonstrate this better:
You assert that knives are not a threat. Do you evidence to support your assertion?
You assert that guns are not a threat. Do you evidence to support your assertion?
You assert that cars are not a threat. Do you evidence to support your assertion?
You assert that people are not a threat. Do you evidence to support your assertion?
You assert that ________________ is/are not a threat. Do you evidence to support your assertion?
Fill in the blank with whatever you like, and we discover that the only answer to give Karen is…
“It depends on the circumstances.”
Now we all know that what Karens really want to say is that like using guns or cars or ________________, that everything is mankind’s fault. And to an extent, depending on circumstances, it can be. But Karen has no evidence to demonstrate that human activity is having any apocalyptic effect on the climate compared to other factors that far outweigh human activity such as the Sun, the animal kingdom, the Earth’s own internal activity, ocean currents, the Earth’s own external atmosphere swirling around it regardless of how many Teslas or gas guzzling machinery may be operating etc. etc. The whole thing is a fool’s errand.
So like JH/weather/climate/ze/zer/zem, they can only point out how faulty you are for not falling to your knees and weeping at the sight of precise dictionary definitions.
For some odd reason they seem to believe that the abstract artificial verbiage we’ve constructed to refer to things now has a direct impact upon the climate, something based on nigh permanently fixed attributes such as geography, topography, elevation, land mass, etc. and the relation of the movements of the Sun and Moon and Stars to the Earth, but now all of that is suddenly apocalyptically altered because one decides to commit the cardinal sin of having a coal-fire BBQ.
Scientists and Rulers really have driven the nitwits mad! They are willing to light themselves on fire because they think you cannot see the distinction between climate and weather!!! That’s the important part… THEY ONLY THINK THAT’S WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! They are literally fighting strawmen they built within their own yard using the plastic straws and plastic bags!