Facebook fact checkers have tagged veteran environmentalist Michael Shellenberger’s Forbes article as “partly false.”
The widely shared article, ‘On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare’, first published on Forbes, rejected ‘climate alarmism’, and featured Shellenberger apologizing for how ‘badly environmentalists have misled the public’ about the relatively new field of climate science.
Facebook’s Climate Science fact checking “Climate Feedback” evaluated Shellenberger’s article, arguing that he allegedly ‘mixed accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change.’
In the pseudo-peer review Climate Feedback cited ‘six scientists who “analyzed” the article, estimating its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’. Stating that [an ambiguous] majority of reviewers tagged the article as:Cherry-picking, Misleading.’
The six “scientists” were Daniel Swain (UCLA, Climate Scientist), Gerado Ceballos (Autonomous University of Mexico, Ecologist), Jennifer Francis, (Arctic Researcher, Woods Hole Research Center), Ryan Shriver (UOI, Associate Professor), Zeke Hausfather(Climate Scientist, Berkley U, & Director of Climate & Energy, Breakthrough Institute), and Stefan Doerr (Wildlife Science and Geography researcher, Sawnsea U).
Hausfather and Swain formed the core “reviewers”, with Hausfather’s being the most outspoken. Credentials matter, but prima facie, this isn’t surprising. Hausfather appears to benefit more from Apocalyptic Climate Change hysteria, and therefore has more to lose from Shellenberger’s exposure of any potential climate change fraud than the rest.
The move to quickly slam the credibility door shut on Shellenberger infers that those who are more environmental activist, than scientist, are in damage control. Apparent by the desperate move to counter any loss of ground (funding?), should backers begin to take Shellenberger’s apology for misleading the public on man-made catastrophic Climate Change seriously.
By marking Shellenberger’s article as “partly false”, surely Climate Feedback’s reviewers have inferred that the article is “partly true.” Curiously enough, though, Climate Feedback focused on the “partly false”, and ignored the “partly true.”
Progressive online journal, “Independent Australia” slanderous “fact checking” reaction, called the article a “puff piece” that “attacked Climate Science”. I.A also managed to accuse the ‘Murdoch Press’ of spreading lies, stopping short of calling out Shellenberger as a fake environmentalist and heretic (although strongly implied).
This kind of one-sided, selective fact checking raises its own questions about bias. Are fact-checkers sorting truth from falsehood, or buttressing ‘herd madness’ and it’s shared narrative?
Or as Ian Plimer has posited, are scientists who are in the employ of politicians, Big Tech and the leftist hegemony, ‘crushing opposition to ensure that science serves politics?’ [i] The so-called “facts” simply just follow the money.
In sum, is Climate Feedback to be trusted as a reliable source?
Author and investigative journalist, Donna Laframbois doesn’t think so. Commenting on an unrelated fact check, Laframboi noted strategic omissions from Climate Feedback reviewers, stating their absolute reliance on the peer-review mechanic to attack credibility instead of holistically evaluating an idea or argument for accuracy, undermined their own credibility.
As Laframbois states, ‘peer review is no guarantee. Not of credibility. And not of accuracy. Fact checkers who say otherwise are [themselves] profoundly misleading the public.’
Ian Plimer seconds this: ‘just because a scientific paper is peer-reviewed does not mean it is correct. The peer-reviewed scientific literature is full of papers that contradict each other so they can’t all be right. Peer review does not stop bad science being published. Scientific theories live or die on evidence, not whether or not they were published in the peer-reviewed literature.’ [ii]
While Shellenberger’s activist “scientist” assassins, didn’t throw down another “sit down and shut up – the science-is-settled, you must “believe” the science” vitriolic, their case against him isn’t airtight.
It comes across as a carefully crafted, neatly packaged denouncement of Shellenberger. One that’s too conveniently aligned with largely leftist dominated Big Tech, and big money, to dismiss any suspicions of bias on behalf of said fact check reviewers.
Some of whom appear to be well positioned, and well-funded members of the fear mongering Gaian priesthood.
To apply the words of Andreas Vou from Spiked-Online, the contempt towards Shellenberger is an example of how ‘terrible of an idea it is to have Big Tech companies act as arbiters of truth.’
To pad the point, Forbes has since suppressed Shellenberger’s article, removing it from his Forbes author page.
Shellenberger isn’t backing down. He’s posted a rebuttal to Climate Feedback and has challenged Facebook’s censorship.
In a speech for the National Press Club on Wednesday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, delivered the equivalent of a State of the Union address. From its content to his delivery, it was obvious that the Prime Minister was addressing the nation, not just the top end town.
His address didn’t present a government in damage control, but a government that is in control. Morrison was right to not use the opportunity to give ground to noisy dishonest critics on social media. Many of whom come across as detached from everyday Australia, and seem to exist only as a deliberate distraction anyway.
Morrison kept his cool during the peak of that crisis. Neither being dismayed nor swayed by the selfish, loud-mouthed distractions which have sent many a leader running to the hills in fear of social media disapproval.
By not following the crazed rabbit down its self-absorbed rabbit hole, Morrison communicated that he is unlike his haters, who seem to be feverously ranting on social media 18 hours a day. Unlike his dishonest critics, Morrison talked to, not at the Australian people. What a nation of hard workers heard was that like them, Morrison has his sleeves rolled up. He is hard at work with and for them, actively looking to implement practical solutions to genuine national concerns. Not chase speculation, or stroke over-inflated Twitterarti egos and emotion, by constantly apologising to them, or making decisions based on a false need to appease their abuse.
Former Sky News political commentator, David Speers partly shares this view, calling the speech a ‘double-down’, rather than a ‘reset’, showing a leader ‘who knows his own weaknesses – is on the defensive, unwilling to cede ground to his critics’.
Morrison isn’t a saint, and he knows it. This ability to use what Speers calls “knowledge of his own weaknesses” is a strength. Rather than weakening his leadership, Morrison inadvertently triggers those who’ve deemed him to be the enemy, simply by being a Prime Minister in the truest send of the word – first servant; a servant leader. What’s left exposed isn’t a death wound to the Morrison government, but the existence of a bigoted minority; flapping their hands in a furious attempt to keep control of their false narratives, quickly trying to shred the evidence that reveals their true nature, manipulative strategies, and dubious ideological agendas.
The strategy of resolve and resilience is working for the LNP. This is proven by the steady hand of the Prime Minister’s leadership, which includes his response to targeted and co-ordinated attacks during the Bushfire crisis. Look at how these full frontal assaults appeared to have the direct involvement of Twitter. When tweets from Leftist commentators, motivated by opportunism, all saturated with hate, showed up in the newsfeeds of unrelated accounts, it looked suspiciously like a Twitter backed Leftist attack on the Prime Minister.
Morrison’s first major speech of the year reasserted the strength’s of his government, dot pointing the LNP’s achievements since the May, 2019 election. Packaged into the address was an outline of goals and initiatives.
Summarising one of the Prime Minister’s major points, Speers rightfully identified how the speech sought to indict the states in culpability for the Bushfire crisis. Instead of leaving responsibility at the feet of the states, the Prime Minister proposes to ensure that the Federal Government has more of an ability to remedy, rescue from and respond to natural disasters, navigating constitutional concerns, and cutting through bureaucratic red tape.
‘To date, the role of the Commonwealth has been limited in responding to natural disasters has been limited to responding to requests for assistance from state governments. They judge the time and form of support needed in making that request.
But I must say, the scale of the bushfires this season – not least their simultaneous reach across many borders – has demonstrated to me the limits of these arrangements…
…As I’ve said before, I have been very conscious of testing the limits of constitutionally defined roles and responsibilities during this bushfire season.
But I believe there is now a clear community expectation that the Commonwealth should have the ability to respond in times of national emergency and disasters, particularly through deployment of our defence forces in circumstances where the life and property of Australians has been assessed to be under threat at that scale.’
Ex-Tony Abbott staffer, Peta Credlin gave the Prime Minister ‘full marks’, calling this is one of two things Scott Morrison ‘did very well’ during the speech. First, ‘He wrapped up the government’s response to the Bushfire crisis declaring that the national government was no longer going to take the back seat in national disasters.’ Second, the Prime Minister outlined clear, decisive, pre-emptive actions that they hope will protect Australia (and subsequently the Government) from the Coronavirus crisis currently impacting China. The Sky news host acknowledged how problematic these initiatives might be, and voiced support for the idea of a referendum, which would seek to give the federal government constitutional powers to act during a national crisis.
The ideas and initiatives laid out by the Prime Minister are pragmatic. Morrison’s address to the nation is a win for the LNP and it should resonate well with the Australian people. Especially those who are fed up with being shouted at by anti-Morrison fanatics on social media platforms.
I still am tempted to view Scott Morrison as a compromise between what Australians need, and what some loud mouthed Leftist Australians want. For all of his resilience and resolve, Morrison is still silent on abortion. The religious freedom bill aside, he appears elusive and unsupportive of Christians unjustly targeted by LGBT activists, and he still seems to be unsure about how to respond to the largely Marxist, apocalyptic climate change cults.
Still, along with the current LNP line-up, Scott Morrison has shown his government to be a political force to be reckoned with. If Morrison can continue to follow this path, and not kneel in fear before the vanity metrics of social media, and the hateful hashtag trends on Twitter, the LNP will be more than well on their way to being the government Australians voted for. May it be so.
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry is a true black sheep of the climate science community. Curry is a tenured professor who had the moxie to question the Climate Change consensus.
In this interview from 2015, Judith gives a brief rundown on the factors, and many variables, surrounding this ‘relatively new field of study.’ Dr. Curry also unpacks how much trouble pushing back against the political narrative causes anyone who actually dares to apply the scientific method to the prevailing climate change hypothesis.
Curry’s explanations separate fact from fiction, giving an insider’s perspective on the function of data, discussing its interpretation, process, application and misapplication that plagues the climate science community.
The video is also doing a slow loop around social media after it was uploaded in 2017, by The Oppenheimer Project, an American high-Alpine self-sustainability experiment run by scientists, Leah Shaper and David Mauriello. In their description, Shaper and Mauriello appear to back Curry over concerns about the political bias, shutting down of opposing viewpoints, and the ‘tribal nature in parts of the climate-science community.’
The following is a transcript from the original 12 minute interview hosted by Rich Clarke, who hints that Curry’s freely expressed thoughts contributed to her resignation, noting that “approximately one year after the release of this interview Dr. Curry left her tenured position in academia forever”. You can read more of Dr. Curry’s work at her website: Climate Etc.
Clarke [Intro]: Hello, I’m Rich Clarke and I’m here today on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology. Joining me is Dr. Judith Curry the outgoing chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.
She earned her PhD in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Then the years following she’d find herself a professor at Purdue University Penn State; ten years in the University of Colorado Boulder, before becoming chair of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences department here at Georgia Tech in 2002. Along the way she received numerous awards and fellowships, including the Henry G Haughton award from the American Meteorological Society, the great singer moving school forward award from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and the coveted green faculty award from the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Authoring and co-authoring almost 200 published peer-reviewed papers, and three books, she entered the climate change spotlight as co-author of the 2005 paper entitled: ‘Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number Duration and Intensity in a Warming Environment’, which was published in the Journal of science two weeks after Hurricane Katrina.
The paper made headlines around the world, shining light on the increased extreme weather events associated with a warming climate, she is the co-founder and president of the climate consulting firm ‘Climate Forecast Application Network’ and maintains her blog ‘Climate Etc.’ at JudithCurry.com.
Dr. Curry thanks so much for being with us today.
Dr. Curry: My pleasure.
Clarke: “So my first question for you is, according to your Wikipedia page you are part of what’s called the scientific opinion, or more commonly the 97% consensus on climate change. Yet, I’ve read on several pages that you’re referred to as a “climate skeptic” or even a “climate denier”; and when I Google your name one of the first things that comes up is an article in the Scientific American entitled, ‘Climate heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.’ So, why is it that people are calling you a climate skeptic or even a denier?”
Dr. Curry: “Well, Climate Science has become highly politicized, and the strategy used by the climate community to influence public policy is speaking consensus to power. So over the past several decades and they work to build this consensus, and following the 2009 Climate gate episode, I started challenging the consensus. Saying, “wait a minute, we haven’t been sufficiently transparent; we haven’t adequately characterized the uncertainties.” We shouldn’t be dismissing skeptics; I mean we have to do a better job, and I started saying things like that that I thought were completely reasonable, but I was immediately thrown out of the tribe if you will, and labeled as a “heretic”, “denier”, whatever else. So it’s just a reflection of how politicized the science has become and how silly this debate really is at this point.”
Clarke: “Speaking of debates, you hear public figures say all the time, that the debate is over and that we need to move forward. What do you what about those comments?”
Dr. Curry: “Well, physicists are still debating quantum mechanics, and gravity, okay, things that we think … are relatively settled. Science is never settled; and something as complex as the climate system and in a relatively new field, climate change, there’s no way the science is settled. There’s a whole lot more that we don’t know then we do know.”
Clarke: “You talked about the politicization of the field. What do you see is the greatest danger of this mixing of politics with science?”
Dr. Curry: “Well, two things. You end up with science as going off on the wrong track – I don’t know if you’ve heard the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight? – and somebody asked, “why are you only looking there?” “Well it’s the only place I can see.” The same thing has been happening at climate science. We’ve only been shining a light on one little piece of the problem – the part about increasing Co2 from human activities. We haven’t been paying sufficient attention to natural climate variability; and as a result we’re doing a great disservice to understanding the climate system; and as we fail to adequately understand the climate system, we have tremendous opportunity to mislead decision-makers.”
Clarke: “One thing I thought was interesting about another interview that I heard with you, was, you were talking about how, even if all the measures for carbon reduction were adopted, and then perfectly implemented, we might not see an effect from that – those measures would be maybe 50 years out.”
Dr. Curry: “It’s really much worse. The commitments that people have made to the UN – in terms of their emissions reductions out to 2030 – well, if you say well how much (assuming that they keep those commitments steady through the end of the 21st century) the amount of warming that would be prevented is about two-tenths of a degree centigrade. Most of the benefits wouldn’t be realized for a longer time. We’re really talking about a minuscule amount of warming that will be saved, and because of the [lags] in the climate system owing to ocean heat storage, any emissions reductions that we do now, it’s still going to keep warming; because of the thermal inertia in the oceans. So, you know the accounting is just being done. You know, as economists are reacting to; and trying to interpret all these commitments and what it actually means. But the studies that I’ve seen suggest that we’re only accomplishing a few you know a few tenths of a degree centigrade decrease in the rate of warming, and this assumes that you actually will believe the climate models, I mean I think the climate models are running too hot. If the climate models are in fact running too hot, even less warming would be saved.”
Clarke: “So these numbers these figures of projected curbing of warming due to essentially regulating greenhouse gases, these numbers are…”
Dr. Curry: “Well, they use climate models to seeing how the climate will respond to the reductions and carbon dioxide associated with reduced emissions.”
Clarke: “You know just this year there was a report released sound the alarm bells about new data with regard to sea level rise, and this report said that “sea level rise may occur ten times faster than originally thought, and that in forty five years we could have ten feet of sea level rise.”
Dr. Curry: “Several weeks ago I was giving a public lecture and I was talking about sea level rise, and one of the audience members raised his hand, and said, “wow I didn’t realize that sea level rise you know was rising before humans started emitting fossil fuels”. This whole issue of sea level rise is so tied to human activities that most people don’t realize that the sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since we’ve been coming out of the last ice age. The question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions. You can say, “well, obviously yes”, well it’s not obvious at all because even the most recent IPCC report published in 2013, presented a figure that showed that the rate of sea-level rise around 1940, 1950 was just as high as it is in the last few decades. So, it doesn’t look like there’s any great acceleration so far of sea level rise associated with human-caused warming. These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is actually growing. Greenland shows large multi-table variability, in when it’s growing and shrinking. So sorting out natural versus human cause variability and what’s going on with these ice sheets, you know it’s very difficult to do, but in any event there’s no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way.”
Clarke: “If it’s true that curbing carbon dioxide in here and now is going to have very minimal effects, in the here and now, what kind of solutions are you proposing or do you have any solutions your proposal?”
Dr. Curry: “I’m a climate scientist. I’m not in the business of proposing solutions. So, I mean I can tell you which ones make more or less sense to me. The technologies that we currently have trying to pull this off using wind and solar, it’s not going to work. We need you energy technologies and additional research and development on new energy technologies; makes more sense than trying to implement wind and solar those aren’t up to the task. But I think the bigger issue is a real danger with climate change and variability, whatever its cause, is extreme weather events. You know the heat waves, the floods, the droughts, the Hurricanes – and trying to reduce vulnerability to these extreme weather, and climate events, can help people in the here and now. Whether climate change is due to natural variability or due to humans, it can help us reduce our vulnerability to these extreme events that have always happened and will continue to happen.”
Clarke: “Right, so you’re saying that we know that we’re gonna have more extreme weather events, and we should be putting our resources into preparing more for those?”
Dr. Curry: “I’m not telling; I never tell anybody what they should do, because it’s a very complex problem. There are a lot of other problems out there, so why should we spend all our resources on this problem. It’s a complex issue and I avoid telling anybody oh we should do this or we should do that. All I do is look at policy options and try to point out their unintended consequences, and whether they’ll have the intended effect.”
Clarke: “When you begin saying the things you were talking about, like more transparency in science, and in climate science, and writing about it – you are already the chair of a department at a major technical school in the United States, you had already been published at least a hundred times. Do you think that a younger Dr. Judith Curry in the kind of climate (no pun intended), but in the political climate we have now would have had a harder time doing what you’ve done?”
Dr. Curry: “A number of scientists have lost their jobs over speaking out against the consensus. I’m a tenured faculty member, I’m pretty senior. So I could afford to do it. A lot of younger people who aren’t tenured, can’t afford to do it – I hear from scientists all the time who say they wish they could speak out of etcetera, but they don’t want to they don’t want to go through the kind of baloney that I’ve had to go through and I can’t blame them.”
Clarke: “And what baloney is that exactly?”
Dr. Curry: “Well, Google my name! And you’ll see it. Google, Judith Curry and you’ll see what I have to put up with.”
Clarke: “That’s about all the time we have for today but I’d like to thank you very much for letting us into your office and having this interview.”
Dr. Curry: ‘thank you, my pleasure.”
[Music]
First published on Caldron Pool, 18th January, 2020.
It doesn’t get any more viciously Leftist than abortion, euthanasia, identity politics dividing people by ethnicity under the Darwinian myth of race, and Victorian Labor refusing to build new dams, under the “advisement” that we’re all doomed because of ‘apocalyptic Climate Change’, so what’s the point, dams won’t work anyway.
This surrender to the ‘apocalyptic climate change’ narrative is epitomized by Victorian Water Minister, Lisa Neville, who used climate change as a reason to stand by the decade long Victorian Labor ban on building more dams. Ean Higgins from The Australianwrote that the minister claimed, ‘climate change means not enough water would flow into them to make them worthwhile.’
Neville tried to back up her point, by stating that the ‘last dam to be built in Victoria was in 1996, the Thomas Dam, originally built to drought proof Melbourne, but has only filled three times in its history – the last in 1996.’
Using an un-sourced forecast the minister then explained that, ‘climate change would lead to less rainfall and the state’s rivers being halved by 2065. Instead they would rely on Victoria’s high electricity-consuming desalination plant and would happily take funds for new dams to expand the 3.5bn plant’s production.’
Although, the plant is said to ‘operate on 100% renewable energy’ [i], according to the Victorian Government website, the desalination plant ‘uses about 90 Megawatts of power from the grid to operate the plant and the water transfer.’
Neville’s warm embrace of potential federal funds raises questions. If ‘apocalyptic climate change’ means that drastic measures are necessary, why is a Labor minister advocating using a primarily coal dependent system that will require more coal to run? (Note: Victoria currently has three coal power stations. The desalination plant is connected to one of them via Cranbourne.)
Neville’s “no” to dams makes very little practical sense. In essence her argument goes like this: defend using fossil fuels to power a desalination plant, while claiming that fossil fuels are the reason for having to rely on fossil fuels, in order to power a desalination plant.
If this sounds illogical, that’s because it is. Her defense amounts to circular reasoning. Like much of the fear and hype surrounding versions of apocalyptic climate change, the argument against building dams is based on a scientific hypothesis, which has been turned into an apocalyptic prophesy. I.e.: rains won’t fall ever again, so dams are useless.
One would think that if climate change is the dire apocalypse that the Greens and Australian Labor tell us it is, the decision to uphold a ban on new dams, by Victorian Labor, is not only hypocritical, but counter-productive.
If, as advocated by Australian Labor during the last election, imposing drastic measures on Australian citizens is necessary, shouldn’t Victoria’s Minister for Water be looking at preserving the water when it does fall, not pushing to fund a system, which is still connected a grid dependent on coal?
This is on par with what The ABC asked in 2008, when it published an article from then president of the Victorian Farmers Federation, LNP M.P. Simon Ramsay, who said if we accept Climate Change the Victorian government should be building more dams, not banning the construction of them.
Ramsay argued:
“The no dams policy is a bad policy. In accepting climate change and the reality that the world will become even drier, we must also accept that there will be a greater number of extreme weather events, including floods. If last year’s floods in Gippsland, this year’s floods in Queensland and recent rainfall across Victoria have taught us anything it’s that, in spite of the drought, the clouds are not broken, and rain will still fall. New dams, positioned in appropriate areas, should be a sensible element of Victoria’s long-term water solution.”
Ramsay also criticized the Andrews Government in 2016. He went after them for looking after their own self-interest, instead of the interest of the public. He claimed that Victorian Labor used a climate crisis narrative, and the desalination plant, to establish political credibility during an election year.
In his criticism Ramsay provides reasons for why Lisa Neville’s affection for the desalination plant, takes preference over building better infrastructure, to capture, and preserve rain when it does fall.
Ramsey explained that Lisa Neville “was one of the Brumby ministers who decided to build the desalination plant in the first place.” Ramsay then accused the Andrews government of ‘looking for a reason to vindicate the former (Labor) Brumby government’s decision to build the desalination plant more than six years ago.’ [ii]
Not all the glitters is gold. As for whether this shows that Neville seems more concerned about protecting a costly Labor Party project, than serving the Victorian people, you join the dots.
Higgin’s article in The Australian also noted that Lisa Neville ‘dismissed’ the Federal LNP minister for Water Resources, David Littleproud’s warning that without new dams population growth Victoria would be at risk of ‘sizeable reductions in available water per person by 2030.’
The policy against building dams suggests that Labor needs a climate crisis in order to stay electable in the eyes of voters. Create a crisis. Encourage a watered down version of open borders to increase the population. Then don’t build responsible infrastructure to meet the growing needs of a growing population. Follow that up by blaming a water shortage on political opponents and “climate change”, followed by a fresh push for laws and taxes which increase government control and dependency.
Keeping infrastructure back helps to magnify the urgency of the ‘apocalyptic climate change’ narrative. As a result, the fear of a climate crisis and the government taking the role of messiah in fixing it generates votes.
This use and control of the narrative surrounding apocalyptic climate change theory is reminiscent of the 1930s.
The historical parallel is best illustrated by Thomas Doherty in his book Hollywood & Hitler.
‘The HANL propagandists (Hollywood anti-Nazi league – who by this time were had largely been overtaken by Communists), ironically, embraced the same ‘’hypodermic needle’’ theory of mass communications propounded by Joseph Goebbels, which injected the message into mass consciousness through repetition, simplicity and emotion.’
The first approach of this method was to ‘gain the individual’s sympathy for what he is about to learn, and second, to present the material in a way which reaches his or her personal interest and at the same time supplies the necessary facts to sustain the first emotional reaction.’ (p.106)
The word “denier” attached to those who question the apocalyptic climate change narrative is evidence of this kind of psychological warfare. “Denier” is a whip statement; a shaming control device. It’s a dehumanising word used as part of argument which erroneously claim that “deniers” are dangerous. The real danger, however, lies in the fact that those who use this term flippantly, either forget or aren’t aware, that this technique is tragically in line with Nazi propaganda which dehumanised Jews in much the same way.
For an example of how effective this has been in Australian politics look no further than Tony Abbott. His government was demonized because they refused to join the chorus of hysterics regarding apocalyptic climate change. Even though the Abbott Government met climate change theory with strong, reasoned, and practical workable policies, all of which took a proactive stance towards improving the environment, Abbott was still labelled a “denier”.
The feeling of urgency and impending doom was carried into the mass consciousness by opportunists. This gave Abbott’s political opponents fuel to fire broadside after broadside, winning for them the sympathy of the Australian public by only releasing the necessary facts needed to sustain the first emotion. Proving that the false dawn of apocalyptic climate change is the perfect political firestorm.
It’s for these reasons that Victorian Labor choice not to build dams to combat what they believe is a crisis, should be questioned by the discerning public. Otherwise political parties will continue to capitalize on irrational fear. They will keep holding necessary infrastructure hostage so as to use it as a tool to win over a concerned public. The same public who has been convinced by those very same politicians, that if they want to avert apocalyptic climate change, they have to vote a certain way.
In June 2017, online economist magazine Quartz, predicted that ‘as climate changes effects become harsher and more unexpected climate change could become even harder to study’.
Quartz was buffing up an incident where scientists from Canada, out researching the impact of sea ice on Hudson Bay became hindered by what is alleged to have been large chunks of ice from the Arctic blocking their way. Quartz called these ‘severe conditions’ the consequence of climate change.
As reported by Phys.org the scientists had to abandon their trip over safety concerns. Lead researchers on the expedition were adamant that the ice was from the Arctic, saying that they ‘were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated’ from the there.
However, as NASA’s earth observatory pointed out, Hudson Bay is well known for pack ice. The bay is ‘shallow and surrounded by land, Hudson Bay freezes over completely in the winter but thaws for periods in the summer. Usually all of the sea ice is gone by August, and the bay begins to freeze over in October or November. In between, as the sea ice is breaking up, winds and currents cause flotillas of pack ice to cluster in certain parts of the bay.’
According to NASA, this is what was happening in June, 2017, the same month the Canadian climate change research team claimed to have had to stop their research due to ice coming from the “high Arctic”. NASA not only clearly contradicted Phys.org and Quartz, but also addedthat the ice was good for the wildlife, because ‘the rhythms of sea ice play a central role in the lives of the animals of Hudson Bay, particularly polar bears. When the bay is topped with ice, polar bears head out to hunt for seals and other prey. When the ice melts in the summer, the bears swim to shore, where they fast until sea ice returns.’
If this doesn’t raise red flags about the apocalyptic climate change narrative, along with the fear, logical fallacies and panic it breeds, look no further than two recent incidents where climate change researchers had to be rescued because, they too, were hindered by ice.
The second incident occurred on September 3rd, when the MS Malmo had to be abandoned after getting stuck in ice. According to Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun, the Malmo’s current tour got ‘stuck in ice halfway between Norway and the North Pole. The ship was on an Arctic tour with a Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with climate change and melting ice.’
This necessitated a rescue mission where all sixteen passengers (climate change “researchers”) were evacuated. Cruise Industry news also said that although it was ‘windy and snowing, the captain and crew on board would remain on board, anticipating the ice to break up, from where they can then take the ship out into open water.’
These incidents aren’t isolated. In 2014, a Chinese Icebreaker ended up stuck in ice, while on a rescue mission to evacuate 52 people from a Russian tour ship also trapped in ice. The Telegraph’s Harriet Alexander wrote that ‘the Akademik Shokalskiy, became wedged in ice on Christmas Eve as it was heading towards Antarctica. In preparing to rescue the passengers, the Chinese owned, Snow Dragon got wedged in ice.’
The first victims of the apocalyptic climate change narrative are those who find themselves stranded at sea because they encounter ice, where they’ve been told ice should no longer be. Ignoring maritime precautions because of climate change hype and propaganda is putting lives at risk. This includes the unnecessarily risking the lives of those who are called in to respond to the consequences of such willful ignorance.
All of these examples raise red flags about the apocalyptic climate change narrative. Add to these examples the widespread misuse of the word ‘denier’ for anyone, like Scientist Peter Ridd (et.al) who question the prevailing scientific consensus turned dogma, and I’d say the real concern lies in how many people are refusing to look before they leap.
The Bolt Report illustrated this rising contemporary problem when they uncovered a 25 year old documentary that inadvertently challenges the walrus “apocalyptic climate change” claims in the Netflix, David Attenborough documentary Our Planet, which shows walruses falling off of cliffs. It boggles the mind, how so many people today leap before they look.
We need to look after our environment. I’m not disputing that. We have a responsibility to care for the creatures and earth entrusted to us. We have a duty of care to pass on healthy tradition, allowing that tradition to guide progress towards preservation, better technology and energy practices, but this must be done rationally, respectfully and with a filter that separates the sacred from absolute stupidity.
If those who hold to apocalyptic climate change tell us to trust their interpretation of the science, and yet, at the same time tell us to ignore the biological determinism which tells us plainly that there are only two genders, why should we take them seriously?
If advocates of the climate change narrative are using the same manipulative propaganda tools that were used in the push for gay “marriage”, and it’s denial of biological reproduction and physiological compatibility, why should we take them seriously?
If those who hold to this narrative are all too ready to dismiss questions and opposing viewpoints with ad hominem, straw men and abuse; where people who apply critical reasoning to the issues are hit with the accusation “denier”, a term that does immediate violence (every time it’s used) to the memory of those who suffered under the Nazi extermination of the Jews, why should we surrender and follow blindly?
If any contemporary holocaust “deniers” do exist, it’s the many who deny the biological reality of human life from conception to birth and beyond?!
Why should advocates of the apocalyptic climate change narrative (such as The Greens) be trusted when most of them deny that the duty of care for the environment first starts with care for those in the womb, the vulnerable, the aged, and the wounded? How can they be trusted with the kind of power they’re demanding, when cows grazing in state forests, or a farmer making a dam to improve land management, is made illegal, but a mother having a doctor kill and dismember her child in the womb is fair game? There’s an inescapable dissonance.
If fanatics fearing apocalyptic climate change are looking to label anything a holocaust, equal to The Holocaust of the 1930-40s, all they have to do is look in the bloodthirsty direction of industrial scale abortion, not the well-scripted, manipulative narrative of so-called anthropogenic apocalyptic climate change.
Facebook fact checkers have tagged veteran environmentalist Michael Shellenberger’s Forbes article as “partly false.”
In a speech for the 
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry is a true black sheep of the climate science community. Curry is a tenured professor who had the moxie to question the Climate Change consensus.
In June 2017, online economist magazine 
