Paris Climate Change Accord and Elitist Hypocrisy

Donald Trump fulfills an election promise to withdraw the US from the completely ineffectual Paris climate accord... and the liberal, progressive Left loses its collective mind. The most incensed of course are those in the governing class who embraced the accord as an expression of their noble and superior values.

But have you ever noticed how the governing elites conduct their lives in a manner completely contrary to the values they proselytise to the rest of us? Have a look at the new Getugly video!

Advertisements

‘Cultural appropriation’ propaganda pushed by mainstream media

Watch four of the most sanctimonious and obnoxious ‘progressives’ to ever walk the Earth lecture the ignorant masses about ‘cultural appropriation’ in this blatant piece of mainstream media propaganda. New Getugly video:

‘Rebuttal Of The Week!’ #9: Why do people who care about the environment not care about the truth?

The Daily Wire drew attention this week to a revealing new study from the Danish Meteorological Institute. Not only does the study contradict the widely accepted catastrophic man-made climate change official narrative… it 100% refutes the endlessly recycled messaging from the mainstream media, the liberal political class and government funded scientists that the theory of man-made climate change is ‘settled science’ and that there is universal scientific ‘consensus’ on the issue.

a1(read the article here)

In other words… this one study alone ends the debate about whether or not scepticism towards the claims of the climate change establishment is justified. The verdict is in and it is indisputable: IT’S JUSTIFIED!

The fact that this paper is just one in a long series of under reported studies and news items undermining the validity of the ‘consensus’ climate change establishment orthodoxy only helps seal the deal. In February of this year  for example, a whistleblower accused NOAA (one of the government funded scientific bodies that is a primary source for information and data supporting and promoting the man-made climate change premise) of “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards”. The allegation is that this was done to intentionally “discredit” the so-called “hiatus” – the now two decade-long period in which there has been no global warming.  The whistleblower, former principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center John Bates, accused senior officials at NOAA of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” (Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’).

Last year, the journal Nature Climate Science published a report titled “making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown.” The scientists who authored the report presented the following summary:

“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

John Fyfe, climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia and lead author of the report described it like this:

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing…We can’t ignore it.”

Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge was quoted in the journal Nature that “Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.”

I could go on. There are countless other examples like these that receive essentially no attention from the mainstream press. But this is clearly sufficient to justify scepticism in any rational, objective adult about the claims of indisputable veracity made by the man-made climate change establishment and their proxies in the political and media classes.

What cannot be justified in light of information like this is anyone who would still impugn the motives or intelligence of people who simply acknowledge the inconsistencies and contradictions that are right in front of their eyes…. let alone affix to them the pejorative  and inflammatory label of “denier“. To do so would be to exhibit a mindset more analogous to that of a devotee of some pernicious cult rather than a serious minded adult capable of independent thought and reasoning.

Not only is scepticism justified when it comes to these claims… for objective, thinking laypeople who privilege the pursuit of truth it is the only intellectually viable position to hold at this point.

Of course, this is not news to anyone who has bothered to make even a mild effort towards self-directed scrutiny of the climate change issue. As I point out in my ‘Rebuttal Of The Week’ below, every single person who objectively investigates this issue beyond what is spoon-fed to us by the liberal political class and the mainstream media immediately discovers the same thing: this is a far more contentious, uncertain and politicised issue than we have been encouraged to believe. There are massive economic, political, professional, personal and ideological interests at stake in sustaining the myth of catastrophic man-made climate change theory as ‘settled science’. And yet the narrative that has been constructed in the minds of many lay people is one of purely benevolent saviours of ‘Mother Earth’ versus the absolute evil of greedy oil executives and their malevolent or stupid stooges.

Here is my rebuttal to someone who responded to me posting the Daily Wire article by essentially downplaying  the report and making the argument that it’s not the science that’s relevant, but rather it’s caring about the future of the planet that counts.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly:
I think what happens is that people who have identified with a particular passion for the natural world are told by these establishment interests that if you don’t unreservedly support all things related to climate change… then you don’t really care about the environment. And so people reflexively join the bandwagon in order to feel like they’re doing the right thing, to feel they are part of the right team, like they’re one of the ‘good’ people. They give their unreserved support without thoroughly and critically scrutinising what they’ve been told, who is telling them what to think, what interests are at play, what the alternative perspectives are… and most tellingly, why at a time in which climate change is such a prominent issue, relevant information like this from the Danish Meteorological Institute isn’t headline news… or even mentioned!…. by the CBC, the ABC, Toronto Star, The Age, Globe and Mail, National Post, The Guardian, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune etc. etc. etc.. And yet every time some wing of the American government like NASA or NOAA issues a misleading press release about ‘the warmest year on record’ it immediately gets splashed across these same media outlets.

For those of us who actively look for information about the climate change issue beyond what is spoon-fed to us by the mainstream media… there is nothing surprising, unique or controversial about this report. Despite what we have been encouraged to believe, there is no shortage of expert opinion and data that challenges the so-called  ‘settled science’ of catastrophic man-made climate change. Everyone who is interested enough to look into it finds the same thing.

Does the preponderance of scientific evidence and opinion that is contrary to the claims of the climate change establishment prove the theory of catastrophic man-made climate change is false? Not necessarily. But it does prove beyond contention that we have been and continue to be lied to by that establishment about the certainty of their theory and the absence of disagreement among experts in their field. It also proves the mainstream media and the liberal political class have helped perpetuate that lie…. if not deliberately, then by systemic incompetence.

Which means the sceptics… or ‘deniers’…. were right all along.

For what it’s worth, here is my personal ‘big-picture’ take on all of this…. EVERYONE cares about the health of the natural environment. But only some people care about the natural environment and also care equally about being told the truth.

Rebuttals of the week! #4: How do you drive ‘progressives’ crazy? Ask them to prove their point.

One thing that seems to catch ‘progressives’ completely off-guard is asking them to support their opinions and assertions. You often get the impression that the necessity of basing opinions on things you know to be… well, true – is just something that never occurred to them.  It’s as if expecting them to be able to prove their point is some kind of atrocious breach of ‘progressive’ etiquette or something – and all the language of compassion and tolerance is very quickly dropped when they are confronted with the fact that they really don’t know why they believe the things they espouse.

You will see in this exchange with ‘DE‘ an example of how quick ‘progressives’ are to get their backs up when you have the temerity to politely ask them to justify the definitive assertions.

The context for this exchange was a question in a survey distributed by Canadian MP Kellie Leitch to her supporters. The questions was, “Should the Canadian government screen potential immigrants for anti-Canadian values as part of its normal screening for refugees and landed immigrants?”

The National Post published a column by Matt Gurney about the inevitable controversy that arose, called  : Is it unCanadian to worry that some would-be Canadians may be unCanadian?

Here was DE‘s take on the subject:

Doug EarlDE

 Canadian values change over time, and immigration has been one of the factors contributing to that change. Stagnant values, or the quest to somehow freeze the values of a country in time, only leads to intolerance because it codifies one set of values over all others and it is usually the values of the dominant class that get so codified.

It was that first sentence in particular that caught my attention. It’s the kind of bland, generically ‘progressive’ platitude that is easy to agree with. But does it really mean anything? Is his assertion about the world connected to any actual knowledge or information? And if not, then why offer it as an opinion or hold it as a belief?

So I asked….

How has immigration “been one of the factors contributing to that change”?

“only leads to intolerance because it codifies one set of values over all others”
Are you suggesting that there are not values that are better than others?

Doug EarlDE

 Because new people bring new ideas and values to a situation and for a society to progress both sets of values must be reconciled. And yes there are values that are better than others, but which are which is subjective. Generally speaking, people who think their values are 100 per cent superior to everyone else’s have at least one glaring flaw in their value system–a gross and misplaced sense of their own moral superiority. That’s not a value that needs to be perpetuated. In fact, it’s a value that often leads to aggression, and, on a societal level, to war.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

That all sounds very nice …. but you didn’t answer the question. What ‘new ideas and values’ did Canada gain that it had lacked and which immigration brought and improved us?

Doug EarlDE

Obviously you feel that the continuous immigration to Canada over the past 400 or so years, including that of your own ancestors, has added nothing of value to the country. In your case, I’m afraid I am forced to agree.

Whoa! Where did that come from? Like I said, as is the case with most ‘progressives’, it didn’t take much for DE to drop the facade of tolerant, non-judgemental, compassionate pluralist and reveal the nasty, vindictive nature just below the surface.

And notice that he responds to a request for evidence by inventing an unflattering opinion for me that I have never expressed but which he asserts I “obviously feel”. He then attacks me for the opinion that he just made up and projected onto me.

It’s important to pause and think about that response and what it says about the character, the intellect and the reasoning skills of the person. It’s important because once you are aware of it, you will see that ‘progressives’ resort to this over and over again. And the purpose of ‘Rebuttals of the Week’! is to build a case that objectively demonstrates that people who are attracted to and who embrace ‘progressive’ concepts, ideals, politics and policies are inherently poor thinkers.

Here is how I responded to DE‘s ‘straw man’ argument. As you will see, he just kept digging himself deeper into the same hole:

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

What is obvious is that not only have you made an assertion that you can’t support… but one which you don’t actually believe. If you did believe it, you would have answered the question without hesitation the first time… let alone the second time. Of course, this is precisely why I posed the question: To highlight the fact that people such as yourself like to say things that make you feel very pluralistic and superior….but which have no connection to anything you actually know to be real. This is nothing but a self serving pose that you have adopted.

Doug EarlDE

Yeah, except there’s something you’re missing and that is that your question is so obviously that of a troll. You know as well as I do that immigrants from over 200 countries who have come here over the past 400 years have brought an almost infinite multiplicity of ideas and values that are essential to the character of this country and that one of the foundational ideas of Canada is multiculturalism itself–to your great dismay, I’m sure. So if you want a list, troll, why don’t you make us a list of all the countries that have provided immigrants to this great country, but whose people you believe have made no contribution. Start with the country of your own ancestors, Underabridgeia.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

 I’m a ‘troll’ because you’re embarrassed to admit you were just trying to say something politically-correct sounding that you don’t really mean? You say things like “almost infinite multiplicity of ideas and values that are essential to the character of this country” …. but you can’t actually name one. And by the way…. multiculturalism is not an “idea or value” that immigrants brought here. It’s an idea that brought immigrants here. The fact that you’ve made a very transparent attempt to deflect from your inability to answer the question by putting the onus on me to ‘make a list’ to support a claim I never made just shows how desperate you are to salvage your credibility. Sadly, it has the opposite effect.

Doug EarlDE

That all sounds very nice…. but you didn’t answer the question. What countries have provided immigrants to this great country, but whose people you believe have made no contribution?

 

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

 Really? You think doubling down on a straw man fallacy bolsters your credibility? You’ve had four opportunities now to select a single example from the “infinite multiplicity” you insist supports your claim. And all you’ve done for the last two posts is try and deflect from the fact that you have nothing to offer because your opinion isn’t based on having actually thought about it. Like most liberals/’progressives’ – you choose opinions you think will enhance your self-image rather than cultivating a point of view based on reasoned analysis, objectivity and critical thinking.

 

Doug EarlDE

Nope, that’s not it.

Going to Getugly Going to Getugly

Very convincing counterargument.

Hillary’s health: final nail in the coffin of mainstream media

 

c1

The so called ‘credible’ mainstream media not only ignored and suppressed this issue for months… they went out of their way to attack and ridicule anyone in the alternative media who suggested her health was a legitimate cause for concern and discussion.

 

 

Now that they can no longer deny that it is a genuine story – they are struggling to manufacture a narrative that retroactively justifies their total lack of journalistic scrutiny.

It’s too late.

 

 

How to beat the ‘progressive-Left’ and ‘Rebuttals of the Week’!

There are basically two kinds of people. First, there are those who are intellectually courageous and free thinking. These are people who at some point in their lives have recognized just how susceptible we all are to allowing our mostly unconscious , primal desire for social validation to shape our perspective. These people understand how conformity to the value system of the tribe is reflexive, instinctual and seductive….and how only by cultivating a detached, critical and sceptically curious approach can we counteract this default reflex and  have any hope of  developing an appreciation for the world approximating something like truth.

Now consider the ‘progressives’. These are people who are either completely ignorant of these inherent, reality distorting impulses or for whom the promise of ego gratification and social acceptance is so irresistible  that any aspect of objective reality which presents a barrier to that indulgence is simply ignored or dismissed.maxresdefault (1)

This is the Achilles heel of all ‘progressive’/Left thinking. And targeting this undeniable and easily demonstrated blind-spot is the most effective way to confront those who espouse ‘progressive’ ideas. Not by attacking what they think…but how they think. Because the truth is that ultimately… they don’t think.  They merely adopt, internalise and repeat.

Well enough is enough. It’s time for thinking people to take back control from the weak minded, the emotionally self-indulgent, the intellectually immature and the flat-out, bat-shit crazy. It’s time for those who value reason, rationality, objectivity, critical thinking –  and who are capable of genuine self-reflection and self-awareness to reimpose control of the situation before it is too late. That is… if it’s not too late already.

My small contribution will be to post a selection of the interactions I’ve had with people who exemplify the flawed thinking style routinely practised by ‘progressives’, SJWs, Third Wave Feminists and their ilk. I’ll present this under the heading – ‘Rebuttals of the Week’!  Hopefully this can be instructive…. because an obvious pattern emerges when you collect examples of ‘progressive’ thinking in one place: It quickly becomes clear that people who share these opinions demonstrate identical flaws in their reasoning. And if we want to undermine their claim to moral, ethical and intellectual credibility…let alone supremacy – we need to hammer at  the ‘progressive’/Left’s inability to engage the critical thinking skills that are a requisite for generating a perspective that adequately reflects objective reality.

These people are not insightful. They don’t even care about insight or truth. Their only priority is projecting a persona that conforms to currently fashionable concepts of moral propriety.darwin-magellanA brief glance at history would reveal that every era and every society has had a mainstream concept of what should be considered ‘acceptable and good’ that was reinforced by the elite and the ruling class – and which only a small portion of courageous, free-thinking contrarians challenged and confronted. With the advantage of hindsight,   we now recognize that – almost without exception – it was the insightful outliers challenging the status quo who propelled society forward and overturned the corrupt structures that primarily benefited the elite.

Rosa Parks: an introvert who changed the world.

Galileo-sustermans

It’s Galileo and Copernicus challenging the status quo of the Catholic Church and ushering in the scientific revolution. It’s William Wilberforce forcing the establishment to face the immorality of the slave trade – leading to the abolishment of slavery in the West. It’s Charles Darwin. It’s Magellan and Columbus. Einstein and Freud. King and Parks. Picasso and Presley. And all of the unknown and unheralded individuals throughout history who resisted enormous social pressure to conform and obey.
4e2a32720af661fa786d0ebe332fd2b7

All of us have a choice: We can be part of that legacy of free-thinking individuals championing truth, clarity and transformation….. Or we can keep our heads down, parrot all of the popular memes, slogans and socially sanctioned opinions – demand nothing of ourselves other than that our values mimic those of our peers – and bask in the validation that comes with compliance and conformity with the herd.

Here is a sample of the interactions with ‘progressives’ that I’ll be including in the ‘Rebuttals of the Week!‘. The context of my debate with ‘S’ – who describes herself a “bleeding heart” and “leftie” – is UK columnist Brendan O’Neill’s recent article –We must have the freedom to hate: Hatred is an emotion, and the state has no business policing emotion. – and his appearance on the Australian panel show Q&A.

As is customary for tolerant, non-judgemental, deeply “compassionate” progressives – S’s initial comment is not a critique of O’Neill’s argument…. but a personal, harsh and definitive attack on his character:

Stacey NixonS… You may have the space to be hateful & small, if that is what you wish??? You do not have the right to make us be like you 💕

(You gotta love that she included the little love-hearts at the end. Adorable, right? It’s like she’s saying “You’re a thoroughly despicable, insignificant person – and the reason I’m entitled to judge you is because I’m so much better than you….. and I’m saying that with love“.  You see this blindness to hypocrisy and irony from ‘progressives’ over and over again. It’s a standard trait that you’ll notice time and again in other ‘Rebuttals of The Week’.)

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly With that statement you have perfectly demonstrated the primary motivation for those who support ‘progressive-Left’ policies…. it’s the desire to think of yourself as morally superior. So anything that feeds that desire is reflexively supported. It has nothing to do with truth, reason or the application of critical thinking skills.

Stacey NixonS…  Not morally superior, just no desire to compete. The truth is I am better than no one. The application of my skills is in listening, not talking. We seek enlightenment on different paths…but that is ok. You are interesting, I never understood those who separate fact from emotion – we would have some great chats!

Oh, we would have some great chats! That’s for sure. My full exchange with ‘S’ is in ‘Rebuttals of the Week!’#2.

YOU’RE NEXT! The ‘politically correct’ are eating our brains!

There is something particularly creepy about the push-back against the push-back against political correctness. It’s like the tipping-point in the movie ‘The Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ when enough people are displaying the identical robotic, zombie-like behavior that Donald Sutherland and his friends suddenly realize that they’re the only free-thinking humans left.

sdsa

I was reminded of this after coming across a column in the Ottawa Citizen over the weekend by political analyst and communications consultant, Scott Reid. His piece ran under the banner –  ‘It’s time to defend political correctness‘.

Eww.

One of the worst effects of political correctness is that it inspires the kind of self-serving, trite, virtue-signalling of the – ‘I was a sinner but now I’ve seen the light!’ – variety that Reid indulges in with this column. He exudes equal parts shame and sanctimony as he recounts his transition from pre-‘seed pod’ ignorance to one of the reborn, enlightened-class obsessed with achieving the perfect state of niceness.

PC infection also seems to encourage ‘progressives‘ to believe that straw-man arguments and selective application of principles are just as good – if not better – than objectivity and accurate representation of facts.

For example, Reid directly asserts that Donald Trump has expressed the opinion that “all Muslims become waiting jihadists.” Of course, like a lot of ‘progressive’ opinion, he doesn’t feel the obligation to support his accusation in any way. Reid must be able to show where Trump has expressed that sentiment – or we can conclude that this is a misrepresentation of Trump’s views that Reid has deliberately contrived to serve his own biases.

This fallacious tactic is repeated with the assertion that Trump has expressed the view that “Mexicans…. are mostly drug runners and rapists.” Again, can Reid point to an example of Trump saying this? Or is this Reid yet again screening Trump’s words and meaning through his own biases to produce a version that better supports his premise?

In further service of that premise, Reid strips all context from his statement “A respected American judge is really a biased Mexican” to manufacture an impression that the sole motivation for questioning this judge’s impartiality was his ethnicity – and nothing to do with Trump’s concern that an Obama appointed liberal judge who belongs to an activist group called La Raza (which means ‘the Race’…nothing supremicisty about that!) which advocates for the interests of Latino immigrants and is critical of Trump’s immigration policies… may have a bias against the candidate who wants to build a wall and deport illegals. This group is supposedly affiliated with The Hispanic National Bar Association which has openly advocated for the targeting of Trump’s business interests. Rightly or wrongly, Trump is suspicious that these factors might have influenced the judge’s decision to release sealed court documents from the ongoing case against Trump University… and that all of this doesn’t bode well for a fair outcome.

But including those facts and context just get’s in the way of the narrative that Reid is committed to… so like all ‘progressives’, he just ditches it.

Reid then writes: “The next thing you know, you’re receiving endorsements from the white supremacist movement. But hey, it’s not really like that. He’s not racist, he’s just being politically incorrect. So that makes it OK.”

So some white supremacist nut-jobs with whom Trump has no connection say they will vote for him – an endorsement that Trump is on record as saying he rejects…. and this justifies labelling Trump a racist.

But Hillary Clinton’s endorsement of once high-ranking KKK member, West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd – who she eulogized as her “friend and mentor” and said “Senator Byrd was a man of surpassing eloquence and nobility….It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd” – makes her what? Not worth mentioning?

And why is that? Oh right… it’s because she’s politically correct! Which means she get’s to say and do all of the awful things that the ‘progressive Left’ pretend to be against!

Ultimately, this is what people who practice and defend political correctness are really  concerned with… the surface appearance only of moral excellence. Because once you feel you have the cover of moral superiority…. you can justify pretty much anything you do.