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:
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.
(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.
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.
I have always been a big admirer of anyone who has mastered the art of acerbic wit. The convergence of intelligence, sophistication, humour, critical insight, self-awareness, language skills and a precise comedic timing is damn impressive. People who wield this skill can expose bullshit, enlighten and make you laugh out loud all at the same time…. often with a single, impeccably well-observed and penetrating sentence.
The more famous maestros of the artform immediately spring to mind. Think of Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Winston Churchill or William F. Buckley in the world of politics and commentary. Of course there is Johnny Carson and Woody Allen from mainstream and late-night entertainment. John Lennon was famous for it. There is the genius of the Monty Python crew with their deliciously merciless skewering of the absurdity of the human condition itself.
One of the wonderful things about this talent is that some of its most gifted exponents are completely unknown, otherwise average people from every walk of life and background you can imagine. I’ve met several of them in my time… my own dear ol’ dad was one of the all-time greats.
So when I see bland purveyors of contemporary ‘infotainment’ lionised by the public as comedic geniuses for smugly purging themselves of whatever adolescent, puerile inanities happen to emerge from the black hole of narcissism that is the wellspring of their particular brand of creativity…. it bugs me.
Which leads me to my “Rebuttal of the Week” . It is inspired by the recent brouhaha ( or was it a fracas?) over hi-larious conformist, politically Leftist shill Stephen Colbert’s homo-erotic fantasy about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
My exchange with commentator Jane C (below), came from her response to Washington Post columnist Craig Konnoth’s weird, social justice warrior-esque, politically correct admonishment of Colbert. Like a lot of people, Konnoth found Colbert’s joke contemptible…. but not because it was infantile, vulgar, self-consciously mean spirited and unfunny.
No, for Konnoth, Colbert’s crime was that he transgressed a sacrosanct edict of the religion of ‘progressive’-Leftism: Thou shalt not make a “gay joke”. For it has been ordained that gay jokes are “never okay”. This makes Colbert guilty of the sin of “homophobia”. And, as Konnoth reminds us, homophobia is just another form of misogyny.
Yes folks, I kid you not. Konnoth actually makes that argument in his column. Let’s take a moment to fully absorb what is happening here: We have a major American mainstream news outlet, The Washington Post (and also Canada’s National Post by reprinting the piece) promoting the notion that a particularly boorish joke about falatio is proof of an irrational ‘fear‘ of homosexuals… which is really just an expression of hatred of women.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should be mad at Stephen Colbert.
And they wonder why intelligent, reasonable adults are abandoning their lousy publications in droves.
The fact that morally superior ‘progressives’ like commentator Jane C. are fighting with morally superior ‘progressives’ like writer Craig Konnoth over who is most against homophobia and therefore the most morally superior is not only hilarious (ironically, unlike Colbert)…. it is yet another example of how the anti-rational, cognitively self-annihilating ideological foundation of the ‘progressive’-Left is causing the whole thing to collapse in upon itself ( see Progressive Left is Eating Itself Alive! ).
Here is Jane’s comment and my ‘Rebuttal of the Week!’:
Jane C: It’s a BRILLIANT monologue – super funny and it did exactly what he intended to – piss off the conservatives and those who are actually homophobic and thought that gay jokes are not ok, so here’s looking at you, writer of this article.
That’s the only plausible explanation for how anyone could possibly mistake Colbert’s spewing of adolescent cheap shots designed to pander to the mundane, predictable prejudices of his comfortable, liberal, middle class audience as somehow worthy of the evaluation of “BRILLIANT”.
If you want to consider yourself some kind of aficionado of comedy… you may want to extend your exposure to the genre beyond the immediate era. If you do, you will notice that until very recently, comedy that was recognized as ‘BRILLIANT’ actually challenged and unsettled the assumptions of the comfortable, status-quo class. Now, it panders to it.
And even the most mainstream late night television hosts and their audiences could once distinguish between acerbic wit and infantile, crude vindictiveness.
Based on your comments, you clearly represent a distinct changing of the guard in this respect.
Despite what they claim, today’s feminists seem committed to re-entrenching the ‘traditional’ dynamic that sees women as intrinsically dependant on men to make their lives bearable for them and to solve all of their problems. Check out my video:
I would be very interested to hear from women in particular who would like to share their perspective.
In this video I look at how it was inevitable that an ideology based on the unquestionable credibility of infinitely finer and finer gradations of individual subjective absolute truths was going to implode under the weight of its own absurdity.
Another International Women’s Day has come and gone… along with any number of marches, speeches full of platitudes and bromides, a call for a general strike by women that almost no one took seriously and at least one world leader blithely donating millions of dollars of his citizen’s money to other countries to buy himself kudos from feminists.
Here is an honest question for everyone out there: Am I the only one who finds all of this “Women’s Day” stuff to be unbelievably condescending to women?
Personally, I’m uncomfortable with the premise that women as a group need to be stroked and pandered to like this. Am I really to accept that females are so insecure, so unsure of their personal autonomy and agency… and so needy of validation that a day has to be set aside every year to congratulate them for actually being able to do things?
Who for instance (other than feminist women it seems), finds the idea that women can be pilots so extraordinary that it requires special attention and self-conscious recognition?
And how needy of ego-affirmation must you be to see this cloyingly ludicrous concept of a little girl representing some fantasized challenge to the momentum of American capitalism as anything other than deeply patronizing?
The hyper-irony here is that for the premise of a Women’s Day to have any meaning… it presupposes women’s self-worth to be dependant on the approval of men. For there must be an audience to whom this attention seeking behavior is directed and from whom all of this validation and recognition is so desperately sought. And who is it that we crave validation from? Those we know to be our equals? Hardly.
In fact, the analogy that keeps coming to mind is how our parents would affectionately pat us on the head after being handed our crayon scribbled, stick-figure drawings…. and the satisfaction we felt as children, basking in the effusiveness of their praise as they validated our efforts and placed our work high on the refrigerator door for all the world to see.
Like everyone, I saw the images in the media and online of the huge crowds of women in pink hats who turned out in cities around the globe for last weekend’s ‘Women’s March’. But unlike everyone who has adopted what appears to be the officially sanctioned interpretation of the phenomenon, I don’t feel like I was witnessing some inspiring, enlightened defiance of an existential threat to human rights or a spontaneous expression of solidarity with some meaningful and just cause.
No. What others are giddily celebrating looks to me more like mass hysteria, collective paranoid delusion and pathological group-think… perhaps for the first time on a global scale.
It occurs to me that there doesn’t appear to be as much as a hair’s breadth of sunlight between the messaging recently constructed and amplified by the political and media establishment – disseminated globally by social media and the Internet – and the personal conceptualisations of these ‘protestors’ and their supporters.
Alleged celebrity and irrational hysteric Ashley Judd rants incoherently about mustaches at Woman's March in Washington
So what is really happening here?
To my mind, over the past 10 to 12 months I’ve watched a narrative being cunningly constructed and promoted by political and media elites invested in particular social and political agendas. Now it seems to me I’m witnessing the efforts of those powerful vested interests bearing fruit – with thousands of people (primarily women it has to be said) appearing to have reflexively and uncritically internalised the messaging and subjectively relating to it as a personal insight that mirrors objective truth.
In other words, they are responding to a program of propaganda exactly the way the authors of that program intended.
Ashley Judd demonstrates the intellectual standard required to represent the Women's March
And as seems to be the case with so many of these collective displays of ‘progressive’-Left dissatisfaction and outrage, no one seems able to articulate anything specific that the protests are supposedly about… let alone what they are meant to accomplish.
The motivations are all very vague and ephemeral… especially considering the degree of frenzy and apparent depth of satisfaction being generated among the participants.
“It’s about women’s rights!”
Okay. Could you be more specific? What is it about ‘women’s rights’ that has changed so dramatically in the last four days that warrants such histrionics and extraordinary expressions of outrage?
“It’s about solidarity!”
Okay. Solidarity with whom over what?
Where normally you would expect to find specifics and facts… all you get are vague allusions to some looming, present or past social-justice catastrophe and a rather self-indulgent and frankly adolescent emotionalism.
The thing is, it is precisely this indistinct and incoherent grasp of their own motivations that you would expect from people who had allowed themselves to be swept up in a program of group-think manufactured by external sources and designed to activate their egos and emotional reactivity – not engage their intellect and reason.
Ultimately, I don’t believe anyone directly or indirectly partaking in this event is acting out of a genuine concern for the greater good or a commitment to admirable principles. The payoff for these individuals is not the elevation of truth… but more likely it is the ego expansion people experience when they divest themselves of their individuality in favour of the collective identity of a mob. The ‘greater purpose’ of the collective is far more gratifying than the seemingly mundane, ineffectual and resentful experience of the individual.
And I suspect that resentment and a reflex for shifting responsibility for their personal grievances and dissatisfaction from themselves to others is a significant, if unacknowledged, motivating factor behind much of this mania.
The fact that this character flaw can be manipulated by the media and the political establishment – and on such a grand scale – is about as far away from ‘inspiring’, ’empowering’ and admirable as you can get.
Madonna Louise Ciccone - a woman horribly oppressed by the patriarchy her entire life - finally gets an opportunity to express herself thanks to the Women's March on Washington. She tells us of her anger. Her outrage. And her obsession with committing violent acts of treason.