Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
Yes, people, once again, for those of us with memories, we are being scammed as a nation and as a people by the Democrats, who need us both terribly scared and very angry going into the 2020 presidential elections, so that we will all vote Democrat and hand them control of our federal government, because it is only the Democrats who can save us now, yada, yada, as we can see from an article in the Brit socialist publication The Guardian entitled “When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez met Greta Thunberg: ‘Hope is contagious’ – One is America’s youngest-ever congresswoman, the other a Swedish schoolgirl. Two of the most powerful voices on the climate speak for the first time” by Emma Brockes on 29 June 2019, to wit:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: We are no longer at the point of preventing [climate disaster] from happening entirely – we are now at the point of minimising the damage.
OMG, sounds very serious, does it not?
But, as The Guardian makes incandescently clear, if we all vote Democrat in 2020 and give total control of our federal government to the Democrats, at least that impending climate disaster can be minimized, and who in their right mind wouldn’t want a climate disaster minimized?
So to save our own lives, we all need to rally behind AOC and the Democrats to save our lives, or we are done!
And how do I know we are done if we don’t vote Democrat in 2020?
My goodness, people, how could we not know?
I mean, look at the AP News article ‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, where we were warned, as follows:
NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.
Now, people, would the “expert United Nations climate panel” be issuing a grim new report if things weren’t really grim?
Look at this one dude is saying about it, to wit:
“The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
“The changes are accelerating.”
Now, is that a fact that the oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble?
Or is that really hype and horse**** mixed together in a toxic brew?
As to who Michael Oppenheimer is, Wikipedia informs us as follows, to wit:
Michael Oppenheimer (born February 28, 1946) is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University.
Oppenheimer has taken a leading role in various environmental and science policy related activities, with regard to acid rain, and contributed to the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act.
With regard to climate change, he was a major author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and a lead author of the Fifth Assessment Report.
Oppenheimer is also a prominent public figure and has discussed the various aspects of global warming in the media.
He has been a guest on many television and radio programs and talk shows, including This Week, Nightline, Alcove, The News Hour, The Oprah Winfrey Show, Charlie Rose, ABC News, and The Colbert Report.
So, we know the dude is a real expert because of how many different television and radio programs and talk shows he has been on, which is how we in America know who the real experts are, versus the fake experts who don’t believe in all this “dire” stuff and as a result, do not get to appear on those same shows.
And that in turn brings us to an article entitled “Politicized Science” by David Randall, director of research at the National Association of Scholars, where we have as follows:
Climate studies continues as the most politicized science, whose gatekeeping professionals advocate unprofessionally for climate alarmism.
Far too many climate researchers take apocalyptic climate change to be an unfalsifiable paradigm.
The ‘gold standard journals’ Nature and Science, above all, promote the artificial “consensus” of nigh-apocalyptic climate change.
The alarmism of the scientific journals meets its match in the popular press, as well as at the universities, where assent to alarmist conclusions is a near-universal requirement.
The Next Generation Science Standards have injected climate alarmism into K-12 science education in almost every state.
Social media companies censor climate skepticism.
Professors publish articles calling for the formal abrogation of freedom of speech for climate skeptics.
Climate alarmists progressively undermine the climate of freedom necessary to sustain scientific inquiry.
Yet even climate studies remains open to correction.
A pair of Swedish scientists published a report in Science in 2016 on microplastic pollution in the Baltic — and aroused suspicion from their colleagues that they had made up their research data.
Science was slow to respond to these suspicions, but the article ultimately was withdrawn and the scientists censured by Uppsala University for scientific misconduct.
A 2018 report on increasing rates of warming in the oceans was immediately taken apart by a climate warming skeptic — and the lead scientist withdrew his headline claim.
So, is there a climate crisis as the Democrats would have us believe?
And given that scientists do tell lies, including our own, how are we to know the difference?
And what is this IPCC we are hearing so much about, as in the CNN article “Greta Thunberg, 16-year-old climate activist, tells Congress to listen to the scientists and take real action” by Leah Asmelash on 18 Sept. 2019, to wit:
Greta Thunberg has had a busy week.
On Wednesday, the Swedish 16-year-old climate activist appeared in front of Congress before a hearing on climate change, just days after she met with former President Barack Obama.
Thunberg, though, told Congress she didn’t have any prepared remarks.
Instead, she said she was attaching her testimony — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on global warming, which reported a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
“I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” she said.
“And I want you to unite behind the science.”
“And then I want you to take real action.”
As to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Wikipedia tells us that it is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.
So when the IPCC starts coming out with “doom-and-gloom” dire reports that the earth’s oceans and icy places are in big trouble, is that truly an objective, scientific view of climate change?
Or is it really what it seems, which is political horse****?
Afterall, as we are informed by Wikipedia:
The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself.
Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.
Given that the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself, then in all truth, on what scientific basis is the IPCC making these “doom-and-gloom” predictions?
Stay tuned, for more on that question is yet to come!