Interpreting the Green New Deal Dream -- Green Is the New Red

Stevie Wonder's Vision About Climate Change Deniers at Hand in Hand Telethon

Hand in Hand was a charity telethon that was simultaneously broadcasted on all major networks in the aftermath of Category 4 Hurricane Harvey in Texas in late August 2017.  The mission should have been to raise money for the victims of the flooding and wind damage.  Instead, celebutards treated it as a time to raise consciences.

The telethon led off with an appearance by Motown wunderkind Stevie Wonder who chided anyone who denied climate change as being blind and unintelligent.




Despite his adherence to the liberal shibboleth on climate change, was Wonder talking about himself?

During the Hand in Hand telethon, Canadian hip hop artist Drake addressed viewers as if they were zombie-like automatons, instructing how the elite echelon's want their subjects to act on politicized environmental issues.

In the first twenty four hours, Hand in Hand allegedly was able to raise $44 million, including a $5 million donation by Apple in a seemingly quid pro quo free ad.

While it is noble to try to raise monies for victims of natural disasters, it is foolish to polemicize them or to shift the focus to liberal non-sequitur environmental conclusions. But this presupposes that the purpose was to raise money for victims, rather than Hollywood virtue signaling.  Perhaps the telethon should be better know as Foot in Mouth. 

Of course, politicizing charity telethons is nothing new for celebutards. Consider how  Kanye West claimed that President George Bush doesn't care about black people after the Hurricane Katrina telethon in 2005. 

Jon Stewart on Earth Day

It does not look like there was much of a mood to play hackey-sack at the DC Science March, which was held in conjunction with Earth Day celebrations, on the National Mall.

2017 Science March DC on National Mall   photo (Joan) @taleanski via Twitter

Bjorn Lomborg Checks the Temperature of the Paris Climate Change Accord

In the past few years, left leaning leaders from around the globe have been keen to tackle climate change.  Pope Francis wrote a bull Laudato Si urging world leaders to come to terms together in the Paris Climate Change Agreement.    They sought to sign the Paris Climate Change Agreement with great fanfare, but on the eve of the Summit, the multiple Paris attacks occurred drawing attention away from the achievement. 

Now that it has come time to implement the Paris Climate Change Agreement, skeptical environmentalists question the efficaciousness of the accord.  But dissent is not something that progressive politicans or the press can fathom.Senator Ted Cruz stumped Sierra Club President Aaron Mair in testimony to account for Climate Change considering the 17 year lull in warming. 

 French Mathematicians were deemed to be dolts when then point out the absurd cost of prospective compliance with COP 21 promises. The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, accepts the fact the global temperatures are rising but postulates that the Paris Accords are more about Climate Aid than really solving the problem of Climate Change. 

Science is supposed to be about facts and informed inquiry.  But that is not how Climate Change advocates evangelize as they attack apostates who question if it is settled science.   Sean Penn has suggested shaming Climate Change deniers .  A French weatherman was pulled off the air for not spouting the liberal party line about climate change.

In a quixotic attempt to engage progressives who profess the secular religion of Climate Change, Bjorn Lomborg made a video in conjunction with Prager University to illustrate the absurdity of COP 21 promises and solving the anthropogenic climate change problem

Sadly, those steeped in Climate Change politics are reluctant to engage in cost benefit analysis much less critical appraisals of the proposals, as they implore that "something must be done" and will hear nothing else.

Progressive Intelligence Priorities?

Trump's Pick for EPA Chief Scott Pruitt: Climate Change Dissent Is Not a Crime

Francois Hollande on the Paris Climate Change Accords

It's too bad that the Paris Climate Change Accords was not a treaty that the United States Senate ratified, because withdrawing would be difficult. 

 However, President Barack Obama never submitted it so it was only an Executive Agreement, which can easily be undone in the forthcoming Administration of President Elect Donald Trump. 

DiCaprio Demands Denying Office to Any Climate Change Dissidents

During an event on the South Lawn of the White House, actor Leonardo DiCaprio asserted that no one should be able to hold public office unless they believe in climate change.


DiCaprio is not known for his academic prowess (as a high school drop out who later earned a GED) but to mouth lines which are fed to him. And the closest to nature sciences in his adult experience may be being the principle actor in The Revenant. Still, as a celebrity, his words have tremendous resonance so it is worth unpacking them.

While DiCaprio statement was not specific, he presumably was referring to anthropogenic (man-made) global warning, as that is the only thing that our actions can effectively control. Well, perhaps "Dr." DiCaprio can offer better proofs than Sierra Club President Alan Mair was able to do in 2015 Senate testimony on how there is global warming when there have been sixteen straight years of no rising global temperatures (known as "The Pause").

DiCaprio relies on scientific consensus.  The statistic is that 97% of scientists believe in climate change. Yet a 2014 Friends of Science report debunked this statistic after doing a review of the four main studies used to document this alleged consensus.  The reality is that only 1-3% of respondents explicitly stated that they agreed with the IPCC view and there was no agreement on the catastrophic view.

French Mathematicians evaluated whether the IPCC's conclusions of climate change would be acceptable for academic publication.  The Societe de Calcul Mathematique wrote:"The IPCC's report fails to respect the fundamental rules of scientific research and could not be published in any review with a reading panel."  But when Big Science becomes politicized, it is easy to usurp power from the people using ambphbologies.

Pro argumento, considering the climate change studies that are prevalent, there are some problems. An Australian  former climate change modeler noted that the IPCC model was skewed and overestimated CO2 levels by a factor of 10. And let's not forget how the scientists from East Anglia intentionally fudged the numbers to push their flawed Hockey Stick model ,

One must not discount the pecuniary interests in proclaiming climate change (modified from global warning and cries of a coming ice age in the 1970s) as catastrophic predictions tend to win more governmental funding for studies. And as Rahm Emmanuel's political philosophy asserts: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

If there is no disputing a scientific "fact", then there would be a test that is a proof.  What is that proof for climate change?  Of course, there is none, so it is a theory.  We may ascribe more credence to it based upon supporting data, but it is just a theory.  To proclaim it as an unassailable belief, then it is a secular religion. 

DiCaprio's dictat for fitness for public office is at odds with Federal Law, which specifically prohibits having a religious test for office.  But the rule of law does not stop liberalism. Thomas Sowell notes that: "Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face."

Still, celebutards cry out the claxon call for climate change.  Homer Simpson may have vocalized it best: "Is there anything that celebrities do not know?"  Well, yes. Ecce homo-- Leonardo DiCaprio.

UK MEP Daniel Hannan: "Mr. Trump, You're No Mr. Brexit"

British Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan (South East England-Tory) is known across the Atlantic as being a staunch critic of anthropogenic climate change.  Hannan also is a renowned Euroskeptic who had an iconic personal campaign for the Brexit referendum: Vote Me Out of a Job!

Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) recently crowned himself "Mr. Brexit", perhaps trying to associate himself with a triumphant underdog image.  This parallel did not settle well with MEP Daniel Hannan, who used social media to distinguish between the Brexit campaign and Mr. Trump's electoral efforts. 

To be fair, Hannan has long been a Euro equivalent of a Never Trump-er.  However, Trump's attempt to attach unto the Brexit Leave victory goes right into Hannan's wheelhouse. It will be interesting to see if Trump continues to bask himself in Brexit's glory or if he will concoct another conceit for his comeback against Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

Trump Spokesperson Katrina Pierson on the Media

Hillary: "It's Raining Lead"

During the Democrats Debate in Flint, Hillary Clinton attacked Republicans in Michigan for not abating the Flint Water Crisis. 





While it may be water under a bridge, the dirty water danger was created by a Democrat Flint City Council that switched off the Detroit water system to save money.  And the US EPA was slow to declare that the municipal money savings switch was unsafe.  Of course, the Obama EPA has a muddy record concerning clean water, especially after the Animus River spill on Colorado.  

Water from Animus River, Colorado after EPA spill August 2015

But it's much better Democrat politics to demonize Republicans and deflect any responsibility. 

Thomas Sowell on Global Warming

EPA Chief Gina McCarthy on Flint Water

Sad that liberal logic blame shifting goes to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R-MI), even though the City Council made the bonehead decision and it was hidden by the US EPA. 

But we are expected to cede more of our civil liberties to an authority like the US EPA, which displays incompetence and arrogance.

Dwight Eisenhower on Sceintific Technological Elites

Sean Penn Projects Climate Cult Shame

Sean Penn is a progressive activist actor who of late has been championing the cause of Climate Change.   Penn's pontifications about cult-like thinking that he associates with those who oppose the campaign to combat anthropogenic climate change calls for some consideration.

Firstly, Penn referred to Fox Network Thinking.  Oh, really? (Not O'Reilly).  This may be news to Sean but the sensibilities and dispositions vary between various channels, even those owned by News Corp.  The Fox broadcast network, which Penn cited, will be launching a series next year called "Lucifer".  That is not a show to which most viewers of the Fox News Channel (FNC) would cotton.   It would be fair to characterize the Fox Business Channel as being more libertarian leaning, whereas Fox News Channel has shifted from a right center news organization in 2012 to more of an establishment Republican (ala Karl Rove) oriented network with some patches of Populism (namely O'Reilly and to some extent Sean Hannity). Factor that (sic).

Penn seems to think that anyone who disputes Climate Change consensus does not care about quality of life in any sense.  Obviously, Penn is oblivious to the Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg who buys into man-made climate change, but believes that it is more effective to solve other world health issues, like clean water and malaria.

It is hard to claim that the Société de Calcul Mathématique has been brainwashed by "Fox network thinking." But Penn seems to know better. 

So many Climate Change activists rely on the myth that man-made CO2 Driven Climate Change is settled science.  When they are challenged, such eco-activists flail and invoke 97% scientific consensus, as was infamously implied by Sierra Club President Aaron Mair's embarrassing episode before the Senate Environment Committee.  At the Paris Climate Change Summit, President Barack Obama claimed that consensus was 99.5% of scientists.  These figures seem as fungible as the East Anglia hockey stick model which drove Climate Change science in 2010. 

Considering the Alinsky-like tarnishing of targets by painting them as Fox network cultists, fascistically condemning anyone who does not tow the party line and zealously refusing to engage in scientific exchanges makes inquiring minds wonder if Penn is projecting his cult charges. Wonder what really is in Penn's cocktail cup.  Hey Kool-Aid!

Perhaps Penn should not have wasted time in Mr. Hands class during Fast Times at Ridgemont  High (1982).

[C] Sean Penn as Spicoli and [R] Ray Walston as Mr. Hand in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)

Skeptical Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg Concerned About Climate Aid Emphasis in Paris Climate Conference

Recently, 148 world leaders gathered in Paris for the COP 21 Climate Change Conference.  There was little news to report other than President Barack Obama exceeding his speaker's time limit by 11 minutes and repeatedly being gonged to conclude.  

The Summit showed concern for Global Warming/Climate Change/Extreme Weather by nations voluntarily pledging to reduce CO2 by 2100.  Even if these pledges were completely fulfilled, it would only reduce CO2 by 2% of the goal to prevent warming by 2% C, at a cost of $1 Trillion per annum. 

Bjorn Lomborg wrote an Op/Ed in Forbes decrying the emphasis on "Climate Aid" during the Paris Summit.  His Congressional testimony via satellite from the Paris Climate Change Conference underscored the paucity of the pledges and how aid money could be better used to conquer more immediate global health challenges, such as wiping out malaria or propagating clean water worldwide. 

Tracking NASA's Climate Change Science to a Political Orbit

Once again, serious questions about the science associated with the theory of anthropogenic Climate Change as had been championed at NASA by James Hansen.  

Gunter Ederer, a German journalist researched Professor Friedrich Karl Ewert's research about NASA-GISS data over climate change.  Ewert indicates that NASA altered its own databases to show a clear global warming trend, even though it never existed.

Ewert goes further and claims that there is an anthropogenic climate change swindle.

But the religion of Climate Change demands adherence to orthodoxy established by consensus.

As the world prepares to meet in Paris for a Climate Change Summit in which western world leaders may commit its citizens to draconian measures (which coincidentally impose greater centralized power on individuals) for something which is a chimera. 

French Mathematicians Rally Over the Absurd, Costly and Pointless Crusade Against Climate Change

These French Mathematicians are skeptical about the costly, absurd and pointless crusade about climate change.  But rather than challenge the IPCC's policy decisions, their white paper vetted whether their work would be acceptable for scientific publication

We are not in a position to question the composition of the IPPC, or its legitimacy and policy decisions, and we shall not do so. However, as mathematicians, we have every right to respond to the following question: if the IPPC’s work were to be submitted for publication in a reputable scientific journal, would it be accepted? This decision is the task of a referee, in a procedure that is common practice in the sciences.

The answer is very simple: no sensible, high-quality journal would publish the IPPC’s work. The IPPC’s conclusions go against observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty), and the natural variability of phenomena is passed over without comment. The IPPC’s report fails to respect the fundamental rules of scientific research and could not be published in any review with a reading panel. 

Yet governments throughout the Western World as well as the Vatican are pushing for climate change consensus action during the Paris Climate Change meeting in December.

The Société de Calcul Mathématique's white paper voiced scholarly skepticism about the climate change stampede. But even tongue-in-cheek filquers like the Minnesotans for Global Warming get the irony and avarice encompassed in Climate Change so called consensus. 

These issues will be coming to the fore during the Paris Climate Change Conference in early December. 

French TV Weatherman Pulled Off Air for Questioning Climate Change

Philippe Verdier, a weatherman for France 2 was pulled off the air and told not to return to work for the foreseeable future after the publication of his book "Climat Investigation" (2015).  The timing of the Verdier book release is in the run up to the United Nations Paris Climate Change Summit in December 2015.

Verdier's book throws doubt into the findings of leading climate change scientists and politicians. 

For its part, France Télévision stated that its internal rules prevented anyone using their professional status to advance personal opinions.

This sort of heavy handed silencing of anthropogenic climate change is not surprising.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed using Racketeering investigations (RICO) against climate change opponents. A letter proposing this hardball tactic was signed by twenty alarmist scientists. Threatening RICO investigations uses lawfare to effective shut up critics.  So much for the First Amendment. 

h/t: Guardian 

CO2 Driven Climate Change Is Not Settled Science

During the first Democrat Debate, Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) proclaimed that climate change was America's most pressing National Security threat.  In fact, the unabashedly unreligious Sanders was pleased to praise  Pope Francis' environmental encyclical Laudato Si in order to convince America to do something by giving more money and power to governments and international organizations to combat anthropogenic climate change.

Last week, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the Sierra Club President Aaron Mair was ill prepared to accept Senator Ted Cruz' scientific point that satellite data has not demonstrated global warming in the last 18 years.  However, if one dares to dissent from the false study claiming that 94% of scientists agree about global climate change, progressives will unleash an alluvia of bile which rivals the EPA polluting the Animus River.

So much of this environmental alarmism is premised on the notion that anthropogenic climate change is "settled science".  However, Dr. David Evans, a former climate modeler for the Australian Government has found two errors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model that significantly skews the IPCC findings.

Dr David Evans: Prime Minister wrong on... by MaribelMansfield

When the physics in the IPCC model is corrected, it seems that CO2 levels have been overestimated by a factor of 10.  Taking this into consideration, CO2 levels have been only 20% of global warming over the last few decades.

So the rush to surrender individual liberty and the Western post industrial way of life as will be discussed during the Paris COP21 Conference on Climate Change in December 2015 might be falsely premised.  Of course, this would not be the first time that international scientists have sought to foist faux data to push for more funding and radical political solutions to address climate change.  Take the now thoroughly discredited  East Anglia hockey stick model. 

Fabian Society Window designed by George Bernard Shaw(1910)
now displayed at the London School of Economics Shaw Library 

It seems like a contemporary progressive tactic to demand emergency action  on flimsy premises which aggregates power in centralized governments (both national and international) at the expense of individual liberty. The irony is that for climate change it is being sold as science but treated like a religion. Before we succumb to Fabian solutions to recast the world, we should rightly discern if that mold is already cracked.