Arson, climate change, and wildfires

Blogger at Denali National Park

By John Ruberry

Is it a wildfire if an arsonist sets it?

It’s been a brutal season for wildfires in the west. Climate change of course is usually blamed for these fires but what about arson?

The Fawn Fire in northern California, which has burned about 13 square miles, is fully contained after two weeks of destruction. It has destroyed 185 buildings.

How did it start?

A former San Francisco Bay Area yoga teacher, Alexandra Souverneva who claims to be a shaman on her LinkedIn page, is accused of accidentally starting it while trying to boil water to remove bear urine from it. But a California newspaper says that Souverneva may be connected to other fires.

Gary Maynard, a former college professor, is being held without bail for allegedly setting several fires near the Dixie Fire in northern California. He is not accused of starting the Dixie Fire, but the cause of that blaze, which is still undetermined, may have been caused by Pacific Gas and Electric equipment. 

This year, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, over 100 people have been accused of wildland arson.

Conditions are very dry in California–it is suffering from drought conditions. If an arsonist attempts to start a fire in one of the forest preserves near where I live in Morton Grove, Illinois, it will likely be a slow burn, as we’ve had a wet summer here. In California the results will be horribly different. 

If you haven’t heard about arson as the cause of wildfires it’s probably because the mainstream media, to protect another of its narratives, in this case that climate change is an existential threat to humanity, is minimizing arson’s role in wildfires. 

But CNN sees the arson angle of wildfires as a serious enough of a threat to that narrative that it published an article in August debunking it. 

Arson-caused wildfires is something to keep your eye on.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Caring about what you actually control

Apparently its a thing to not have kids due to climate change.

https://www.popsci.com/environment/having-children-climate-change/

‘It’s a human right to decide whether or not you want a child. It’s not a human right to drive an SUV or fly in planes.’

-Sara Watson

The article references a survey of 10,000 young people (16-25), with 59% “very or extremely” worried about climate change, and 45% “said their feelings negatively affect their daily life.”

After actually reading the survey, my biggest critique is that there is no control group. The survey asked questions like “Do you think the previous generations did not take care of the planet?” Are you surprised that 81% said yes? I would take it more seriously if we had a control group to measure how much young people at that age normally hate authority figures because, fun fact, that’s typical for that age group. I thought my parents were morons when I was 18, and it wasn’t until my late 20s that I realized “Gee, maybe Mom and Dad were pretty smart about the choices they made.” That age group is also naturally anxious about…well, everything, yet we don’t have a control to compare the normal anxiety to climate anxiety.

Control groups are really important in studies. We’ve seen this in COVID-19 vaccine discussions. I’ll see a headline “Woman dies of (insert crazy condition here) a day after receiving the (insert vaccine here)!” OK, that’s sad, but that’s all we know. Did this woman have underlying health conditions? What else was going on at the time? And what’s the normal rate of dying from these conditions? It’s similar to the “bacon causes colon cancer” discussion. Once you realize that it takes eating a pound of bacon a day to raise the less than 1% chance of colon cancer to…less than one percent, you quickly realize the study is nonsense.

Actual solutions to problems aren’t typically sexy. There’s an apocryphal story about an elevator mechanic called in to to fix elevator timing in a large skyscraper. He tested all elevators and spent a day investigating where things could be wrong. Finding nothing wrong with the elevators, but still being told that people are “waiting too long,” he installed mirrors near all the elevator doors. Soon people were fixing their hair and adjusting suit coats, and the complaints disappeared.

In terms of climate change, there are a lot of things we can change now, on our own, without government telling us to. Driving and flying less is inside our control. Composting and having a small garden are inside our control (at one time, Victory Gardens accounted for over half of US agricultural output). Better insulating homes to reduce electricity costs is inside our control. Spending less time on social media, which relies on big server farms consuming fossil-fueled electricity, is inside our control.

Will not having kids help? Is that something inside our control? Would that actually help climate change?

Doubtful. Even Vox (Vox!) has doubts. And from looking at the sort of people running movements like BirthStrike, I have to wonder if its simply a continuation of how they were already inclined to think vs. a movement inspired by climate change. Wouldn’t a control group be nice to compare this to?

Which makes me ask, is the movement to not have kids really just an extension of pre-existing beliefs? If so, do you subscribe to those beliefs? I find the belief that humans are bad for the planet and need to be eradicated (the only logical end of not having kids) pretty sickening. I’ll place my faith in us getting smart about the planet and cleaning it up. I’ll happily do my small part, knowing that long term, its only through thousands of small actions that we’ll actually help the planet in any long term scenario. And I don’t need the government to do anything to get started.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. If you want to support me, please purchase my book, To Build A House, on Amazon.

Some random reflections on the mess our country is now in

For the past couple of days I’ve been struggling to come up with a topic for this week’s article.  I’m not experiencing writer’s block.  It’s just that there is just so much wrong with our country right now, so much wrong at so many levels.  There are too many topics to choose from so I guess I’ll write about each topic that’s troubling me so much right now.

I know with all my heart that treating every single individual as the truly unique person we are is far superior to the identity politics peddled by the political left.  If you divide us up into artificial groups based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or any characterization you automatically set one group against another.  Just look at how left has vilified white people.  It is just shocking to me.  I know this is nothing compared to how blacks were treated during slavery or segregation, both are also examples of liberals and their identity politics. Treating every individual the same with the same worth, no matter the color of their skin, leads to far less hate and division.

It is absolutely amazing to me how much liberal propaganda infects all levels of the news.  I noticed this decades ago, and it keeps getting worse.  Every single local news broadcast here in Massachusetts is nonstop liberal nonsense.  Hopefully it is different in red states, but I doubt it.  Even the weather is infected, they are constantly pushing global warming and climate change propaganda.  There are so few outlets that actually tell the truth left, especially after Fox News turned traitor.  I am so outraged after the firing of Lou Dobbs.

The crack down against conservatives on social media after the riot on Capitol Hill has reached levels that are on par with the most totalitarian nations.  Check out this article from the Federalist.

Censorship and blacklisting are serious unjust cultural acts that increasingly filter Americans into second-class citizens based on their political viewpoints. The censorship and blacklisting that we are seeing in America right now is viewpoint discrimination. Censorship and blacklisting need to be fully rejected by American society before they become accepted cultural norms that make even worse injustices likely and more possible.

It is truly horrific watching the Biden regime dismantle and destroy the American economy, which is documented in this American Thinker article.

the Biden Administration, the Democrats in Congress, and their fellow-travelers in the Ruling Class are determined to permanently stifle economic growth by their infatuation with hypothetical climate change thus undermining energy development as well as manufacturing.  They credulously claim that the theoretical green energy revolution will replace these jobs and wealth, but that will take decades if at all, and will be far too little and too late to prevent national insolvency. 

Their determination to raise business taxes as well as dramatically increase job- and business formation-killing regulations is anathema to promoting growth.  Their resolve to institute what is tantamount to economic central planning by the bureaucrats in Washington will cause enormous dislocation in financial resources, thus, throttling access to capital for expansion or new business formation.

There is so much more I could write about here in this article but I have to stop now because my blood is boiling too much.

The politicization of science has a staggeringly high body count

As I’ve watched the media coverage of the Coronavirus pandemic unfold over the past several months I am continually amazed at how all aspects of the science associated with this crisis has been politicized.

Right from the beginning, when the computer models predicted a death total in the millions, the politicization was evident.  Those scientists that were predicting a far lower death count did not get anywhere near the same news converge, especially on the mainstream news stations. Could it be that the liberal journalists and politicians thought if they could generate enough hysteria governors would have no option other than shutting down states, collapsing the economy in the process just so they could influence the 2020 election?  How many businesses were destroyed because of the lockdowns?  How many deaths will result from suicides and delayed diagnosis thanks to the lockdowns? How many will have died needlessly because of the media attacks on the drug hydroxychloroquine? That was done solely because President Trump praised the drug.  Requiring masks is another example of the politicization of science.

The politicization of science is not new.  In the 1960s it led to the banning of the pesticide DDT.  This article sheds a lot of light on that deadly fiasco: Millions Died Thanks to the Mother of Environmentalism

Since the mid-1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.

The science behind the banning of DDT did not hold up at all.

Environmentalists have argued that when it came to DDT, it was pick your poison. If DDT was banned, more people would die from malaria. But if DDT wasn’t banned, people would suffer and die from a variety of other diseases, not the least of which was cancer. However, studies in Europe, Canada, and the United States have since shown that DDT didn’t cause the human diseases Carson had claimed.

The politicization of science reached an absurd level with all of this global warming, climate change, global climate disruption nonsense.  It is difficult to measure a body count associated with that scientific malpractice but it is there because of impacts on developing nations being denied the use of cheap fossil fuel energy sources.

No politicization of science is more deadly that the politicization associated with abortion.  Only absolute scientific fraud can deny the unmistakable scientific evidence that an unborn child is actually a live human being.  The website Wordmeter documents just how many abortions happen worldwide:

According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately125,000 abortions per day.

One Point that Ed AND Stacy Missed in this Piece on Racism in the Climate Change Movement

A few days Ago Stacy McCain noted that the real news in this piece linked by Ed Driscoll was the Communist insurgency and death squads in the Philippines where things were so bad the people voted for someone who would wipe them out using extralegal methods.

Now all of this is important but I want to note one other point that is being missed here:

As Sherwood-O’Regan said, “As we grow and climate change becomes a harsher reality, privileged activists need to learn to de-centre themselves and meaningfully support Indigenous, disabled, queer, global south, POC, and other marginalized people who are on the frontlines 

That these activists are a bunch of privileged bigots is not a big surprise because you’re basically dealing with a movement that came from the Green parties (high funded by the Soviets during the cold war) who were supported by a lot of bureaucrats hoping to cash but let me ask one question that seems to be missing here.

If this person actually believes that “Climate Change” is a danger to the planet and that millions will die from it, why would you be more worried about the ethnic makeup of the leadership since if they fail, it won’t matter since everybody would die anyway?

Now if you think these European voices are ineffective that’s fine, if you think they are not making headway that’s fine too, but if, as you say, we have to act NOW then the top concern has to be effectiveness not diversity.

Either you out to save the world or you’re not.

Now as I see this for the grift that it is, I don’t particularly care one way or the other about the feelings involved here, but I think it’s interesting to see where the priorities of all these folks are.

The Massachusetts Senate Wants to Turn this State into California

The Massachusetts Senate announced on January 23rd that they very much want to turn ths state into California.  The announced this by declaring that they want to enact a California style Climate Cap and Trade package.  Nothing would speed this sate into turning into a hell hole like California faster than a Cap and Trade System.

I first heard about this disastrous effort when I say this article online: Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance article California Style Regulations in Massachusetts!

On January 23rd 2020, the Massachusetts Senate came out with a Climate Change package that would drastically increase regulations on how you live your daily life. The senate is seeking to tax you on necessities such as driving your car and heating your home, and simply raise prices on EVERYTHING! This package includes three separate bills and is going to be taken up by the Senate on THURSDAY:

I don’t think the people of Massachusetts are expecting to see a drastic price increase in all aspects of their lives, which is what will happen if the climate change legislation is enacted.  The politicians always seem to gloss over the price increase aspect when claiming that they are saving the planet.

Here are the details if the plan:

(S 2477) is a straight Carbon Tax that will increase the cost of living exponentially. It establishes net-neutral greenhouse gas emissions standards by 2050. It accomplishes this by adopting sector-based statewide greenhouse gas emissions sub-limits including, but not limited to, electric power, transportation, commercial and industrial heating and cooling, residential heating and cooling, industrial processes, solid waste, agriculture and natural gas distribution and service. This simply means you will pay more for electricity, gas, heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, trash disposal, food, and any other goods and services that uses any of these things to be made for you or to get to you.

It sounds ridiculously expensive doesn’t it?  How will senior citizens and low income individuals afford necessities?  How will businesses survive?

There is more to the proposed legislation.

(S 2478) Substantially expands the Massachusetts Appliance Efficiency Standards Act to include higher standards for a wider variety of consumer and commercial products. What will it do?
-It requires cooking appliances, air ventilation systems, and lamps to meet federal Energy Star guidelines
-It adopts California energy regulations for computers and computer monitors
-It establishes specific flow volumes required for plumbing fixtures, including shower heads, faucets, toilets, and urinals
-It sets an effective date of January 1, 2022, after which products covered in this act must meet their new regulations in order to be sold or installed in Massachusetts
-Maintains existing federal water and energy efficiency requirements in Massachusetts in the event they are withdrawn or repealed. 

Are you ready for air conditioners that don’t actually cool rooms or dishwashers that need to run twice as long.  All appliances will function poorer and be way more expensive.  That is what happens when energy standards are applied by government. 

I also found this article Carbon pricing is a cornerstone of Senate climate package from the Hannover Manner Local News.

The Massachusetts Senate plans to take up a far-reaching package of climate bills whose major components include an electric MBTA bus fleet by 2040, carbon-pricing mechanisms for transportation, homes and commercial buildings, and a series of five-year greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements that ramp up to net-zero emissions in 2050.

The three bills, teed up for debate on Jan. 30, with amendments due by Monday, amount to what Senate President Karen Spilka called a “comprehensive plan for the state” to respond to an international issue – global climate change.

“This is a race against time,” Spilka told reporters. “Climate change is changing not only Massachusetts and the United States, it is changing the face of our planet, and our planet’s survival is at stake.”

As you can see, saving the planet from the mythical climate change monster is the justification for this disaster.

The good news so far is the House of Representatives is not ready to enact this legislation yet.

“For several years the bill struggled,” Barrett said. “We did not find traction in the House in particular. I want to be respectful of the legislative branches and respectful of the governor. It seemed to me after two or three years that we weren’t moving quickly enough. I decided I wanted to put a price on carbon by any path we could lay our hands on, so I backed away from my preferred method.”

The Bad news is that our Governor embraces the idea.

This year’s bill allows the governor to choose among a revenue-neutral fee, a revenue-positive tax, or a cap and trade system like the Transportation Climate Initiative Gov. Charlie Baker is pursuing with other states. It would require a carbon-pricing mechanism to be in effect for the transportation sector by Jan. 1, 2022, for commercial, industrial and institutional buildings by Jan. 1, 2025, and residential buildings by Jan. 1, 2030.

Our State elected officials are trying to hammer this mess into actual legislation that will pass both houses and be signed by the Governor Baker.

Backing from the governor and the leaders of the two legislative houses creates likelihood that some version of a net-zero emissions policy becomes law this session. Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides said she plans to issue a letter of determination in the coming weeks to establish a policy of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

We must call our elected officials and tell them no.  We must also work hard to get more true republicans elected into State Office to keep Massachusetts from being turned into California.

Climate Change is not responsible for the Australian bushfire crisis

Almost immediately after the apocalyptic nature of the Australian bushfires became apparent claims that the infernos are either caused by, or made worse, by climate change began to fill news reports and the internet.   A large majority of the Australia bushfire stories falsely point fingers directly at climate change.  

Fortunately there are articles such as this Breitbart article Delingpole: Environmentalists Made Australia’s Bush Fires Worse which actually uses science, historic data, and real facts to determine the true cause of this catastrophe.  I highly recommend reading the original article, it is full of supporting scientific data and charts.  With this quote you can see that there was nothing extreme about the lack precipitation the area has been experiencing

As Paul Homewood pointed out last month, there has been no significant long-term decrease in rainfall or increase in temperatures in the affected regions.

Yes, it has been dry in New South Wales (where most of the worst fires are), but there have been several years, especially pre-1960, when it was drier

The same holds true for the temperature, which rules out climate change.

The same applies to temperature. Yes, this has been a hot spring in New South Wales. But there have been times when it has been much hotter — making a nonsense of all stories in the Australian media about temperatures being the hottest evah

This next quote points the blame directly where it belongs.

So, to be clear, there is zero evidence of any change in climatic conditions that might have increased the likelihood or severity of these bush fires. This is not — repeat NOT — a man-made climate change story, and anyone who claims otherwise is either a gullible idiot or a lying charlatan.

There is, nonetheless, good reason to believe that the stupidity and irresponsibility of man is at least partly to blame for this disaster — just not quite in the way that the left-liberal MSM and the green wankerati would have you believe.

Arson is the number one cause of the catastrophe.

Man-made culprit #1: all the firebugs who have been deliberately starting fires in New South Wales, Queensland, and elsewhere. You won’t be surprised that their involvement has had very little coverage in the left-liberal MSM.

Bad forest management caused by environmentalists is the number two cause.

Man-made culprit #2: well-meaning idiots who don’t understand that unless you manage forested areas with controlled burns, you’re going to end up with out-of-control wildfires.

Jo Nova has a damning story about locals in East Gippsland in the state of Victoria who successfully stopped a planned controlled burn at Nowa Nowa. Two of them were pictured holding signs saying, “Spring burns kill baby birds alive” and “Stop burning nesting birds”.

A you can see from the next three quotes, bad laws passed to solve the mythical boogie man climate change are also to blame.

Man-made culprit #3: Greens  The people most to blame for the Australian bush fires are the greens. Just like in California, their tree-hugging Gaia worship blinded them to the reality that forests need regular clearance and maintenance if they are not to become a major fire hazard.

in large parts of Australia, it remains illegal to remove trees from your land even in order to create fire breaks and protect your property — despite the obvious risk this ban creates to homeowners living in potential bush-fire zones. Trees have been designated a ‘carbon sink’, which supposedly offset Australia’s CO2 emissions.

Liam Sheahan is an Australian fireman who in 2002 was fined $50,000 – and paid another $50,000 in costs – for illegally clearing the trees round his home in rural Victoria. In 2009 he was vindicated when his property was only one left standing after bushfires destroyed his town.

This Breitbart article Police in Australia Begin Massive Criminal Investigation into Bushfire Arson documents just how large a role arson has played in causing the catastrophe

The Conversation reports experts estimate about 85 percent of bushfires are caused by humans. A person may accidentally or carelessly start a fire, such as leaving a campfire unattended or using machinery which creates sparks.

Research has shown about 8 percent of officially recorded vegetation fires were attributed to malicious lighting, and another 22 percent as suspicious. However, about 40 percent of officially recorded vegetation fires did not have an assigned cause.

When unassigned bushfires were investigated by fire investigators, the majority were found to be maliciously lit

Climate change alarmism is causing a lot of harm to children

Children today are being bombarded with a consent stream of dire warnings about climate change. The constant stream is causing children a great deal of anxiety, as documented by this Climate Change Dispatch article titled Only A Monster Would Afflict Children With ‘Eco-Anxiety’.

What kind of monster afflicts children with eco-anxiety by telling them they will be dead in 12 years? I’ll tell you who: the child abusers in the establishment media, the environmental movement, and the Democrat Party — that’s who.

What’s especially disturbing is that children are being taught the opposite of empathy. Empathy is the most important value an adult can impart to a child. But what these kids are being encouraged to become is nothing less than wild-eyed, religious fanatics where non-believers are fingered as the enemy, as heretics looking to destroy the world and kill everyone. And this is always the result of such things, of the moral certainty of a zealot mixed with intolerance.

This anxiety has become  so widespread it has even been noticed by the American Psychological Association, according to this Ecowatch.com article Climate Change Is Causing Us ‘Eco-Anxiety’

A growing number of people report feelings of loss, grief, worry and despair amid news that climate change is making natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires worse and more common, that polar ice is melting faster than we thought and that we only have 12 years to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

The American Psychological Association has come up with a term for these “resounding chronic psychological consequences” related to how we process the climate crisis: eco-anxiety.

Eco-Anxiety, which the APA describes as a “chronic fear of environmental doom,” isn’t listed anywhere in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the handbook for diagnosing mental illnesses

What makes the anxiety caused by fear over climate change even more despicable is the fact it is all based on a lie, a monstrous lie that has reached the level of indoctrination.  The American Thinker article Scaring the children on climate is cruel, cynical, and dangerous describes the far reaching nature of this indoctrination.

It is dangerous when teenagers who have been indoctrinated their entire lives are treated as if they have knowledge on climate change and fossil fuels.  They are just repeating talking points when trotted out on media outlets and before Congress as if they were experts.  They have been discouraged from doing research and critically thinking because they have been told the science is settled.  They know that anyone who says the climate is changing and has always changed naturally is de a climate change denier; to get good grades, they need to repeat what they are told.

It is more dangerous when almost all journalists and other Democrats repeat the same talking points instead of doing research and asking questions.  Instead of pointing out to the teenagers that temperatures, sea levels, storm activity, droughts and floods have always fluctuated naturally, and previous dire predictions have been 100% wrong, they just go along.

This New York Post article The climate strike is all about indoctrination, not science has much more to about the indoctrination.

Unfortunately for students, the movement is not about education but indoctrination. One of the final demands, “comprehensive climate change education,” is to be aimed at children ages 5 through 14 because “impressionability is high during that developmental stage.”

If the climate threat eventually leads to radical national action, it will only be because the concept is drilled into youngsters “from the beginning.” Of course, it’s unclear why such a long-term strategy is necessary, given that we have only “11 years” left to avert disaster.

Judging from the bizarre, extremist, sloppily composed manifesto, the students who have the city Education Department’s blessing to attend this event clearly won’t be learning much of anything truly “science-based.” The rest of us, however, are learning quite a lot about the climate change movement, and it’s not pretty.

The Breitbart article Watch: Climate Strike Activist Says Climate Change Activism and Socialism Are ‘Inseparable’ explains just why this hoax was originally perpetuated and why it is still being crammed down the throats of children in the United States and across the world.

The fight against climate change is intricately connected to the push for socialism, according to a climate change alarmist who flocked to the nation’s capital to participate in the global climate strike on Friday.

Thousands of activists participated in the Greta Thunberg-inspired global climate strike in Washington, DC — and around the world — on Friday. Participants in D.C. were heard shouting, “Hey hey, ho ho, climate change has got to go,” and, “Don’t eat cows; eat the rich.”

One activist told Breitbart News that he was there to not only fight against climate change but to actively “fight for socialism,” calling the two “inseparable.”

Reminder that Climate Change Activists are Full of It

by baldilocks

School children went on strike in the name of climate change last week. I don’t even feel like checking to see which day it was because I know that the activists who put these kids up to skipping class don’t really care about the climate. If they did, the United States would be far down on the list for castigation.

But the activists are all over Americans and Europeans about climate change and pollution for simple reasons: they know that the West is capable of being shamed about it and that Westerners have money. Activists pretty much ignore the real problem nations, places like India

Twenty-two of the world’s 30 worst cities for air pollution are in India, according to a new report, with Delhi again ranked the world’s most polluted capital.

The Greenpeace and AirVisual analysis of air pollution readings from 3,000 cities around the world found that 64% exceed the World Health Organization’s annual exposure guideline for PM2.5 fine particulate matter – tiny airborne particles, about a 40th of the width of a human hair, that are linked to a wide range of health problems.

Every single measured city in the Middle East and Africa exceeds the WHO guidelines, as well as 99% of cities in south Asia and 89% in east Asia.

… and China.

According to search results, China and Pakistan compete for the most polluted countries in the world. Most of the other top polluters are in South Asia and Africa, as mentioned in the Guardian link.

Some of these lists of Top Ten Most Sh*tholiest Countries slide the United States and other First World countries into the mix, but I wonder, in spite of what we’ve seen lately in Baltimore and in Los Angeles.

Look at this video. It’s said to be from the Dominican Republic.

Look. I understand why none of the activists want to go bother the children of Middle Eastern Muslims, Africans, or the Chinese. I mean who wants to die or get arrested in, say, Nigeria?

But let’s stop pretending that America is the Devil in the religion of climate change.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

Michael Mann Hide the decline, at ALL costs!

Jedediah Tucker Ward: It’s not hypothetical to Dr. Pavel, he wrote it

Michael Grazier: So he says.

Jedediah Tucker Ward: So he says under oath

Class Action 1991

PM James Hacker: (On Phone): No, no, leave me out of it. A routine visit. (Listening) All right – a routine surprise visit. (Listening) Well, say they were invited earlier, but the NATO exercise got in the way. Now they’re not needed, they’re going anyway. (Listening) All right. Nobody knows it’s not true. Press statements aren’t delivered under oath.

Yes Prime Minister A victory for Democracy 1986

There is an awful lot going on in the word today of note but I’d say the single most significant story I’d seen lately is this one:

Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case. [emphasis mine]

The significance of this can’t be overstated.

For decades now the media and the left have insisted very loudly that global warming/ climate change or whatever new name they’re giving it these days is going to doom us all and further requires massive tax increases, massive subsidies (coincidentally going to connected firms) and massive conferences (coincidentally always requiring plenty of air travel and taking place at very nice places full of very nice things for all the right people to enjoy) and that anybody who expressed any doubt to this narrative is a “climate denier” the equal to those who deny the slaughter of the jews by the Nazis.

Furthermore they have introduced a curricula to our public schools that has convinced kids that unless these things (which coincidentally enrich all the right people) they will not survive.

Yet when given the chance in a court of law to verify this data produced by one of the leaders of the climate change community, data that people leaned on for years for conclusions. Not only did this gentleman decline to produce the data proving the came to his conclusions honestly but he was willing to do so even if it meant losing his case and paying the costs of the person he sued, rather than let expose his data to the prying eyes of those who might examine it.

I ask any fair minded person is that the act of a scientist or of a fraudster?  If for example Donald Trump was suing a person for libel and refused to produce the recording of an exchange that could confirm said libel or prove it to be false, would you not assume that he was hiding something?

This is a story that should be shouted from the highest heights but will be downplayed by every media outlet in the world, at least until the president starts tweeting about it.

That will be fun.


If you think what we do worthwhile please consider subscribing to help keep our writers and the bills paid.

Choose a Subscription level

Of course one time Tip jar hits and always welcome too.

BTW wild and woolly things are going on with our database which is why the move is not yet complete hopefully they will be resolved by the end of this month.