Oh brother.

Judge Judy Oh Brother

Climate Change shenanigans and other ridiculous nonsense.

On Friday, Alexandria “She Guevara” Ocasio-Cortez held a town hall with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and discussed the abominable “Green New Deal”.  In it she makes some rather stupid statements:

All she ever does is portray herself as a doom and gloom fortune teller.  Unless we follow her lead, all of us are in for the most horrible destruction ever witnessed against mankind.

It’s not like Climate Change hasn’t hurt our civilization in the past.  This according to knowledgeable liberals:

When you read the linked article from the tweet, it doesn’t mention anything about sea level rise.  Instead, it talks about the demise of certain groups – the Mayans, the Vikings, and the Khmer empire who suddenly died out because of “climate change”.

The common thread in those examples has more to do with the inability of those groups to adapt to their changing environment.  They simply didn’t have the technology, or even the engineering and scientific abilities to save themselves from the hazards of climate change or even disease.

Consider that in the last 150 years, the planet’s human population has exploded almost 8 fold.  It is a direct result of advancements in technology to deliver quality food, clean water and life-saving health care systems.  People are simply living longer thanks to these achievements in engineering, science and technology.

Included in this basic formula is the exploitation of “fossil fuels” by way of the combustible engine.  While mankind made huge progress under the steam engine, it wasn’t long before someone figured out how to use petroleum distillate in a contraption that could deliver far greater power cheaply and with greater efficiency. This single invention is responsible for the greatest advancements in human civilization.

Now we’re being told our advances will bring us doom because the planet is changing more rapidly than ever and not in a good way.  The evidence for this doesn’t lie in the scientific observations of the climate – it resides in outputs from computer programs developed by activist scientists who want to change the world’s political systems to global socialism.

These same scientists have been spending enormous piles of government money fudging their science to paint the picture that our own vices have placed us on a path of mortal destruction.  Not surprising, they have a solution:  Stop using fossil fuels and tax the ever living hell out of rich people.  I’m sure there is ample political and historical evidence of such policies delivering mankind from disaster.

However, no one, even a climate scientist, is able to predict the future. If they could, they should now be able to predict with fairly good precision when a hurricane will form and where it will hit. Are computers smart enough to do that?  No, but don’t tell that to the scientists saying “trust our math, even though it couldn’t predict past.”

Indeed, the same mathematical wizardry in forecasting the planet’s future that all life on the planet is decimated within a decade or two has no evidence to back it up.  The conditions in which prior civilizations have waned or even failed has more to do with how they failed to adapt. Viewed another way, the conditions in which they prospered was a result of a favorable climate.  Sadly, even if they had access to a computer and could understand it’s output, their fates had already been sealed.

The truth is you can’t predict the future any more than you can predict when the climate will change for the worse.  All we have to do is look at the thousands of micro and dozens of macro predictions posed by doomsayers and climate scientists that have passed without ever becoming true.  One incontrovertible fact remains:  We are still here and so is the planet that is teaming with life.

And yet, people like She Guevara have bought into the hype.  Despite her lying eyes, she chooses to believe something neither she nor the computers tell us.  What do you think will happen when the world is still here with life flouring in a decade?

It’s utterly ridiculous.








3 thoughts on “Oh brother.

  1. What do you think will happen when the world is still here with life flouring in a decade?

    The doom deadline will mysteriously move out another decade. Again.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Doomsday, in fact, is a day of reckoning. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with reality, that is, God Himself. The leftists try to deny it, conservatives to work around it, and Christians to be ready for it. If nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition how can expect doomsday?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Writing from Australia… we recently had two cyclones going at once: One named Trevor, the other named Veronica.

    Obviously, at multiple levels, people are tremendously interested in predicting what/where/how/when the storms are going to evolve: They can potentially directly disrupt tens of thousands of people, and have huge impact on industry (including agriculture).

    Trouble is, even with perfect information about the storm at the current time, there’s so many variables and feedback systems at small, medium and large scales, including interaction with terrain for (simplifying a lot) very-warm-ocean-water based systems, that predicting the future of the system with 100% certainty is impossible.

    [An aside: The brain is also hideously hard to compartmentalise and analyse, let alone predict, for the same general reasons: Multiple feedback systems between/above/below various levels, from chemical reactions and modulating hormones regulating individual cell behaviour, up to interactions between groups, formation of tribes within societies, etc.]

    Back to the cyclones: The scientists use a collection of models (numbering in the dozens), based on various hard scientific principles, feed in the information from various sources (land-based measurements, including radar, and satellite-based measurements, such as maps of cloud-tops (infrared emissions)). The models do not all agree; each model has its strengths and weaknesses.

    The forecaster’s job is to try and make the best guess from the ensemble of models. In the case of Trevor, the models were in quite good agreement, and the forecasts had a fair-to-good confidence level; in the case of Veronica, the models varied significantly in their projections for what/how/when the system would behave, the forecasters put out their best estimate predictions, but the uncertainty grew significantly as the time frame was extended.

    I do not think that your “A mathematical model isn’t perfect, therefore Climate Change scientists are a bunch of money-grabbing frauds” is a defensible argument: You underestimate the complexity of problem, and the genuine efforts of people (e.g. physicists such as Leigh Orf) to improve the understanding of the weather at short-term, medium-term and long-term levels.

    [Another aside: Look at what Leigh can do with stunning supercomputers, e.g. “Deep Waters”, a derivative of IBM’s “Deep Blue”, in simulating EF5 tornadoes, in 3-day runs!:



    Weather forecasters are in a much more constrained space: They do not have easy access to petaflop-supercomputers, let alone exaflop systems, and do not have the luxury of waiting 3 days for a result when the situation requires hourly, or perhaps 3-hourly updates, serving multiple clients. So it’s really a different domain to [currently-discussed] climate-change timescales (decades to millenia).

    I’d be looking at the insurance industry, perhaps together with stock markets, to get a feel of whether “climate change” is real — not perfect, but I’d estimate them to be relatively sensitive to trends, and have some level of impartiality — provided that they have not been subject to regulatory capture.

    More generally, I’m nervous about the rate of consumption of non-renewables, together with the growing evidence that the ocean pollution level is growing (e.g. the recent true story of a whale that died of starvation and dehydration, and its carcass revealed 40kg of plastic waste in its stomach, disrupting its digestive system to the level that it killed it).



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s