I & I Editorial BoardWhen three years ago we were told that if we stayed inside for 15 days we could flatten the curve of COVID-19 cases, there was no real effort to respond with civil disobedience. It was a profound mistake, one we paid dearly for and will again, if we don’t stand up to the tyranny.
Yes, we know it was President Donald Trump who issued in March 2020 a set of guidelines that called for 15 days to slow the spread by limiting our travel and staying away from social settings. At the end of March, under more pressure from “experts” he should have fired, he extended the guidelines for another month.
Trump eventually, though tacitly, acknowledged that he made a mistake, when during the summer he said, to great caterwauling from the “closers” on the left, that it was “important for all Americans to recognize that a permanent lockdown is not a viable path forward and would ultimately inflict more harm than it would prevent.”
It was an admission no single Democrat ever made. Indeed, the Democrats wanted the lockdowns to be open-ended. They not only enjoyed taking captive society and commerce in the way that true authoritarians amuse themselves by being in control of others, they took notes so that the next time they will be able to more easily bump restrictions to the next level.
And when might that be? Impossible to say. All we can know is that attempts will be made.
In what other way can we read proposals such as the “climate emergency” initiative referred to by Joseph Goffman, who holds an appointed position at the Environmental Protection Agency? How would the government deal with a climate emergency outside of placing limits on our movements as a free people?
Another sign that we are being softened up to take whatever punishment the political left decides to mete out was last week’s maniacal media coverage of “the hottest day ever.” CNN vomited out nonsense about “record-break global temperatures” that were likely the “highest in ‘at least 100,000 years.’” The Washington Post screeched that “Earth is at its hottest in thousands of years,” and proclaimed that “climate denialism” has been “burnt to a crisp.”
It was all meant to stir up fear and continue the conditioning of the West for the next round of policy shackles.
We regret that it will have its intended effect on many, even though, as our friend Steve Milloy from junkscience.com wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “the notion of ‘average global temperature’ is meaningless.”
“Average global temperature is a concept invented by and for the global-warming hypothesis. It is more a political concept than a scientific one. The Earth and its atmosphere is large and diverse, and no place is meaningfully average,” says Milloy.
He also pointed out the that temperature data “are imprecise,” with an estimated 96% of U.S. temperature stations producing corrupted data, and “about 92% of them reportedly have a margin of error of a full degree Celsius, or nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit.”
Our suspicions of a future under a climate boot have also been confirmed by other developments, such as: the influential World Economic Forum treating the pandemic lockdowns as a model for climate lockdowns and, according to PJ Media, eliminate private automobile ownership; zero chance of reparations for the hundreds of millions who suffered because of of COVID lockdowns; the Red Cross insisting that the world should respond to climate change with the same urgency it showed in addressing the coronavirus outbreak; Bill Gates ominously saying that “if we learn the lessons of COVID-19, we can approach climate change more informed about the consequences of inaction”; and the almost unthinkable possibility that the pandemic was a manufactured crisis.
But violating our freedom to live our lives as we please is only part of the entire repression package that the left is building. Our communications are already being censored while the government misinforms and disinforms just as it did before, during and now after the pandemic. Skeptics will be called “climate deniers,” from which there is a straight line to being labeled “domestic terrorists” by a Justice Department pursuing politics rather than the justice it is supposed to uphold.
What we should have learned from the COVID lockdowns is that tolerating petty tyranny leads to absolute tyranny. We’re not there yet, but we’re well on the road to it and it has been paved with malicious intent.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Using these vague “policy violations,” Google is now threatening to demonetize us. It’s part of Big Tech’s effort to silence conservative voices.
From the article:
“Average global temperature is a concept invented by and for the global-warming hypothesis. It is more a political concept than a scientific one. The Earth and its atmosphere is large and diverse, and no place is meaningfully average,” says Milloy.
What? Are you saying that there is no such thing as an average of anything, unless one data point matches the average? Nonsense.
It might be true that no place consistently matches the average, but so what? That’s not an argument against there being an average.
The average global temperature is very useful in viewing the overall change over time. But the deniers don’t want you to look at that. They’d rather cherry-pick some data that makes it look like the Earth is not warming.
I noticed that weird piece of logic, too. However, I do not believe we can surmise the average temperature of the earth at the present time. Maybe from space, in the same ways we estimate the temperatures of far-off planets and stars, but I don’t think that would be rigorous enough to see changes of just a degree or two or three on the surface, let alone in the atmosphere.
There are a number of major problems with the idea that there is such a thing as average global temperature – i.e. assuming we could actually measure near surface temperatures accurately (we cannot) and that the measurements fairly represented the earth’s near surface temperature(not even close – more than 75% of the surface has no surface sensors and satelite coverage is (a) limtied by orbital paths; and (b) available only back to about 1976; and (c) affected by instrument degradation and software change), we could easily compute a numerical average, but that average would not be a meaningful measure of anything.
The key practical reason for this is that atmospheric temperature is a continuous variable across three dimensions – so you can compute a curve for a specific time and place, but you cannot average curves (you end up with a tensor (transform) that doesn’t have a known set of solutions.)
The Left uses terms like Deny, Denier, Believe, Believer in regard to climate issues.
These are the terms of religion or philosophy not Science.
They are found in a Church.
Proven, Hypothetical.
These are the terms of Science and are not found in a Church.
I think it’s fair to use the term “denier” when someone constently puts their personal bias over the science. Yes, that bias is often about their religion or philosophy, or politics. Like this article, in which the writers think that the scientists are all about leftist politics. They will grasp at any half-baked claim to discredit the science.
Right – and the more people who know it, the better. But.. where is your solution? what are you doing in terms of suggesting or organizing a response?
—
fyi: here’ s mine: winface.com/node/24 – it’s on saving the republic and something you could help get done.
“Indeed, the Democrats wanted the lockdowns to be open-ended.”
Plus they were very open about the political opportunities COVID handed them:
April 2, 2020 “California Governor Newsom: Yes, We Will Use Coronavirus to ‘Reimagine a Progressive Era’ “There is opportunity for reimagining a progressive era as it pertains to capitalism,” absolutely we see this as an opportunity to reshape the way we do business and how we govern.”
COVID was America’s first political disease and it was Democrats who saw it as ‘an opportunity too good to pass up’.
That’s quite an extrapolation from one quote from one Dem who isn’t in the federal administration.
I know there’s one European quote that Republicans like to pretend is representative of the left, as well.
Rahm Emanuel had one that comes to mind, too. I think he coined it as Obama’s top dog advisor.
What is the average temperature of North America,Central America,South America,Europe, Russia, Africa, Middle East, Far East et al? Which season of the year? The idea that there is a one global average defies the seasonal nature of temperatures on the earth.Since the Last Ice Age 13.000 years ago,many civilizations have formed,thrived and eventually disappeared as a result of climate changes,many due to drought as rains shifted i.e.the Sahara was not always a desert.
Sorry you don’t know what “average” means.
You’re a little too hung up on the notion of ‘average,’ and perhaps should focus more on the way that the number has been calculated. That is the fulcrum for everything else, and that is what has been corrupted, not the possibly-misused term ‘average.’ While you exult in the miasma of minutiae, the climate religion cultists from The Sustainable Organic Church Of The Carbon Apocalypse are still lying to us, and are still planning to use whatever methods they can to glom onto available power, hold it, and wield it against those who disagree; they must be challenged at every opportunity, not emboldened by semantical diversions.
Climate stasis is a myth, there are far to many related and non related cycles in play for any chance of a static climate on a global scale over an appropriate timeline.
I cut Trump a lot of slack because nobody quite knew what we were looking at with C-19. 2 weeks was reasonable and most people though extending it 1 month was prudent. He did end it after that but by then the bureaucracy got its authoritarian teeth into it and we were off the the races, so to speak. Trump also claims he really wasn’t able to fire Faux-Xi, which may be true, but he could have pressed the issue in other ways. That said, by that time he was trapped in a media frenzy over Faux-Xi, who had become the heroic face of “science”.
Seeing Faux-Xi on TV I recognized him as the bureaucrat who came to lecture my University of Michigan graduate course in microbiology (I was auditing the course). He was presented as the government’s expert on AIDS and was working on a cure. He gave a boring, bland lecture, which we expected, but what was shocking was hw unprepared he was to answer science questions. Al of his answers were couched in terms of encouraging us to pursue careers in public health. Remember that we were graduate students in microbiology at one of the world’s leading research institutions. Our professor apologized for wasting our time like that.