I & I Editorial BoardIt’s been quite clear for more than two decades that some people in the West just have to have global warming. They want it. They need it. It’s their oxygen. It is to these close-minded, irrational, sometimes neurotic and too-often grifting people that we dedicate this editorial.
To follow up on Wednesday’s editorial, we’ll point out:
- The very folks who screech the most about the emergency of climate change don’t live their lives as if they believe that it’s an existential threat. Barack Obama owns a pair of coastal mansions that will be underwater within years if some of the warming alarmists’ forecasts are correct. The administration’s climate ghoul John Kerry also owns a home on the water and is known for a private jet habit. Leonardo diCaprio and Bill Gates fly the private skies as a matter of routine. In fact, private jets are the luxury of choice among climate hypocrites. They flock to the climate conferences of the self-important in Gulfstreams and Learjets like geese landing at a baited field. Then there’s Al Gore, the owner of “expensive properties” who has a “lavish CO2 footprint” and is known to travel via “carbon-intensive modes to international events.”
- Apparently the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “substantially underestimated the role of the sun in global warming.” Which means it overestimated man’s role. Which is no surprise, given the IPCC’s shameful history of politicizing the climate and fabricating a temperature threshold that has no basis in science.
- The IPCC has actually been “caught in a massive lie.”
- The “consensus” among scientists that man is overheating Earth is simply a hustle. There is disagreement.
- Steve Milloy, our friend at JunkScience.com, recently pointed out the “climate hoaxers” have admitted that the 2023 warming spike was not caused by emissions.
- Speaking of 2023, here’s a debunking of 10 bogus climate claims from just September.
- A corrected version of the hockey stick chart that supposedly proves humans are responsible for warming tells a different story.
- According to James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, “scientists have documented, and even the” IPCC “has admitted, that temperatures were warmer than today throughout most of the time period that human civilization has existed. Temperatures would have to keep warming at their present pace for at least another century or two before we reach temperatures that were common during early human civilization.” Therefore, “there can be no climate crisis – based on the notion of dangerously high temperatures – when humans have thrived in temperatures much warmer than today for most of the last 12,000 years.”
Do we have to keep doing this? If so, we can fill editorials for days with credible arguments and objective data that undercut the global warming narrative.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Editor’s note: Google routinely blocks its ads from appearing on pages that provide facts about “global warming.” So if there’s no ad at the very bottom of this page, that’s why. If you want to tell Google censors to stuff it, you can donate to us here.
See all our commentary on “global warming” here.
Using these vague “policy violations,” Google is now threatening to demonetize us. It’s part of Big Tech’s effort to silence conservative voices.
“Do we have to keep doing this?”
Yes! This would be a way to counter the all too well known method of propaganda, ie. “keep telling the lie until it becomes the truth” or something to that effect. In this case, keep exposing/telling the facts until they get thru the hard heads of useful idiots out there.
Some just have to have global warming! “They want it, they need it” and besides that they are making tons of money off of it!
Which of course is the whole point. Masks, tests, vaccines, war, you name it.
Keep up the good work.
It appears that Global Warming “experts” are like the Covid “experts.”
Both were wrong on their diagnosis which prognosisized that, in Covid’s case lock-downs and masks and the vax were all effective and salubrious.
In the Global Warming scenario, getting rid of our carbon energy resources and subsidizing a new mode of travel (viz the electric car) that is powered by a battery that is neither environmentally prudent or efficacious, is now being concluded to be both foolhardy and foolish.
It is funny that both of these ideological idiocies have been recognized at about the same time. And it is to be hoped that our society is now no longer going to be influenced (and dictated to) by our colony of so-called experts.
It would have been nice to tell us the exact titel of the study and the authors. If you want to be believed, please give your sources, thank you!
The article has links to the studies.
Then I must be blind. Please help me find it, thank you!