Guns, Impossibly Beautiful Women, Nice Rides and Politics


Tuesday, August 22, 2017


- Guest Blogger Nitzakhon


In the wake of Charlottesville and the seemingly-overnight eruption of violence, the tearing down of statues, the ramped-up burning of American flags, and what feels like an explosion of both anti-police and person-to-person violence, and even more dangerous rhetoric, I will open by quoting a good friend of mine who opined many months prior to any of this: “America has not been this divided since the Civil War”. He is a student of history and an all-around pretty sharp guy and is, I fear, right.


As I said in my introductory essay, I was born in the Peoples’ Republic of Massachusetts. I grew up in a very Leftist household; my parents were staunch in their beliefs until they passed. I, somehow, diverted rightward – I think in large part because of my first That’s weird… moment – defined as a moment when I was exposed to information that contradicted what I “knew”, forcing me, if I claimed the title of a thinking person, to investigate the subject further (in reflection, I was starting to veer off even in high school when, after an anti-nuclear power screed in the school newspaper, I wrote a counter letter praising nuclear energy). A few years ago, having moved substantially rightward, I stumbled upon and was shocked by the must-buy, must-read, must-keep book Liberal Fascism.

It was a similar mind-expansion when, more recently, I found a couple of Bill Whittle videos about Democrats and Republicans, specifically A Voters’ Guide to Republicans and Pin the Tale on the Donkey: Democrats' Horrible Racist Past | Bill Whittle. Two more related videos reprising these points from Prager University are Who Are the Racists: Conservatives or Liberals? and The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party. In watching the latter again, I learned that of the nine SCOTUS justices that voted for the infamous Dredd Scott decision, the seven that voted for it were Democrats, the two that voted against were Republicans.

“Progressive” Democrat Woodrow Wilson screened and hyped the KKK-promoting movie Birth of a Nation, which led to the KKK’s resurgence (it having almost vanished); Wilson subsequently made comments that would make today’s SJWs faint where they stood (bolding added):

A delegation of black professionals led by Monroe Trotter, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Harvard and Boston newspaper editor, appeared at the White House to protest the new policies. But Wilson treated them rudely and declared that “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.”

Democrat Harry Truman’s comment would, likewise, have SJWs needing coloring books in their safe spaces with milk and cookies:

I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n*gger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America.

These are not aberrations from the Left. In this eye-opening 40 minute video, Leftist Fascism | Dinesh D'Souza and Stefan Molyneux they discuss the close ideological connection between Democrats and Fascists (remember, the eugenics laws that led to mass sterilizations of “undesirables”, i.e., non-white women, were favored by the socialist Left). I’ve ordered several copies of D’Souza’s new book, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left; I will read and keep one and give the others away, including one to my local library. Same for his earlier works, Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, and one inspired by his being a political prisoner, Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party. (Might I suggest you do the same for your local library; these three, plus Liberal Fascism, would be great additions to any community library!)


Antifa has gone from a few people to crowds, and all sporting for a fight. You don’t carry clubs, rocks, and bags of urine and feces to participate in a peaceful counterdemonstration. You don’t drag people from their cars and beat them, or pepper spray them when they’re giving an interview. Students at campuses harass and intimidate teachers, e.g., the infamous events at Evergreen College; they even pursue those who they merely believe were Trump supporters.

At least, you can’t do these things and then claim with even a scintilla of honesty that you’re non-violent. Another voice, Melanie Philips, said in How totalitarianism is winning in the west (bolding added):

For Beinart warns that the left is lurching into totalitarianism and violence. “Antifa” purport to be anti-fascist. But they define as fascist anyone they disagree with including mainstream conservatives. Hence their violent suppression of commentators and scholars such as the conservative columnist Ann Coulter, the Breitbart controversialist Milo Yiannopoulos and the political scientist Charles Murray.

So watch this video, The Violent Left EXPOSED! These are people who have “othered” anyone not of themselves. Just look at how readily they are willing to attack anyone not of their opinion, or use force against people who, in some cases, are walking down the street. Or stab a guy with a haircut you think marks them as a racist. Or attack someone simply for holding the American flag. Or a person wearing a Trump political hat. Or attempt to evict a tenant because they hold the “wrong” view and threaten to dox them if they resist.

But this is natural: Socialism in all its forms depends on violence. Even taxes today are based on violence, for while most people are perfectly willing to pay for things like police, fire departments, road maintenance and public infrastructure, a court system, etc. – all things permitted by the Constitution – to go beyond that is to compel people to give to Caesar more than Caesar is due. And the only way to accept doing that is that it must be done, ultimately, by the implicit threat of men with guns.

If you are willing to use force to steal, and no Leftist should ever pretend that when you have to use force – even implied – to take, it’s not stealing… then you have made the concession that it is acceptable to use force for other things. And to do so with the conviction that you are doing a good thing.


In every genocide the groundwork must be laid – to “other” the opponents. The other side must be painted as the enemy of what is “good”; recall Krauthammer’s Law:

Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

When you have convinced yourself that you are good and noble and an “enlightened being” because you believe A, it is not a far leap at all to then convince yourself – as Krauthammer observed – that someone who does not believe A is evil. When faced with Conservatives-in-general, whom they not only believe are evil based on beliefs but now see as associated and allied with Nazism, one of the worst of all evils ever, the stain smears over and all Conservatives now fall under the umbrella of needing-to-be-fought-to-the-death. Such evil people, at least as the Left perceives them, can easily be diminished from being people to lesser beings not worthy of life. For example, from Why not just kill all conservatives? (bolding added):

According to the liberals in Congress, conservatives are not human beings. They are a scourge. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to just eliminate them forever.

This is not me deciding this. I am just listening to their own words.

One Florida Congressman decided to take over the role of leading bigoted lunatic in Florida now that Robert Wexler is leaving. His words were inspiring to anybody who found warmth in hatred.

People who watch Fox News are collaborators with the enemies of America.”

“Enemies of America”; a sitting Congressman actually said this about people who watch a news channel which he doesn’t like. Is it any wonder that, for example, 30 GOP Congressmen Have Been Attacked or Threatened Since May? And let’s not forget the actual shooting of Republican Congressmen.

Weapons are being brought by Antifa to events; it’s one thing to carry a gun discretely – heck, I carry CCW when I can… at least a pocket knife when I can’t carry more. But these are being brought with the expectations they will be used, and are being used, against those whom are considered evil (bolding added):

Nor do they see a distinction between someone attending a speech by an extreme right-winger and someone engaged in violence against the left. As one prominent antifa thug said of those on the other side of the political spectrum, “their existence itself is violent and dangerous, so I don’t think using force or violence to oppose them is unethical.”

Read that thought again: Conservatives’ existence itself is dangerous. Their patron saint Socialist Saul Alinksy said “There can be no conversation between the organizer and his opponents. The latter must be depicted as being evil.”

Dangers, especially those perceived as mortal dangers coming from those who are viewed as irredeemably evil, are to be attacked and eliminated. And understand – this is critical – this view did not spring up overnight, or from a vacuum. The intentional drip-drip-drip poison into these minds has been going on a long time.


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I was reminded of that when I read this:

Where does this Cultural Cleansing end? The answer is it doesn’t! The fact is that if these monuments go, not one piece of our history is safe. Not a single shred is safe, not one! No battlefield is safe, not any name of any street highway, park, school, building, flag, no re-enactment of any battle.

The Founders? Not only are they not safe, they are next. Old Glory? Next! The national anthem? Next! How about singing God Bless America, or America the Beautiful? You think they are safe? Are you demented, or just stupid? Do you not yet grasp how evil the Cultural Stalinists are?

How about books deemed to be too sympathetic to the Confederate cause? Or even books that dare to explore the numerous causes of the War Between the States? How soon until we hold mass book burnings? How soon until all military graves are targeted? The Lincoln Memorial? Given his statements about slavery, and Black people? It must go, as will Washington’s and Jefferson’s.

They will not stop. They cannot stop. The fanaticism has been engaged. Just look at the chanting; it’s done, specifically, to prevent thought and rile up.


No, not people next. They already burn flags, and have for decades. Now they’ve moved on to statues and monuments. Next it will be documents; books, papers, and so on; they’re already after websites. But then, yes, it will be people – and not onesie-twosie; these fanatics want purity. Remember this comment by Larry Grathwohl who went undercover with Obama’s “some guy in the neighborhood” group, the Weathermen?

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the “counter-revolution.” And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education in the [American] Southwest, where we would take all of the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be.

I asked, “Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t re-educate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they’d have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say “eliminate,” I mean kill 25 million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

The Left has had decades of practice with intimidating and then eliminating their enemies – whether real or perceived. Lenin and Stalin’s purges, Mao’s “Cultural Revolution”, Pol Pot’s killing fields, Hitler’s “Final Solution”. The list goes on and on; go through The Black Book of Communism for an eye-opening but gut-wrenching read – and then ask yourself Why Isn’t Communism as Hated as Nazism? Shudder when you realize Antifa people fly the communist flag… why their flag is based on the German Communist flag?


In the first Lord of the Rings movie Lady Galadriel states “The quest stands upon the edge of a knife…”. I look at America and I fear in my soul that we are in a similar situation.

There are powerful forces that would love nothing more than to take America down; but it’s not just America, it’s the entirety of Western Civilization. They’ve been planning this for a long time. They’ve been working towards it for a long time. And since the societal chaos that would then result – at least, per the Marxist Dialectic – in a great Socialist Utopia is seemingly within grasp in their lifetimes, my bet is they’ll go for the brass ring.

Prep. Arm up. Find allies – even an ally that agrees with you 80% is better than a Communist wannabe who wants to see you dead; put aside petty differences because survival is at stake. There are politically conservative Jews, and Catholics, and Muslims, and Hindus, and so on. Conservatism spans across from whitest-white to darkest-black. There are gay Conservatives, and lots of women Conservatives. Have bad feelings towards anyone like that? GET OVER IT. PUT THOSE FEELINGS ASIDE. The Left understands that if we group based on that 80% criteria, if we set aside our few differences to unite against them, they will lose. And so they practice divide and conquer, setting racial groups against each other, dividing the sexes, hyping intolerance of gays, splitting based on religion… they want us fractured.

Not for nothing does the Klingon proverb “Only fools fight in a burning house” ring true despite being from science fiction. The Left has a LONG GAME (e.g., they have intentionally taken over education). Because even if this calms down this time – IF – it’s about to get very, very dangerous.

Be safe. Be aware. And KYPD. The Left is perilously close to crossing the Rubicon, a point from where there is no going back. Their modern Brownshirts are ready for action; IMHO they’ll soon graduate to real killings; they’re already working on bombs and learning how to fight hand-to-hand and use guns. There’s an answer to that. Or, as I cited in Prophecy from Star Trek’s “Omega Glory”:

We do not talk with Kohms. They are only for killing.”

Don’t start it. Be prepared to finish it.

L’Nitzakhon! (To victory!)

Sunday, August 20, 2017


Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement

Miami Herald - This is what happens when criminals are not afraid.

American Thinker - Notice how they lump climate change skeptics with people who think "aliens" on everything? I don't remember which logical fallacy this is, but it's a classic technique.

YouTube - Warned in 1989! Sharia is the goal, Taqiyya is the method. Meet Clinton pal - Sharifa Alkhateeb

TOTUS Blog - They're afraid the supply of illegal aliens, er, new Democrats will be choked off.

I Own the World Report - I have been saying for years that Democrats will, by default, side with America's enemies.

The Daily Mail - Quote: "One onlooker asks in an astonished voice, 'What's going on?'"
>> What's going on? You're being INVADED, that's what's going on. With the complicit help of those in your government.

Watcher of Weasels - Just read it. And yet, despite real-world examples both small and large, the fantasy utopia keeps being sought.

Instapundit - If only we had a profession dedicated to investigating the wrong-doings of our political class and communicating that to the public. We could call them "reporters".

Business Financial Post - For the fakers, it's about making money at taxpayer expense. For those in government, it's about laundering taxpayer money through these fakers, into campaign contributions.

Director Blue - More of the vote fraud the Left claims doesn't exist.

Gates of Vienna - But THIS slavery doesn't count - not done by whites, so all is OK.

PJ Media - Two points:
1. The Left is itching for actual conflict; they think it's "their time".
2. No matter what happens, the enemedia will paint it as the Right's fault.

Front Page - Quote: "If you normalize black nationalism, you will get more white nationalism. If you normalize leftist street violence against Trump supporters, you will also get more street violence against leftists."

To the Left, that's not a bug. Violence is a feature. Their side's violence accomplishes stuff; the other side's violence is an excuse for more on their part. They WANT total breakdown so they can then create their great planned utopia.

Front Page - Quote: "Community organizing communist Saul Alinsky took it further, urging his followers to dress in Ku Klux Klan uniforms and show up at Republican rallies with signs endorsing the Republican speaker."

False flag operations; one of the oldest tricks ever.

Israel Video Network - But... but... but TAMPONS! BIRTH CONTROL PILLS!!!!

Israel National News - Now, just imagine the howls of outrage if this had been about, say, Muslims.

Legal Insurrection - Understand the tactics of the Left.

The Powerline Blog - If Trump brought people back from the dead, not only would they complain about his adversely affecting the mortuary business but they'd complain about the decrease in their voter base.

Twitchy - So tell me, Leftists... WHO is obsessed with race?

Good Morning

Enjoy Your Sunday

Sebago Lake State Park, Casco, Maine

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Rule 5 Saturday LinkOrama

Sandra Kubicka

Proof Positive - Friday Night Babe - Danay Garcia

Political Clown Parade - Flowing Curves Of Beauty

By Other Means - Tuesday Tap, Rack, and Bang

Evi L. Bloggerlady - Total Eclipse: Iron Maiden with Bonus Bark At The Moon

Ninety Miles From Tyranny - Hot Pick, Girls With Guns and Morning Mistress

Grouchy Old Cripple - Saturday Boobage

Not so Angry Mike - Happy Humpday !

The Feral Irishman - Friday Femme Fatale

The Daley Gator - Daley Babe

Diogenes Middle Finger News - A Good Monday Morning and Fishnet Friday

Theo Spark - Chrissy Teigen, Hailey Clauson & More Take On Sumba Island | Intimates | Sports Illustrated Swimsuit

Your Crazy Uncle Bubba - Dresses!

American Power - Gigi Hadid for Vogue Korea: September 2017

Woodsterman - Rule 5 Woodsterman Style

The Other McCain - Rule 5 Monday

The Pirates Cove - If All You See ...


Friday, August 18, 2017

Friday Babe

Nina Agdal

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Climate Unscience

- Guest Blogger Nitzakhon

I made reference in my essay The Leftist Sense of Self to two instances, among many in my life, where I heard something that didn’t match my current set of beliefs. Uttering those two magic words That’s weird... I investigated and often found myself changing my mind upon the discovery of new information. So in full disclosure, I used to be a Warmist, strongly believing that CO2 emissions were a dire threat to the biosphere on earth from a runaway greenhouse effect.

No longer.


I was educated in, and still work in, a STEM-related field. I am driven by data, by logic, and make a good-faith effort to work from facts to come to a conclusion – not jump to a conclusion and then collect facts to justify that conclusion. While I have enough education and experience to be able to have flashes of insight based on a few facts – with an occasionally-annoying-to-others propensity to be right almost all the time – I wait until the facts are in, or at least in strong preponderance, before recommending a course of action. And on occasion I have found that my pet theory on something was, in fact, wrong as shown by the evidence. So I changed my mind.

Regarding the topic at hand: as I started to pay attention, drawn to the topic by multiple factors, I found my bullsh*t meter pegging out so hard the needle got bent.

This, of course, begs the question WHY did I change my mind?


Back in the late 1990s there was a study by economist John Lott on the effects of concealed carry and what happens when states pass Shall Issue laws. The effect he found was stark and clear: concealed carry reduces crime. See his book More Guns, Less Crime. Of course this is no surprise to people on the Right. But naturally this was a political hot potato; he was viciously attacked by claims his research was flawed, biased, etc. So – and I hold this to be the very zenith of openness – he offered his data set, copies of his notes in developing his analytical technique, and copies of the analysis model itself to anyone who asked, including his critics.

And that’s the critical point. He shared his data, even with critics, because he was interested in the truth. Consider another example: the German scientist who researched NASA’s data and found systematic adjustments of the data to create warming trends artificially. Relevant to this section is this quote from the article (I’ll refer back to his analysis later):

All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: (at)

Compare and contrast the openness, above, to this instance of concealment of data, one of many I’ve read over the years where Warmists actively fought sharing their data and methods with people who aren’t dedicated to The Cause (a term actually used in the infamous Climategate emails). Don’t forget Phil Jones preferring to delete data files rather than let climate change skeptics see them. And recently Michael Mann, of the infamous “Hockey Stick Graph” fame, refused to provide his data in a trial to bolster his own case in suing someone who he claimed had defamed him (bolding added):

[Mann] has bought himself time till 2019 and his lawyers can continue to deny jurors (and Joe Public) access to his disputed data in this protracted legal battle that has already eaten up six years and millions in legal fees.

Michael Mann’s “work” is the subject of the great book, A Disgrace to the Profession, by Mark Steyn; Dr. Ball, the target of the lawsuit, has his own book out, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.

So pause and think. This guy – whose work is foundational to virtually the entire Warmist argument – claims Dr. Ball is defaming him by saying his research is a fraud… but he refuses to release for outside examination the data and analytical techniques being criticized, preferring to risk losing the lawsuit rather than reveal to the world evidence that could vindicate his claim of defamation.

For me, this is the fundamental issue driving my changed view; the other ones I present are merely gravy: Any researcher who refuses to have their results questioned, their data and data collection methods reviewed, and their analytical models examined for robustness and trialed for replication is de facto a fraud and their results cannot be trusted.

(For a broader look at fraud in science in general, try this book: The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science.)


(Shameless capitalism time: Link attached to the image above goes to a coffee mug; also available in T-shirts. Yes, I own the cartoon. Another mug is below – let me know if you want T-shirts and I can put them up.)

When skeptics are put under house arrest to avoid them raising uncomfortable questions, it’s not a science. And when people scream that skeptics need to be arrested and tried, even executed, it’s not a science. Consider these multiple links within this quote):

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for punishing and imprisoning dissenters. Bill Nye endorsed such a call just last week. And while it’s easy to dismiss Kennedy and Nye as famous crackpots, Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted that there had been discussions about prosecuting climate dissenters. And that materials had been passed along to the FBI.

Meanwhile, many notable scientists in the field have changed their minds away from the alarmism:

[T]here are many outstanding scientists who have bothered to actually examine this issue, and have come to the obvious conclusion that there is much less to the story of gloom and doom than is popularly asserted. Many started as supporters of alarm but came to change their minds.


Back in high school Physics I first became familiar with the phrase “First draw your curve, then plot your reading.” With high school and even college science classes being, essentially, deterministic and the foundational implanting of basics, we pretty much knew what to expect. Thus, a little fudging-in of errors, and Voila! we had our lab report with a cursory actual set of experiments. But we were amateurs. For masters of that technique, we need to look at NASA and NOAA among others. In Global Warming Hoax: German Scientist Finds Evidence That NASA Manipulated Climate Data (which I referenced above), we see one of the huge problems here (bolding added):

When the publicly available data that was archived in 2010 is compared with the data supplied by NASA in 2012, there is a clear difference between the two. The GISS has been retroactively changing past data to make it appear that the planet is warming, especially after the year 1950. In reality, the original data shows that the planet has actually been getting colder throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Overall, 10 different statistical methods have been used to change the climate’s trajectory from cooling to warming.

It’s easy to find a trend when you torture the data to put one in. Quoting the source paper this article is based upon (bolding added):

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever  – despite current claims of record setting warming.

Real Climate Science has an ongoing series of posts showing dramatic instances where temperature records are being altered, with 100% of the alterations amplifying – or outright creating – warming trends. Here’s a specific article from that site, and more on altered data. NOAA has also been caught outright tweaking data. And they’re not even hiding it. (And now we’re starting to learn that older data isn’t trustworthy.)

Now let me be calm; data sometimes does need to be “cleaned up”. In the course of my own career I’ve needed to do that on occasion – sometimes data does need adjustment. But in this case, I find three things being outright suspicious:

  1. That, according to my recollection of reading articles about these adjustments, the original data sets are being over-written in some cases. This is a fundamental no-no. That it is done once could be accidental; that it is, apparently, being done multiple times has to be intentional.
  2. All of the adjustments go only one way. That defies even a basic knowledge of how things work on a statistical level – by just randomness, some adjustments should go the other way.
  3. To my knowledge there has been no rigorous, let alone replicated, accounting for how the data was adjusted and why it was necessary to do so.

I do know this: If I had ever overwritten the original data, or had adjustments or clean-ups I could not explain to people wanting to confirm my results based on my notes, or tried to use data that was questionable in accuracy, my work would have immediately been deemed worthless by my colleagues. For “climate science”, however, what would be unacceptable anywhere else is standard practice.


A theory needs to be testable, and failing the test, is falsified. One of the most famous examples of this was Einstein’s General Relativity which predicts that a gravity field can bend light. Known as gravitational lensing, the theory was tested in a famous experiment. Had the test failed, General Relativity would have had to – at best – undergone significant revision… if not been outright proven wrong. In other words, a theory must say “If this theory is true, these predictions must be testable” – whether true or false. So consider a prediction by one of the leaders of the Warmist movement, Dr. James Hansen:

Since then we’ve had a continued expansion of fossil fuel use, as in his most alarmist scenario. Given that amount of CO2 emissions, his prediction was that by now, temperatures would have gone up by five degrees Fahrenheit, or about 3°C.

Obviously, nothing like that has happened. Despite the fact that millions of folks believed his prediction in 1988 and continue to listen to him today, the UAH MSU satellite data says that since 1988 it’s warmed by … well … about a third of a degree. Not three degrees. A third of a degree. He was wrong by an order of magnitude. So obviously, he desperately needs an excuse for this colossal failure.

When you’re off by a factor of ten it’s time for a person interested in the truth to step back and say “You know, maybe I’m wrong.”

Predictions are for worse hurricanes. Wrong. Worse tornadoes. Wrong. The Arizona and California droughts that are the “new normal”? Wrong and wrong. Melting ice caps? Wrong. Polar bears going extinct? Wrong. Hot spot in the upper atmosphere (a critical element central to all models)? Wrong. Glaciers retreating everywhere? Wrong.

So, basically, “climate change” predicts that it will be – simultaneously – warmer, colder, wetter, drier, stormier, and calmer. How can it be falsified? And speaking of falsification, take a look at this graph:

The models, considered the unquestionable Holy Writ, differ from actual temperatures by a confidence interval of more than 95%, which is a standard scientific term for “We’re pretty sure they’re different”. This brings to mind a quote by Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winning physicist:

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

The theory (models) do not agree with the experiments (real-world measurements). They’re wrong. Now, of course, comes the shift to say that falsifiability – a fundamental aspect of the scientific method – doesn’t need to be applied here. WHAM! BS meter pegs out again.

And one more thing about falsifiability is the name changing. It was “global warming”, but then it became “climate change” when it became clear there was a years-long hiatus in warming. Now it’s shifting to “climate instability” or “climate extremes”. If you need to keep changing the name of what you’re screaming about, well… that’s marketing, not science.


Just look at this ice core data showing temperatures were warmer than today:

So it was warmer during the Roman period; was it the SUVs “Roman” around the world? Before that, during the Minoan civilization, it was warmer still – it must have been the Atlantean coal plants. When the changes claimed match, or are exceeded by, natural variations in the past in both range and rate, any changes being seen now cannot be differentiated from nature.

CO2 levels in earth’s past were far, far higher than they are now – and life thrived. If CO2 is going to be the “End of life on earth!!!!!!!!” how did plants get exposed to that higher level to handle it in the first place?

(More shameless capitalism: Image links to a mug!)

Two videos, one by Greenpeace’s founder Patrick Moore and one by Bill Whittle, bring up difficult questions that Warmists simply cannot answer without pretzel logic (though they try). And here’s a BBC video, The Great Global Warming Swindle. From that video, pay particular attention to the Danish examination of temperatures vs. sunspots (discussion starting at 30:39; amazing graph at 33:37); Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottowa, said – upon seeing this correlation between cosmic rays hitting the earth and temperature records:

I’ve never seen such vastly different records coming together to show, really, what was happening over that long period of time”.

For me it’s stark: two completely disparate data sets matching up so well, over 500 million years… not a coincidence.

Incidentally, it was the Warmists’ outright dismissal that variations in the sun’s output could affect climate that first set off my That’s weird… response and attention-paying to the topic. Given that the radiative conduction of heat is a function of temperature to the fourth power - i.e., T4, I could not believe the glib dismissal, or assurances of “that’s been taken into account”. (For example, the sun’s surface temperature is roughly 5500 Kelvin. A hike of just 50 degrees C could result in a 3.7% increase in temperature transfer to the earth. A 100 degree change in the sun’s temperature… and remember, the sun is a seething, dynamic tempest… leads to a potential 7.5% change in radiation heat transfer.)


The original “97% of climate scientists agree… blah blah blah” sound bite was – aside, do you also find it funny how Leftists always argue on the basis of sound bites – boiled down, based on 77 of 79 papers deemed worthy by the author of the paper making the claim:

In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

A later paper by John Cook down in Australia revealed other flaws in this statistic (bolding added):

In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilĂ  — 97 percent!

Additionally, several scientists whose work Cook cited stated that their results had been misrepresented. His paper was accused of being fraudulent… and he took no action (bolding added, link in original):

Jose Duarte, expert in Social Psychology, Scientific Validity, and Research Methods, has actually called the Cook paper “multiply fraudulent”, and, as far as I know, Cook has taken no action to challenge the claim. This, as much as anything else, shows just what a con trick the whole business was. How many scientists, after all, would accept being called fraudulent without taking action?

Like the Michael Mann case, above… someone calls you a fraud, and you don’t do everything to counter that attack on your integrity? BS meter peg-out. Another great takedown of Cook’s paper is here: The 97% Cook Consensus – when will Environ Res Letters retract it?.

There is no such thing as consensus in science. Things get overturned all the time, for example the consensus on salt and fat in our diets; in the latter case, the push to demonize fat was bought and paid for. (And if we can’t understand the human body, we definitely can’t understand the entire planet.) Remember continental drift, and how the originator of that was derided:

Utter, damned rot!” said the president of the prestigious American Philosophical Society.

If we are to believe [this] hypothesis, we must forget everything we have learned in the last 70 years and start all over again,” said another American scientist.

Anyone who “valued his reputation for scientific sanity” would never dare support such a theory, said a British geologist.

It is the pride, the hubris, that things are known to within a gnat’s ass without a scintilla of doubt or wondering “Have I missed something?” that… WHAM! pegged out my BS meter again.


Consider the comedy of shoreline-resort-developing, yacht-renting Warmist Leonardo DiCaprio flying commercial – likely because he couldn’t find a private jet as they’d already been booked. Look at Warmists selecting luxurious locations for conferences, with people flying in on private jets – lots of private jets. Now, of course, we find out that Al Gore, who can be accused of fabricating the crisis for personal profit, has a home that uses electricity by the metric f*ckton. They even admit their hypocrisy.

I’ll quote (from memory) the Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds:

I’ll believe it’s a crisis when those who claim it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis.”

It’s about virtue signaling, nothing more.


A recent paper points to temperature being a function of atmospheric temperature and solar irradiance. Another paper suggests changes and shifts in earth’s orbit affect the climate, as does cosmic radiation as modulated by the sun’s activity as noted above. And there are surely other things I’ve missed.

With all these peer-reviewed papers highlighting other potential factors to why earth’s climate shifts, the obsession with man-produced CO2 to the exclusion of everything else on this cycles-within-cycles-within-cycles planet and solar system is very suspicious. Why? The above are independent of humanity, leading to...


So what’s it really about? What are most things about on this scale? Money:

Climate change alarmism has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year industry – which guarantees it is far safer and more fashionable to pretend a 97% consensus exists, than to embrace honesty and have one’s global warming or renewable energy funding go dry.

Entire academic departments, whole think tanks and research organizations, not to mention “carbon sequestration/offset” industries have been formed based on this. That’s a lot of lobbying pull to continue the flow of money – and all gone if CO2 is not the controlling knob. There’s an axiom in research:

Results of research will be biased towards those that continue the flow of grant money.

After all, how does marketing for any product or service work? Create a demand, very often through the creation of a perceived crisis, and then fill it. What you think was really behind Al Gore’s book and movie… we’re talking multi-millions.

It’s also about ideology: Socialism. To save the planet we’ll need to give up private property. We’ll need to redistribute wealth. It would require a categorical reduction in human civilization and lifestyle. And they openly state they want to leverage the crisis to shift to Marxism:

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

There’s a reason today’s environmentalist whackos are nicknamed “watermelons” – green outside, red inside. H.L. Mencken said it very well:

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

And they do intend to rule; and while we eke out a living on sustainable algae cakes, they will sup on dainties and live in luxury. All to save the planet from the crisis they fabricated.


A great article is Dear Global Warming Denier, another is Why I'm a Global Warming Skeptic. A fantastic series of articles here, The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time. And Climate Depot, WattsUpWithThat, and Real Climate Science are all daily must-reads. Got any others? Leave them in the comments.

L’Nitzakhon! (To victory!)

nitzakhon (at)