Why We Must Push Back Against “Climate Change” Hysteria

The other day I filmed a short video catalogued in my website archive (semperluxmundi.org) under “A Culture of Slanders and Slurs”.  The library of about two dozen videos now addresses topics related to religious faith in a straightforward manner: no virtue-signaling allowed.  I thought it was time in this particular series to call out the unscrupulous among us who abuse language in such a way as to sequester defenders of certain views from consideration as human beings.  Of course, “racist” is now such a slur, and I am about to dedicate another video to the word “Nazi”.  “Climate-change denier” has never really caught on, thanks to being quite unwieldy—but the notion behind the phrase is the same: those who “deny” climate change deserve whatever mistreatment comes their way.  Not only must we not give them a hearing; we should entertain giving them jail time, or maybe shooting them like dogs.

I placed the word “deny” in quotations above because denial isn’t even what’s properly at issue (any more than is “climate change” per se; the mandatory article of faith is really that global climate is rapidly, radically changing due to manmade influences).  My talk—and you can do just so much in fifteen minutes, alas—began by stressing that, as a lifelong enemy of the automobile and of our congested urban environments, I have left considerably lighter carbon footprints behind me than most people.  I then spent several minutes emphasizing that mere measurement of relevant climatic data is an enormously complex task.  Readings must be obtained at uniform geographical and chronological intervals from around the world, a requirement which undermines confident conclusions at our point in history right out of the gate.  Perceived changes in weather during one human lifetime qualify as evidence neither by the spatial nor the temporal standard; for none of us spends an hour per month at a hundred locations equally spaced around Earth’s sphere, and none of us lives the many centuries necessary to uncover a meaningful pattern.

This doesn’t make me a “denier”; it makes me a voice of restraint before those who insist upon rushing to unjustified conclusions.  I wish I’d had time to handle more adequately the dubious motives of many at the “movement’s” fore who busy themselves stirring the rush into a stampede.  Peter Helmes has often offered analyses of that caliber through his site, Die Deutsche Konservativen. One of his posts a couple of weeks ago noted that Greta Thunberg’s father has grown rather wealthy off of two concerns dedicated to marketing his eerily wooden and humorless “Green Joan of Arc” daughter; and the post concludes, all in boldface, Um es nochmals klar zu sagen: Dahinter stehen keine Idealisten, sondern knallharte Großkapitalisten. Wo deren Interesse liegt, dürfte jedem normal denkenden Menschen klar sein. Translation: “To say it plainly, there are no idealists standing behind [climate change hysteria], but hard-boiled capitalist tycoons.  Every competently thoughtful person should be clear about where the interests of such types lie.”

When I still possessed a small soapbox in academe from which to prod freshmen, I tended to proceed very cautiously into the realms of chemistry and atmospheric science.  Those weren’t my field.  Some of my students could have diagrammed complex molecules while I was still trying to figure out how carbon dioxide can poison plants.  (Can it?  An intrepid investigator probing a volcanic lake on the History Channel made that claim within my hearing… but the minute rise in global CO2 seems to be feeding plants handsomely in locations that aren’t fuming with sulfur.)  Behind my rostrum, then, I always contented myself with making a few very basic, even “dummy” observations.  1) Carbon dioxide is less than one half of one hundredth of one percent of the earth’s atmosphere; it’s hard to see how fluctuations in thousandths of a percentage point spell Armageddon.  2) Of that tiny amount, only about two percent arises from manmade sources.  3) Of those manmade sources, India and China are by far the most prolific contributors—and neither of those nations is in the least interested in curbing its industrial growth.

If the West, and the U.S. in particular, were to fragment its industrial/technological foundation for the very doubtful purpose of reducing CO2 emissions by .00003%, the following disastrous environmental consequence would therefore follow.  The “People’s Republic” of China would have a path free and clear to dominate utterly the world’s economy, and hence to determine in large measure the social and political organization of every individual society. In other words, the single greatest environmental poisoner in our planet’s history (with the possible exception of the post-Chernobyl Soviet Union) would be calling all the tunes globally.

Is this what we want?  Is this what any person sincerely concerned about life on Earth would want?  For several decades, we have seen (if we have eyes to see) how much the Chinese oligarchy cares about its own citizens.  I’ve noticed in reading the testimonies of Chinese citizens who speak out too daringly and are “invited for a cup of tea” at police headquarters that practically all detainees, when they know they’re not going home for several weeks, worry about not having their meds.  Everyone in urban China is on meds!  That’s because the air is poison to breathe.  (Remember a few years back when a massive effort was made to cleanse to skies temporarily over Beijing for the opening Olympic ceremony?)  We’re getting a refresher course right now, if we need one, on just how highly the PRC elite value the lives of ordinary people.  To the Party’s chosen few, handling the Coronavirus is primarily an exercise in public-relations damage control.  If the disease isn’t diagnosed, then ensuing death cannot be attributed to it… and only about one patient in ten was being tested for infection even in the early days of the outbreak, before resources gave out.

These are the people to whom we will surrender the planet’s health, should we throttle all fossil-fuel consumption, refuse to build nuclear power plants, and wait for the wind to turn blades on the high plains.  This is the “green” plan to save us all!

I also used to stress to my students, as I stress in the video and continue to underscore, that pointing all solutions in the direction of a more intrusive government smells very, very fishy.  It is especially so inasmuch as big government created most of the problem, to begin with.  After World War II, our federal government, favoring certain players in the transportation sector over others, pumped millions into producing a national car- and airline-dependency among us while leaving our substantial railways to languish.  (Trains move loads about fifteen times more cost-effectively, by the way, than trucks… but the Teamsters’ Union had a louder voice.)  On a local level, municipalities of the Fifties rigorously began to zone out your corner drugstore, your handy barber shop, your neighborhood school and pediatrician—which, of course, created real estate and building booms as well as forcing Middle America to invest heavily in cars, in gas and oil, in insurance, and so forth.  Meanwhile, lawyers, lawsuits, regulations, and inspectors converged upon Plainville, USA, the way vultures compete for a carcass.  Federal bureaucracies like OSHA hounded small-business owners even after they had duly shifted their shingle from Laurel Lane to Main Street.  Many of these hard-working people surrendered, dissolving their business and entering the daily rush-hour file of traffic to get to a corporation’s megalopolitan plant or office tower.

If we simply eradicated these zoning restrictions and micro-managing bureaucracies, we would preserve immense amounts of oil, reduce incalculable volumes of traffic-related stress and injury, almost nullify the crime endemic to periodically emptied neighborhoods, foster an environment where citizens were much happier thanks to a much more human level of contact with each other… but no.  No.  More government, more regimentation—that’s worked so well for us in the past! Let’s just amp it up.

Meanwhile, merely for raising your hand and daring to ask a question about any aspect of the “climate change agenda”, you make yourself a target for doxing, canceling, incarcerating… you’re a public spittoon.  This is your reward for suggesting that, if the emperor’s new clothes are invisible, maybe it’s because they don’t exist rather than because you’re blind.  This is our current level of insanity.  This is how well we’ve been groomed for rule by the idiot-producing ideologues controlling our classrooms, and by marketplace and political despots ranging from George Soros to Xi Jinping (who both turn out to be financing much of what happens in our classrooms).

Indeed, my ultimate question of our “social conscience” warriors—far down the list, and not an item that I would ask in a townhall meeting—nags at me more than any uncertainty I have about science.  How many of these self-declared moral beacons, I should like to know, who lead the chanting chorus of, “Climate-change denier!” as the mob gathers, are being remunerated rather directly by Soros, Xi, Robert Fink, or the Rothschilds’ Bank of England?  Conspiracy theory?  Why, hell yes, it’s conspiracy theory!  Have you not yet awakened to the fact that all truth in these “post-fact” times is suffocating under the bedsheets of conspiracy-theory quarantine?

“Most Scientists” Are “Laughing” at Our Unsecured Power Grid—But Our Climate Panics Them

IMG_0377

The photo above represents your alternative source of light at night after an Electro-Magnetic Pulse takes down the power grid.  The same source will also provide all of your evening’s externally generated heat, unless you have a fireplace and a cord of wood.  And if you need to contact someone long-distance… well, why not try shouting at the Moon?  The chances of getting an answer back from her are about equal to those of reaching your loved ones across the continent.

But wait, I forgot: we don’t need to worry!  The mainstream media, having heard from someone or other (I can’t imagine whom: their sources are usually named “Anonymous”) that President Trump issued an executive order to secure the power grid in March of this year, have devoted themselves to deriding the threat’s reality.  If Trump wants it… he ain’t gonna get it; if he says it’s deadly… let’s invite it to a party!

Hence the article, “Is It Lights Out for Trump’s EMP Push?” in Politico by one Sarah Cammarata.   Tommy Waller urged the audience of Frank Gaffney’s Secure Freedom Radio podcast (Nov. 22) to track down this piece and read it.  We should alert ourselves, he advised, to the degree of arrogance and contempt with which a genuinely terrifying and imminent threat to our survival—as opposed, say, to rising sea levels—is greeted by Democrat representatives and their media lackeys (what one might call the Traitor/Useful Idiot Complex).

To arrogance and contempt, Mr. Waller might have added “early adolescent command of the language and pre-adolescent analytical abilities”.  Those are further qualities, at any rate, which Ms. Cammarata brings to the discussion.  The notion of an “EMP push” in the title is already a head-scratcher.  Donald Trump hasn’t been “pushing” for an EMP: he has been trying to secure our national grid against a major EMP’s apocalyptic effects.  Cammarata, however, appears to have her attention focused on something more like high-fiving: and hence she communicates in a kind of kid’s shorthand (as when a child says “beeper” for “smoke-detector”).  One of her opening sentences reads, “On Sept. 13, controversial physicist, self-declared climate skeptic and backer of the fight against EMPs William Happer left the White House.”  I suspect that neither Happer nor anyone else with a degree in the sciences would describe himself as a “climate skeptic”… or are we to suppose that he doubts the existence of climate?  Controversial physicist?  Is that a new variety of physics—or does Ms. Cammarata’s set simply disagree (having mustered the entirety of their gray matter to produce a thumbs-down) with his belief that plants actually like carbon dioxide?  The fight against EMP’s?  Again, one doesn’t fight an EMP: that’s rather the whole point, Ms. Cammarata.  You can’t fight them.  They occur naturally, and a major solar-pulse event appears to be overdue by about half a century.  You and your chattering legions may conclude over cocktails that you can fight “climate”—but a massive ion storm, at least, is irresistible.  What you do, or what one does (or what a functional adult would do), is protect the electric grid from utter incineration.

But, no, let’s denominate all the significant factors with the same precision as is used in labeling Bill Nye “the science guy”… and then let’s whoop and holler because “we won” and “they lost”.

I know that Thursday is Thanksgiving.  I know that I, for one, will find great joy and gratitude in my heart late Wednesday night if my son’s plane lands safely, despite the machinations of certain unscreened intruders for whose ease Ms. Cammarata’s clique has already dissolved our border security.  The truth is that featherbrains and subversives have transformed our national celebrations of solidarity, thanksgiving, and respite from routine anxiety into the most fearful times on our calendar; for it is precisely at these times, when parents, siblings, and children are en route to annual reunions, that diabolical minds would most like to spring a calamitous trap upon us…..

As I sat pecking those last words on my iPad, a “news flash”—courtesy of our Big Brotherly link to reality, Twitter (that is, our link to Big Brotherly reality)—informed me that two people had been shot in an incident at a North Carolina medical center.  Stop the presses!  The propaganda machine never misses a chance to inform us of more gun violence, as if this were almost as great a menace to our safety as… climate change!

Yet in the matter of a legitimate threat whose eventual realization is as sure as sunrise, we are to smirk and cherry-pick stray facts as springboards for jokes.  “Warnings about electromagnetic pulse attacks have long inspired eye-rolls or outright guffaws among national security experts, but advocates of the issue briefly found a home on Trump’s National Security Council….”  The joke’s the news, you see, in the Cammarata school of journalism.  No names, just “eye-rolls” and “experts”.  And yes, on any given Thanksgiving or Christmas, your son or daughter’s plane is more likely to plunge to earth because of a terrorist bomb than because of an epochal solar flare… so let’s all have a good holiday laugh as we roll the dice along with our eyes.  If we lose, just about everybody dies… but the odds of winning seem really good.  Today.

Just about everybody, yes.  Peter Pry’s commission (described by Cammarata as “now-disbanded”, as if its members had been sent packing in disgrace) reproduced a projection of federal agencies that ninety percent of the continental US’s population would die within a year if the national grid went down.  About all we ever needed to do (and this has been known for years) in order to insulate ourselves from major consequences is enclose our generators in Faraday cages, an incredibly cheap and quick fix to neutralize such a devastating blow.  (“Some experts predict [the hardening measures] could cost billions of dollars,” notes Cammarata, eyes rolling, with her typical accuracy and precision—and displaying the concern for frugality that she brings, I’m sure, to her assessment of the Green New Deal).  Instead, we shall stay just as we are until a major storm of solar flares produces something like the 1859 Carrington Event (a recurrence of which, as I’ve indicated, is overdue).  Then our lights will go out, our heating and cooling systems will be kaput, aircraft will fall from the sky, cars with computerized systems will refuse to run, gas will not pump, refrigerated food will thaw, credit cards won’t work, any water not cranked up from a well (i.e., all water that once flowed from urban and suburban faucets) will dry up, hospitals will offer no assistance, emergency responders will be stalled and overwhelmed, rioting and panic will erupt… but no, it hasn’t happened yet, so why should it happen tomorrow?

Pardon me if I now reproduce a full paragraph from Politico which captures like no other the utter frivolity of the discussion:

A consensus among most in the scientific community is that EMP attacks are nothing to worry about and even a laughable subject. But a smaller group of scientists has argued that the federal budget should make a priority of spending for preparing for EMPs — as do some political figures, such as Cruz, who reject the much greater scientific consensus about the perils of human-driven climate change.

Sigh.  For once and for all, scientific truth is not determined by majority vote—not even a majority formed of scientists.  On issues as complex as the behavior of Earth’s magnetosphere—or of its climate, by the way—an endocrinologist’s or entomologist’s verdict carries no more weight than a trucker’s or shoemaker’s.  Indeed, even within relevant fields, experts in one area must cross-reference their understanding with that of experts in other areas.  “Science” does not qualify as a specialization of any sort.  “Most scientists” laughed at Watson and Crick when they first presented research that would lead them to discover the double helix of DNA.  In general, laughing is not a scientific response.  Yet here we find the jolly “most scientists” trope so favored by exponents of manmade climate change trotted out to dispose of EMP concerns; and, indeed, Cammarata explicitly nudges in the idiotic “climate-change denier” slur (nobody denies that climates change, by the way) to tar the Cassandras of the insecure grid.  She well knows, too, that names like “Cruz” (“Carson” and “Gingrich” were introduced earlier into the rogues’ gallery) will further prejudice Politico’s readership against viewing the crisis as serious.  So the argument amounts to this: “We know that the Trump phalanx is always wrong about everything; we see them here clamoring for billions of our money; most scientists disagree with them, and they fail to show similar anxiety over Global Warming, regarding which most scientists are again on the other side; ergo, laugh away at them—and let’s have some contempt in that laughter!”

The single advocate of the “most scientists” position named by Cammarata is “Arthur House, the former chairman of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority”—and House, indeed, doesn’t criticize the science behind EMP anxiety; he only emphasizes that utility companies are unlikely to foot the bill for securing the grid if left to make their own decision.  This is precisely the self-interested motive for reprehensible inaction which Peter Pry repeatedly underscores, and which is documented exhaustively at SecureTheGrid.com.  Need I add that many of our “most scientists” have been employed at one time or another by these highly compromised private-sector quasi-monopolies?  In other words, in the process of ridiculing the threat, Ms. Cammarata has exposed to us the primary reason for why we should mistrust the scoffers.

The article’s most appalling moment comes about halfway through.  Having been assured for several hundred words that “most scientists” consider the probable effect of an EMP on our grid no worse than the aftermath of a hurricane (I actually added that tidbit to Cammarata’s detail-starved ramble from other sources), we’re now in for a final, clinching argument.  Our friend Mr. House, who appears to wear a second hat as a security expert, delivers the following insight: “The problem is it’s such a blunt instrument.  An EMP just wreaks havoc without much precision.  In that way, it’s like an unsmart bomb.”  Umm… did you get that?  We have nothing to fear because… because an EMP attack would kill virtually all of us.   It thus “invites massive retaliation” on the part of the Dr. Strangelove crew surviving in bunkers, concludes our “expert”… as if any of our land-based nukes would remain capable of launch, or as if Kim Jong Un or his handler, Xi Jinping, would give a damn if a few millions of rabble were smoked.  Sleep tight!

If House’s confidence that an adversary would decline to murder three hundred million of us is the article’s most appalling moment, its most puzzling feature to me is the final several paragraphs that seem to ramrod in the names and protests of numerous EMP-worriers.  I confess that on my first perusal of the piece, my iPhone buried its concluding words under such a mountain of advertisements that I failed to notice them.  The discussion appeared to have ended.  Later I found that, incoherently, the advocates for the contrary position came trickling in, their voices already drowned under a steady din of laughter from the scientific (but unnamed) multitude.  Puzzling, yes: what does Sarah Cammarata make of the overwhelming authority (if underwhelming numbers) behind her opposition?  Why smuggle this section in almost as a postscript?  Is she in fact somewhat persuaded of the risible view, but anxious about becoming a laughing-stock herself?  Is it so very painful to admit that perhaps Donald Trump did one thing right?

I wish I were making up all the incoherence and puerility that besets the Cammarata piece at every turn.  Alternatively, I most sincerely wish that I took more comfort in the assurances of unnamed “experts”.  I wish I could understand why the high-balled estimate of cost for neutralizing this low-balled menace to humanity is just too much, yet the sacrifice of our First World economy to ensure that time-shares in Florida don’t go under the waves is a good swap.  I wish I hadn’t just finished reading Diana West’s American Betrayal—that I wasn’t so convinced, both through reading and through personal experience, that our government, our education system, our news media, and even our clergy were riddled with people devoted to our nation’s collapse, if not actively in the pay of its mortal enemies.  I almost wish that I could coast insouciantly through my evenings awash in Daiquiris and through my days surrounded by other texting-and-chirping idiots like me. As Sophocles’ Teiresias laments, “What a fearful thing is thought when thinking brings no advantage!”

On my own (that is, without the aid of giggly “informants” like Cammarata), I’ve tried to understand the other side of the issue. I keep dredging up versions of House’s insane cocksureness just above: assessments that an atmospheric detonation adequate to take down the national power grid would imply the ongoing presence of full-blown thermonuclear warfare, and would further imply… what? That “their” destruction would be mutually assured in ours? That the consequences of “their” aggression would almost certainly carry over into “their” terrain? Again, if “they” are Xi Jinping and his genocidal Caligulas—or, for that matter, if “they” are merely the Iranian mullahs eager to be transported to the Gardens of Paradise—how is such chessboard strategizing a comfort? And how do we actually know who “they” are before the lights go out… and why does all such reassurance, without any exception that I have so far found, ignore the eventual certainly of a purely natural EMP of major proportions?

Because it’s well worth adding that at no point does Cammarata register the possibility of a catastrophic EMP’s occurring quite naturally: she wears the tribal feathers quite prominently in that regard.  Yet such stupefying negligence should make our lack of preparation exponentially more alarming (assuming that our “beloved enemies” would commit only tactical slaughter, not genocide).  We have no viable plan on the drawing board, either, for averting a large asteroid on a collision course with Earth… and I don’t think I’m far wrong in supposing that a meteoric event could produce an EMP event—that a Tunguska-level vaporization of a massive rock in the upper atmosphere could black out an entire continent today.

But “most scientists” are unconcerned, because no catastrophe happened yesterday and, probably, none will happen tomorrow.  Now, death by… whatever… from “climate change” in a dozen years (by drowning? by overheating? by rioting? I never understood exactly what—and it changes) … yeah, we hear that “most scientists” are down for the Race to Save the Climate.  Of course, “most scientists” need grant money from our highly politicized federal agencies.

Meanwhile, the Russians and the Chinese have long since secured their grids, though money is much tighter in both economies than in ours—and they don’t seem to be spending a penny on keeping sea water off the beaches. Why is that, do you suppose? Guess they just don’t have any “scientists”.

Climates Change, But Not the Wicked Tilt of the Human Heart

I’ve written about “climate change” before… but my objections seem to require reiteration every time the subject comes up.  So…

Climates change.  It’s what they do.  The severity of this winter compared to last winter or even this decade’s summers compared to last decade’s is not climate study.  Data must cover centuries for conclusions to have value.  We have no such data: we have computer software that creates various models.

“Climate change” is an academic industry.  In the current political climate, you don’t get grants by discovering that our climate’s vagaries are staying within the range of normal deviation (any more than you get grants for concluding that maleness is not toxic or that gender is biological).  The academy is grinding out propaganda because professors are busily crafting careers for themselves.  Look, if Shell Oil or BP can fund a study showing that gasoline tastes great on cornflakes and builds strong bones, then the Nanny State/Ivory Tower/Turbine & Solar Conglomerate can operate a boondoggle from their side of the street.

Carbon dioxide is less than half of one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere.  Its abundance appears to have ticked up infinitesimally in recent years—actually fueling a growth in global vegetation, by the way.  With more vegetation comes more rain—and let’s add more heat just for the exercise, which brings yet more rain.  Good.  Now we have taken a small step toward replenishing our catastrophically dwindling groundwater supply.  Twenty years ago, that concern was among the top five that preoccupied earth scientists alarmed over our lifestyle’s sustainability.  I haven’t heard a peep about the levels of continental water tables for years, even though human beings die a lot faster from water deprivation than from having their Myrtle Beach time-share washed under.  Odd, that silence.

And as for scientists… no cardiologist, or phoneticist, or archaeologist, knows any more about climate than a truck-driver—and meteorologists are themselves not necessarily qualified to air out an opinion on climate.  I grow so very weary of the remark, “We should trust the experts”!  We must first identify the “experts”, which most of us have not done; and then we must ask ourselves what kind of game the less conscientious of them (for being an “expert” does not inoculate one against moral depravity) might be playing with our future.  Neils Bohr, Werner von Braun, and Philipp Bouhler were all expert in their field in the Thirties and Forties.  How did common humanity make out under their watchful eye?

Wind and solar power are neither clean, cheap, nor sustainable.  The rare-earth elements required in their assembly are ghastly contaminants for those who must mine them, their promotion is perhaps the great unreported scandal in the new century’s already long history of corporate rip-offs, and their hardware functions—not forever—but for two or three decades before needing replacement.  They would also claim almost every inch of free space around us to have even the remotest chance of replacing fossil fuels.  Read Paul Driessen on the subject: he’s an expert (though the Oracle of Apollo at Wikipedia is pleased to call him a “lobbyist” because he opposes the academic/statist complex).

Nullifying our conventional energy resources as we pay out billions to Third World nations and also allow China and India to continue belching pollutants into the atmosphere will save nobody—but it will surely tighten the noose around the necks of Americans preferentially.  Is that the objective: mass suicide?  Are the Paris Accords the third and final great act of Jonestown and Heaven’s Gate—is that how we achieve escape velocity into the next life?  Do most of you understand that such is the choice to which you are being urged by your “leaders” and “experts”?

Now, a new idea: why not spend our time and wealth on a solution which would actually alleviate the problem?  What about creating a series of floating cities?  The level of the world’s oceans would be a matter of virtual indifference to their residents.  Such island-states could control intrusions much more easily that landbound metropolises, and would hence be much safer from crime.  They could evade major storms and so escape the cost incurred when devastating hurricanes make landfall.  They could supply many of their essential needs directly from the sea (probably even tapping into wave and current somehow to generate electricity).  Most significantly for those who truly care about world peace and prosperity, they could reduce the risk of global conflict almost to zero; for nuclear assault on targets so widely dispersed would mean death to the assailant as well as the target.  The highly effective dissuading factors behind Mutually Assured Destruction would be revived.  Most of the world does not share the Green Movement’s craving for a propitiatory mass suicide.

The blueprints for such cities are already on the drawing board.  Why has the political Left no interest in solutions that actually hold promise of working?  Why is the response of its adherents always some version of, “No, no, no!  I’m not listening!  I’ve stopped my ears!  Nah-nah-nah!  Not listening, not listening!”

Does it not strike you that people who so resist open discussion and consideration of alternatives may be a) mentally unstable or b) working an angle too sinister to make known publicly?  Will you please weigh these matters seriously?  Please?

Does the New Polar Express Make a Stop at Auschwitz?

In some quarters, my most recent comments—concerning the importance of focusing on duty at Christmas time rather than roasting chestnuts in an open fire—were perceived as an ill-humored burst of “survivalist” extremism, or maybe just a “Scrooge attack”.  Allow me to clarify my case (which, I must warn, may simply enhance the Scrooge effect).

The substantive side of my argument is this: that we who care about the realm of human spirituality should give a sense of urgency to our religious holidays, not party ourselves into a state yet more oblivious than usual.  To dramatize the point, I offer for your examination a coin of two sides.  On one is a fraudulent disaster’s chimaeric, entirely imaginary leer:  climate change.  On the other is the blank surface of a calamity not only genuine in its contours, but utterly inevitable in some form: an Electro-Magnetic Pulse’s incineration of unprotected power grids.  When considered together, the sides of this Janus Dime show us just what a grim future we’re buying—just what a betrayal of our humanitarian culture we’re being sold.  The fantasy’s portrait, riveting but a mere daydream, distracts us; the blank surface easily escapes notice, especially when the other side’s lurid entertainment induces eyes to wander.

Climate change: I have objected for years, including many moments during my final semesters in the classroom, that the “98 percent of scientists” canard is a patent absurdity.  An entomologist is a scientist; so is an anatomist, and so is a speech pathologist.  The only science of any relevance in this plebiscite would be climatology—even meteorology would rest somewhat on the periphery of competence.  Now, responsible climatologists would refuse to reach any verdict based on data covering less than a century; yet we are constantly exhorted, on the Weather Channel and elsewhere, to heed the “climate warning” in today’s rate of tornadoes or late freezes or wildfires versus the statistics from ten years ago.  Those of us who protest, “Wait a minute,” are instantly shouted down—even, and especially, in academic settings—and are thereafter maligned with rabble-rousing phrases like “climate fascist”.

What’s going on here?  Don’t pretend that you see nothing amiss.

Carbon dioxide composes somewhere between .037 and .042 percent of the earth’s atmosphere.  A probable mild increase in CO2 over recent years has stimulated a robust growth in terrestrial vegetation—which means that water is not only being conserved at higher levels in the atmosphere (i.e., that humidity is greater) but also that vast amounts of it are being stored in plants.  Yet alarmist “climate change” models simply channel the melt from polar icecaps (which, perversely, do not seem to be melting at the projected rates) straight into Earth’s oceans.

Why are “scientists” creating such slipshod models?  What’s going on?

The typical West Coast American (God help us) appears to believe that a sustained rise in temperature produces terrain like the Mojave Desert or Death Valley.  In fact, since higher temperatures put more moisture in the atmosphere, tropical rainforest is the more likely result.  Sometimes geology interferes.  Our own desert regions, and those around the world like the Sahara, were once ocean bottom that was lifted above sea level.  The increasing salinity of areas watered by such vast inland seas caused vegetation to die off around their margin, which in turn left more water in the atmosphere (the clouds that eternally drift through deserts while never brining rain) and induced further evaporation.  Eventually, only sand and salt flats remained.  Yet to call the Sahara typical of the super-heated tropics is to be unforgivably superficial and slapdash in one’s analysis.  (Speaking of superficial… an immense subterranean sea now appears to undergird much of North Africa, further demonstrating that we don’t know exactly where our water resources end up.)

Why are “scientists”, then, presuming to tell us that California’s wildfires are a window upon our common future if some One World Government doesn’t take control of our energy resources?

Why do said “scientists” not share with us the dirty little secrets about solar and wind power: that both have been linked to spiking cancer rates among those who mine the necessary Rare Earth Elements incorporated in their manufacture and even (in the case of windmills) among those who live near the completed dynamo; that both are fabulously expensive when analyzed start-to-finish; that neither is a reliable source of steady energy, since wind doesn’t always blow and sun doesn’t always shine; that both therefore require conventional back-up sources of energy; and that immense physical areas devoted to nothing else are needed to churn out effective energy levels from both (for, it turns out, windmill productivity plummets if rigs are placed close together)?

Why do “scientists” consider it beneath their whistle-blowing expertise to highlight the royal profit in tax breaks that energy companies are harvesting by collaborating in these boondoggles?

Why are “scientists” always promoting ever more big-brotherly political intrusion as the sole answer rather than endorsing more  insular, traditionalist, multi-functional, self-sustaining communities (where existence can be largely pedestrian)?

How many dogs do “scientists” have in this hunt—and what, exactly, is being hunted?

I’ve scarcely grazed the surface of an issue whose obvious and cynical marketing for public consumption is inextricably linked to a tongue-hanging lust for a highly centralized (read “totalitarian”) political machine.  Let us now flip the coin and contemplate how “scientists” and politicos respond to a looming extinction event not dramatized in one of Al Gore’s comic books.  And we find… a smooth, blank surface.

A solar storm of the severity of the 1859 Carrington Event is both inevitable and overdue.  It will happen; and when it does, we shall lose much more than telegraph communications (the only electrical system operative a century and a half ago).  Our lights will go out.  Our computers and cell phones won’t function.  Our cars, unless they are at least forty years old, will refuse to run—and even your classic ‘68 Mustang will need gas that can no longer be delivered or pumped.  Planes will instantly fall out of the sky.  The injured will bleed out because all emergency systems will be offline… and in any case, hospitals will have no electricity.  Your freezer will stand silent: your food will run out whenever you eat the last can of brown beans in your pantry or the last potato in your garden.

Absolute, utter, unspeakable, indescribable chaos.  And it will continue for months, because replacement generators are produced only in Germany, South Korea, and the PRC (our bosom pal)—not in the tariff-hostile, globalist U.S. of A.  Every informed estimate has nine out of ten of us dying within a year… which does not include the predations that might be inflicted upon us by cutthroat invaders.  For China and Russia, by the way, have secured their power grids.

I emphasize that this scenario does not require the malign activity of a terrorist: Mother Nature can bring it to pass all by herself.  But from a terrorist’s perspective, initiating an EMP turns out to be a rather low-level undertaking.  A small nuke exploded in the stratosphere from, say, one of North Korea’s two current orbiting satellites would do the trick.

Do you hear the outcry of those 98 of every hundred scientists?  I don’t, either.  And what alarm are the Democrats sounding when not riding jets to global conferences on climate change?  Where is the Republican rush to fill this breach in our essential defenses that no border wall can address?

We are told that the evil power companies have persuaded Congress to relax as they, behind the scenes, do nothing but pocket the money not spent on security.  Even if this were so, why does Congress accept such mendacity when dozens of its members will absolutely not be turned aside from their crusade to ban plastic straws and gendered pronouns?

Why would this intolerable situation be tolerated, unless… unless certain people in high places have found the option of lightening our population load by 90 percent to be not unattractive?

My intended “Christmas present” is a package which wraps these two responses together: the hysterical panic over an imminent catastrophe that cannot happen, and the utter indifference to one that hasn’t happened already only because the daily flip of our solar coin hasn’t landed on “tails”.

I know that most climate-change warriors are not evil conspirators: they’re kids who want to appear hip and engagé over a cup of Java at Starbuck’s or Barnes & Noble.  I don’t even suppose that many elected representatives who flog this tired nag have any real awareness of where she’s carrying us—they’re simply piling onto yet another opportunity to make government more intrusive in our lives (which, according to their philosophy, can only lead to happy destinations).

What I see behind all of them is the kind of mind that reasons thus: “Our species could travel the stars.  We could eliminate disease, and even death, with the help of Artificial Intelligence.  We could make war, and the risk of war, a bad dream in our cultural memory.  But we need more control!  We need ignorant masses of voters to settle us in the seat of power—and then we need a means, a pretext, both to suspend further elections and to thin out the volume of those masses.  Their collective activity is already consuming more resources than we can continually, reliably access… and their number just keeps growing!  They contribute nothing, they demand everything… and Mars appears to draw farther and farther away—not to mention Barnard’s Star.  We need to shed layers and layers of fat.  We need a purge.”

You can sing your Christmas carols on the train to Auschwitz if you like.  My preference for you—for us—would be this.  As you roast your chestnuts on an open fire, ask yourself where chestnuts come from, and how fire for heating and cooking may be made.  Could you harvest nuts, if you had to?  Could you build a fire?  God gave us Earth, and everything we need to survive is—or was once—within easy reach before us.  We need only fear for our parents, our children, and ourselves if we squeeze our lives neatly into train cars and trust in the engineer’s superior and benign planning.

Get off the train.  Collect some wood.  See what’s happening.  The “scientists” aren’t going to tell you.  They’re too busy trying to place another publication or win another grant.  Get off.  The manger has all you need.

Panning for Nuggets of Truth in the Fecal Stream of “News”

I have unanswered questions about the destruction, not just of the two iconic World Trade Towers, but also—and especially—about the curious collapse of WTT 7.  I’ve made no secret about that over the years.

I occasionally read with interest about unidentified aircraft or large hominids uncategorized by current science.  98 percent of UFO cases and Sasquatch sightings are probably hoaxes or misperceptions… but a small minority invites serious consideration and further research.

I know for a fact—I know with regard to a number of specific allegations—that the social conditions in the South immediately preceding the American Civil War are grossly and persistently misrepresented, not just in popular media, but even in most college classrooms.

To some people, each “intellectual apostasy” to which I’ve just admitted—and certainly all of them taken together—prove that I’m a crackpot.  No… they prove far more, and far worse.  A “9/11 truther” is a mere crackpot, a “conspiracy theorist”; a “believer” in UFO’s and Bigfoot should probably have his driver’s license and voter registration suspended; and anyone who would question that the South was a proto-Nazi operation, complete with wall-to-wall death camps called plantations, is a Fascist Holocaust-denier who needs to be on the FBI’s short list of dangerous lunatics.

All of this, mind you, because a) I don’t understand how a vast, squat building comes thumping to the ground story-by-story after an ember blows through a window; b) I know a man who witnessed the Phoenix Lights in 1997 and observed the same impossible maneuvers as did Governor Fife Symington himself; c) I’ve heard dozens of testimonies from people who have spent decades in the wilderness (including Canadian “survivorman” Les Stroud) concerning intelligent activity—sounds as well as sights—requiring immense strength and, sometimes, symbolic reasoning; and d) I pay attention to what old folks around me say and recognize rather than brush aside compelling material evidence that contradicts the proposition, “Every Southerner had slaves and beat them.”

In each particular case, I’m just trying to confront material fact and process it logically.  Even when I attempt to escape the academic/political environment and amuse myself with a sport like baseball, I appear to notice “too many” things.  I can prove that an art of hitting from a century ago has been lost in a cloud of cliquish, quasi-high-tech, hermetically insulated pedagogy whose gurus are making a mint of money and whose legions are pitiable old warhorses trying to hold a coaching job.  I’ve now published (self-published) two books on the subject; but, on rare occasions when anyone within the game acknowledges my presence, my evidence is ignored on the ground that I spent my career teaching literature—just as the honest woodsman who comes face to face with Bigfoot is assumed to have been drinking, to be mentally disturbed, or to mistake raccoons in the shadows for giants after fifty years of hiking experience.

I suppose it’s always been this way.  Why, the very idea that something as massive as our planet could not only be spinning, but also moving about the sun!  The very idea!  Of course, we’re supposed to have left those “Spanish Inquisition” days behind (and I confess to knowing less than nothing about the Inquisition, since my “knowledge” is based on popular assumption).  It’s really quite irritating how cocksure we are that “science” has lifted our vector well out of the incurious, group-think trajectory of old.  I haven’t added “climate change” to my list, since I’ve followed that game only from a high bleacher along a far sideline; but esteemed climatologist Patrick Michaels’ explanation to Mark Levin (on the latter’s October 21 broadcast) of the quid-pro-quo, research-grant-for-political-ammo racket sordidly motivating that entire “debate” (or “debate shutdown”) mirrors the pattern that I have observed so often elsewhere.  One side is declared—or declares itself—“science”; then the accumulation and analysis of solid evidence that characterizes true science is permanently terminated.  No, we no longer burn people at the stake.  We only torch reputations, incinerate alternative theories, and intimidate curious minds.

Does anything I’ve written above clearly designate me as an ideologue on one side or the other of the aisle?  Not to accept “climate change” the way a good Muslim accepts Muhammad as God’s prophet is to be a “climate-change denier”, and hence a racist Nazi.  Well, we already knew that I was of such a stripe as soon as I raised doubts about the South’s being one big slave camp.  But wait a minute: these wackos who claim to see little gray aliens in the sky and big hairy boogers in the forest are New Age, leftwing types—and my hesitancy to recite the official 9/11 catechism proves that I’m a communist operative!

If you will entertain for a moment the notion that I have no political axe to grind, then perhaps you will believe me when I say that the “reporting” on would-be bomber Cesar Sayoc’s high jinks last week made my head throb purely from truth-starvation.  To this instant, I await an explanation from some quarter—any quarter—of how one addresses a package to the likes of Bill Clinton.  In my days of trying to interview black ballplayers who immediately followed Jackie Robinson into the big leagues (for a manuscript assembled almost two decades ago), I had virtually no luck whatever in obtaining functional addresses.  Over the intervening years, people have grown exponentially more jealous of their personal information—especially people whose public activity didn’t involve wearing a uniform, but playing with billions of dollars not their own.  So how does a male stripper ferret out the home addresses of multi-billionaires like George Soros or of highly controversial public figures like Eric Holder?

As near as I can tell, the packages were directed after this fashion: Jerry Jones, Dallas Cowboys Owner; Texas Stadium; Irving, Texas.  So… so can you picture the scene as a lackey comes running breathlessly out of the penthouse elevator?  “Mr. Soros, Mr. Soros… this package arrived just hours ago at one of you five thousand corporate headquarters!  They rushed it over here.  There’s no return address.  Would you like a letter-opener?”

I heard political hack Sean Spicer sententiously intone the other night that he “could not imagine” the anguish that must have coursed through the souls of the “victims”… victims, that is, of unopened-and-untouched (by them) envelopes rumored to contain explosive devices—devices, by the way, that tamely endured the mail-cart mixing bowl always guaranteed to crumple my book orders from Amazon.  (Another classic scene: Unexploded Bomb expert in khaki crawls up to package, sweating bullets and dagger in teeth, after the mailman dunks it into the box like a basketball.)

Please, Mr. Spicer, sir… please stop smacking my intelligence across its metaphorical face!  Anyone with a few dozen millions in his investment portfolio does not open his own mail in this age of subtle white powders; or if he does, then his pulse should accelerate every time he handles an envelope that looks ordinary.

I mention Spicer by name because he’s a Republican, and I’m truly not picking sides here.  The entire incident seemed perfectly timed to rebut the embarrassingly well-justified charge that “mobs” had taken over the political initiative on the Left.  The temporal coincidence is quite sufficient to make an impartial observer wonder. Yet the Right’s mouthpieces instead huddled together and decided upon a strategy of vigorous condemnation rather than further processing of the evidence.  Left: “See there?  One of your guys tried to murder a dozen of our guys! You’re all a bunch of fascist assassins!”  Right: “No, no.  We deplore his actions.  Here, we’ve already made a noose.  Bring him to the tree and we’ll hold the rope.”  Commentators like Ben Shapiro who are somehow supposed to have held the pliers as Sayoc activated the fuses were the first acrobats on the “dazzling spectacle of moderation” tightrope.  “Mass murderer here, mass murderer there… we all have our mass murderers.  Both sides just need to calm down and be level-headed.  Try your best to imitate me.”

Spin, spin, spin on both sides.  No interest in the truth.  No energy directed at any effort other than the one to occupy a position three bridges up the rhetorical road.  Meanwhile, those of us left plodding along that road are drowning in crap.

And meanwhile within the meanwhile… did anyone notice that October 1 was the anniversary of the Las Vegas shooting—an actual mass-murder event—wherein 58 innocent bystanders were butchered and 851 wounded?  The “news media” didn’t exactly trumpet the memorial.  In fact, the suspicious “security guard” who fled the country to Mexico after offering contradictory accounts has disappeared utterly from the news cycle like a pebble in the deep blue sea.  You’ll never hear another word about him… or only from “conspiracy theorists”.

Perspective: Nowhere in Sight

(I wrote the following last weekend, before Harvey made landfall.  Now our most publicized preoccupations seem more idiotic than ever.)

Let’s get really ticked off about Confederate statues and monuments that have sat collecting bird droppings for well over a century! That’s an important issue: everybody pile on–show your true colors or forever be branded a racist bastard! Never mind that many of the works were created with real artistry and add to their ambiance (I mean, by being stone or bronze); never mind that most people nowadays actually take zero leisurely walks per year across the town square or the capitol grounds; never mind that almost no one today could tell a Confederate colonel’s uniform from that of one of Her Majesty’s fusiliers without the nameplate on the plinth, or that we could easily cover up any distinctive marking on the jacket and then replace the plate with, “unknown soldier of the nineteenth century”.

The statues are a huge problem–much bigger than, say, the piddling inconvenience that most recent high school graduates believe the nineteenth century to be the 1900’s, or that most cannot place the Civil War in the correct century, anyway; or that an immense majority is unaware of the role African Muslims and Yankee slave ships played in human trafficking, or that certain Northern states allowed legal ownership of slaves–and that Lincoln grandfathered in their privilege when he drafted the Emancipation Proclamation. Stop muddying the issue! It’s clear racism! Statue… racism! It’s that simple!

And let’s start getting serious about Climate Change now that Texans are being punished by the Weather God for collectively deriding the notion! Let’s save the planet while we still can! Never mind that climate is not weather, and that weather patterns of about half a century are required to propose any hypothesis about climate–and that the atmosphere is only about .04% carbon dioxide, or that plants love the stuff and need it to breathe out oxygen for us, or that the same highly centralized government upon which we want to confer the clean-up duties has been covertly fooling around for two decades with the strategic manipulation of weather systems. It’s the capitalist private sector that’s responsible for poisoning us–shut up about the satellite photos of yellow smog over major Chinese cities! And I know nobody wants to hear about how the Soviets were planning to warm up the climate in the early Sixties by channeling the Humboldt Current far up into the Arctic.

We could actually be applying all the money and brainpower that’s researching Climate Change to figuring out how the super-volcano under Yellowstone Park might be diffused before its next eruption, likely to envelope the planet in a nuclear winter that could quite possibly exterminate all terrestrial life. But no, you’re right: those waters inching their way up beaches along Chesapeake Bay are much, much more worrisome.

And we’ve got to do something about people using gender-specific pronouns! EMP… EMSchmee! What does that stand for, anyway? Who cares? Everybody knows the talk about the power grid going down is just a bunch of claptrap meant to distract us from exploring our gender identity! Ninety percent of Americans won’t really die in a year if Kim Jong Un explodes one of his raggedy-ass little nukes in our stratosphere (or if the sun has one of its overdue major flare-ups). Haven’t you seen all those windmills out west? We’ve got that covered. Now, let’s get back to important things. What’s on your restroom door?

I want my society and my nation to survive… but what concerns me more every week is that, in a Darwinian sense, we seem unworthy of survival. Why should so many idiots be allowed to occupy so much of the planet’s limited space?

As the Titanic Sinks, the Captain Worries About Flu Season

Since the subject of climate change arose the last time I wrote… why, may I ask, does the scientific community not apply its collective genius to solving crises that will certainly occur, quite possibly before the twenty-second century, and that may very probably become extinction events? As the ship sinks beneath us, why are we logging onto the Medicare site rather than looking for life vests?

We know that Yellowstone National Park sits atop the huge caldera of a smoking super-volcano. The giant has already exploded once in recent geological history: that’s why we have Yellowstone, with its vast mountain basin and restless geysers. The thing remains a ticking timebomb. Its next eruption will most certainly decimate life in neighboring regions almost instantly, its spreading umbrella of ash will plunge North America into nuclear winter within days, and its long-term effects over the ensuing decade might well wipe out most terrestrial life on the planet.

This eruption will happen, sooner or later. Do we have a plan on the drawing board for diffusing the pressure when magma starts to swell the chimney of a super-volcano (for there are several of these monsters around the globe)? Nope. Nada. So let’s just continue expending our time and resources on talking about how to keep Manhattan’s streets above water if the polar icecaps shrink.

Also a lead-pipe cinch to occur is a major asteroidal collision with Planet Earth. We don’t know “when”… but we do know that our Moby Dick is already silently cruising out there in the Asteroid Belt. Again, as with a super-volcanic eruption, the plume of ash following upon such a strike would envelope the world in a thick cloud within months, and virtually no eatable crops would grow anywhere for years. Most life would be exterminated. And the plan for averting the collision is… well, not even on any official drawing board at the moment.

But we’ll think of something when Moby Dick surfaces and we have about six months to Contact. The scientists will think of something. Let’s not pull them off the important work of trying to re-draw Florida’s coastline on the basis of certain computer simulations fed certain assumptions about climate change.

Query: why are extinction-risk events whose eventual likelihood sits at one hundred percent less important to the government-funded scientific establishment than the possibility of manmade climate change and its conjectured inconveniences? Could it be because designing a system to de-pressurize super-volcanoes or re-direct a looming mega-asteroid would not require intrusion into the life of every citizen, whereas the answer to climate change always seems to involve new government agencies and regulations that minutely monitor our individual activities?

The good news, I guess, is that if Big Brother’s encroachments worry you, his gluttony spells its own demise. All you have to do is dig a deep bunker and stock it with enough canned and freeze-dried food for ten years. Then, after the deluge, you’ll emerge upon a wasted, windswept landscape that will offer more freedom than you ever dreamed of… and far more than you could ever want.

Does It Matter Who’s Truthful When All Action Is Corrupt?

Have you heard why Megan Kelly really left FOX News? Or why Christina of HGTV’s Flip or Flop really split from her husband, or why the same station’s Joanna Gaines is in hot water for arriving late on the set of Fixer Upper? It’s the same reason in all three cases, according to certain stories that pulse along the side-panel of your screen: they were all so busy marketing the same company’s beauty secrets that the bonanza of prosperity distracted them from their boring day jobs.

This isn’t quite the same level of aggressive, in-your-face duplicity that characterized (for instance) the History Channel’s idiotic “mockumentaries” about mermaids, megalodons, and Sasquatches… but the kinship is of a first-cousin order. “Fake news” is now so embedded in our cultural consciousness that we have apparently given up being outraged by it. “Kim Jong Un just nuked a small Pacific island… and the only survivors were using Apollo Sun Tan Lotion (improved formula)!” We swallow the b.s. with scarcely a grimace. The most worrisome problem is that, should the chubby child of Dearest Friend indeed decide to vaporize an entire populace, we would already have been rehearsed in passing over the news and looking for the next thrill.

“The Boy That Cried Wolf” Syndrome has deeply infected us. I don’t even know if most of my freshmen would recognize the folkloric reference… but I do know that they’re convinced, almost to a boy or girl (or whatever lies between), that human beings are causing a disastrous climate change. Chemistry and biology majors cite data to me that I can’t dispute, since their fields extend far beyond my intellectual reach. So maybe they’re right. But then a celebrated academic appears on national television and claims that carbon dioxide is a more lethal toxin than sarin gas. Even a chemistry-challenged numbskull like me knows the difference between monoxide and dioxide—yet our guru was apparently conflating the two. Could his ilk have been among the teachers of my freshmen?

I don’t like cars. Never have. I probably walk more in a week than most atmospheric scientists do in a year—and I don’t consume jet fuel flying to conferences that might have been held on Skype. Reducing car traffic is fine by me. Why, however, can we not address the problem by scrapping our special-interest-fueled zoning laws and oppressive regulations that prevent people from running shops out of their homes? Why is the “green” solution always more government intrusion into our personal lives? And why are the insane windmills that now deface much of the Southwest a step forward when the effort of constructing, transporting, and rigging their blades requires more energy than they are likely to restore in a century of steady gales?

I will postulate, for the sake of argument, that the science behind climate change is compelling: then why are the measures that we take in consequence so patently ineffective and mired in sordid political boondoggle?

On this issue as on so many others, I don’t know who’s telling the truth, and I don’t think I’m capable of knowing—not in the earthly time I have left. I know this much, however. On one side I see lies proliferating as part of popular cultural and consumerist marketing; on another I see our elected “saviors” getting sleek and fat as specially targeted problems only worsen; and on yet another I see campus culture shutting down free speech with thuggery and shouting down open debate in fanatical zeal. Maybe the wolf is really coming this time… but when the watchdog is a hungry Bengal tiger, maybe I’d rather have the wolf.

What’s to Celebrate, About THAT President or THIS One?

I think I do a pretty good job of staying away from politics in discussions among mixed company.  If I can do it, why can’t others?  Why do I have to open the mandatory e-mail in my workplace and find a missive congratulating Barack Obama on a job well done?  There was no analagous message wishing luck to Donald Trump.  When I reflect that a few responsible people have been trying over the past decade to get Congress to remedy our exposure to Electro-Magnetic Pulse events with no success whatever at the federal level, and that a single such event could kill 300 million Americans within a year, my blood boils.  Granted, George Bush II was on watch when the alert was first raised: his administration led the charge to do nothing (being preoccupied, apparently, with monitoring all of our private communications).  Under Obama, however, not only has understanding of the impending threat deepened and been more broadly disseminated (no thanks to the mainstream media); the man has actually equipped Iran–one of the two most likely perps of an EMP attack in the near future, based on our observation of missile-development programs–to become an active threat.  Meanwhile, he’s wasted months and months of precious time and treasure-loads of precious resources ginning up concern about climate change.  Manhattan may be under water in 2075!  That’s obviously a far greater issue than the death by thirst, starvation, hypothermia, and rioting of nine out of every ten citizens, possibly by 2020.

A job well done… really?  Define “job”, please.

Contrarily, newscasters on all the FOX sister-stations produce queues of talking heads communicating the hope of “ordinary Americans” that President Trump will “make their lives better”.  The problem, it seems to me (as an American and a Constitutionalist), is that one man should have so much power as to be able to make our lives better or worse.  I don’t want anyone making my life better.  I want bureaucracies everywhere to get their fingers the hell out of my life, so that I may make it better if I have the energy or worse if I commit errors rich in good life lessons.  I want to be treated as an adult instead of a child; I don’t want a new daddy-figure who artificially supplies work for me instead of intrusively choosing my diet for me.

A student told me yesterday that you can’t collect water off your roof in these parts for filtering and drinking.  He said that it’s illegal.  A little research suggests that he was wrong in terms of state law.  Nevertheless, he may be right in terms of certain municipalities and subdivisions, which have all kinds of patently unconstitutional restrictions on what one may do.  Government entities on both the micro- and the macro-level are busily gnawing into our basic freedoms.  If you look hard for them (i.e., outside the mainstream media), stories are superabundant about the Bureau of Land Management telling a rancher that he can’t water his cows because of a rat or an owl.  My brother-in-law claims that the county in which I hope to build a retirement home will require me to have an outlet capable of servicing an electric car, even though I have no intent of ever owning such a car.  (I may drive ten miles, perhaps, in a month.)  All of these “do-gooders” are stifling the very resourcefulness and independence that will be needed to confront… oh, say, a major EMP event.  And if such an occurrence were to happen naturally (as it certainly will within a few decades–lead-pipe cinch), then it might ultimately wipe out the human race.  In the meantime, though, our keepers will have nudged us benignly toward vehicles that don’t directly use fossil fuels… and those marginalized voices who protest, like Dinesh D’Souza (a man of color, by the way), will find themselves not-so-benignly doing significant prison time on some trumped-up charge relating to improper completion of complex paper work.

I don’t see the Trump Administration flashing any signs that it will reverse the “job well done” by Barack Obama in these areas.  Trump isn’t abolishing any of the more oppressive and dictatorial departments: he’s just replacing their directors with his partisans.  So… my assessment is that you’re pretty much on your own.  Chacun pour soi.  Filter your own water without telling anyone, grow your own garden and hope that ATF’s drones don’t misidentify it as a marijuana plantation… and, in general, put your hope in your own two hands.  Get over the celebrations: there’s nothing to celebrate here.

Dirty Air Doesn’t Mean the Climate’s Changing

Dr. Wolfgang Thune is a highly reputed German meteorologist with a background (so I gather) in academia as well as in broadcasting.  He has published several articles and books exploding the absurd claims of the “climate change” cult.  I have read a few of these through links posted at Peter Helmes’ site, Die Deutsche Konservativen.  Now, neither my German nor my scientific training is sufficient to qualify me as more than a very clumsy reader of the Doctor’s work… but the modicum of it seemingly within my reach is quite thought-provoking.  I’ve just finished wading through an interview whose subject is, naturally, climate-change hysteria.  It’s posted at the Helmes site, if you think your German is up to the task.

A few tidbits that came in low enough to hit me between the eyes: carbon dioxide is a mere .038% of Earth’s atmosphere; and of that minuscule amount, 96% is naturally produced.

Plants need carbon dioxide to perform photosynthesis (yeah… I knew that!); so if we’re concerned about our CO2 levels, why don’t we plant more trees?  Why should we instead engage in CO2-suppressing crusades that will suffocate the planet’s vegetal inhabitants?

Earth is NOT analogous to a greenhouse.  She doesn’t have a glass ceiling.  Gasses escape from her atmosphere all the time (which, in the long run, poses its own life-threatening scenario… but that’s another story).

Carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation only at a very few wavelengths (I seem to recollect Thune’s mentioning three).  That’s like putting three “stickies” on you living-room window and claiming that they keep the morning light from shining through.  (Actually, the stickies would have to be almost microscopic.)

There are people dropping like flies of heart and lung disease in Beijing, and I hear that Tokyo isn’t much better.  When I briefly lived in Dublin, Ireland, about thirty years ago, the coal smoke was so bad that I cut my stay short due to chronic respiratory problems.  Our air isn’t clean.  In many more urbanized locales, it positively stinks.

To address such problems by screaming, “Climate change!” in Chicken Little fashion, however–and even by clamoring for “deniers” to be imprisoned or executed, in Josef Stalin fashion–bespeaks a sickness of the mind at least as lethal as anything currently stalking our lungs.  We can’t solve problems if we don’t correctly name them.  The problem with our fume-rich lower atmosphere isn’t that polar bears might take up residence in Nome dumpsters or that New York might be turned into Venice: it’s that we’re breathing toxic crap.  Magnifying the issue to resemble the approach of a killer asteroid is merely a bid by centralized authority to acquire yet more control over our private lives.

More bureaucracy doesn’t produce cleaner air (just ask the Chinese).  Our entire energy-dependent way of life possesses a wide array of liabilities… ever hear of an EMP?.  We need to step back and study the mess we’ve created with calm reason rather than swarming deliriously after charismatic, power-hungry leaders like the mad devotees of Dionysus.