Stampeding The Herd Over The Cliff

More evidence the people behind the global warming big lie are attempting genocide.

Alarmism and catastrophic thinking are valuable in the sense that a panicked herd can be stampeded over a cliff.

NYT Opinion on Twitter: “Panic might seem counterproductive,

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Stampeding The Herd Over The Cliff

  1. Johansen says:

    The New York Times is owned – or for practical matters controlled by – a Mexican billionaire who is so deep in crime it’s legend. He’s pissed because one of his chief lieutenants was just convicted in a NY federal court

    The Washington Post – it’s recently been exposed – is 100-percent owned by one the biggest lying hypocrites in America.

    • arn says:

      I am pretty sure that this mexican billionaire gives a crap about climate.

      But it is,as was NAFTA, the next option for him to get more power and wealth.

  2. Colorado Wellington says:

    “In the beginning the organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems.”

    “It is only when the other party is concerned or feels threatened that he will listen — in the arena of action, a threat or a crisis becomes almost a precondition to communication.”

    ― Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals


    “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

    ― Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff for President-Elect Obama

    What, there is no crisis? That’s irrelevant. We will make it a crisis.

  3. Laurie says:

    Well, Prince Philip allegedly stated he would like to be reincarnated as a virus to eliminate the “useless eaters.” Prince Charles said expressly, during an interview, that *the* problem facing ‘us’ is overpopulation. Finally, Prince William reportedly said, “It would certainly help if the acceleration slowed down, but it would also help if the world reduced its desire to consume” among other rhetoric on population control.

    Yes, this is a serious issue, but lies, distortion, and subterfuge won’t improve our stead, collectively or individually.

  4. Colorado Wellington says:

    I avoid socialist media and I don’t do twitter but there are quite a few people there who get it:

    It seems even Progressive moron twitterers shun this NYT panic bullshit so far. After all, we still have 12 years left.

    • Mark Fife says:

      There is a veritable climate mafia that will swarm you if you comment on one of Steve’s tweets. I have seen just how bad they really are over the past couple of weeks. They use troll tactics like crazy.

  5. Colorado Wellington says:

    Life imitates art:

    “This looming catastrophe demands an aggressive, global response, now.”

    This situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!.

    And mainstream American media are just the guys to do it!

    Emotional idiocy is always on the brink of getting out of control. These unstable Leftist morons never learn.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      On a second thought, the levity of my previous comment is out of place.

      The ingredients of the 1980s satanic daycare sex-abuse panic were the same as in today’s global warming scare:

      A dubious initial proposition, moral outrage, alarmist media, professionally dishonest and biased “experts”, manipulated children, gullible adults, unscrupulous politicians, bureaucrats and prosecutors.

      Today’s “climate models” are a reincarnation of the “anatomically correct dolls” used by the 1980s “expert” investigators. Just like now, if the answers didn’t fit the interviewers’ theories, they pressed on until the children gave them the “correct answers”. Previously found contradictory findings were ignored and suppressed. Outrageous claims were made, accompanied by a complete lack of physical evidence, but the investigations continued until the “results” complied with preconceived assumptions. Children who falsely accused adults of horrific crimes were made to feel important and powerful. Innocent people were publicly demonized and skeptical voices of reason marginalized.

      But unlike in today’s well-financed global warming juggernaut, back then there was no big money and travel to prestigious international conferences in exotic places for the half-educated “experts” who worked to extract the children’s testimonies. All it took was vanity, egos, personal biases, opportunities to appear in the media and expectations of professional fame. The media exposure given to these charlatans drove people half-mad during the decade and the fraudulent panic destroyed the lives of innocents.

      This thing must stop. The experts and their enablers have killed enough people already.

      • rah says:

        We’re in a period of the lowest solar activity since the Dalton minimum. That AOC jackass will most likely still be braying when the effects are felt. It will really get interesting to see what that braying sounds like as those giant chompers chatter if cycle 25 turns out to be like cycle 5 or 6.

      • -B- says:

        Ever hear of the “arson dog”? A fire investigator claimed his dog could detect the evidence of arson. But as with the drug dogs the investigator was in complete control and just decided on his own there was arson much like how cops essentially command drug dogs to “alert”. All simply nonsense to get the public to believe.

        It all boils down that over 6,000 years or more nothing in human society has really changed. Thousands of years ago a priest would tell the masses to sacrifice and obey the ruling class or the weather will be bad. Today, same thing except the priests are called “scientists”. Like the priests they make a comfortable state supported living coming up with ways to get the public to go along with what the rulers want.

  6. Mark Fife says:

    I follow Tony on Twitter. And I have jumped into the Twitter climate wars. When you do that the climate mafia descends on you with a vengeance. They use a variety of troll tactics and general try to muddy the waters. One of the biggest jerks who jump on Tony’s Twitter is Steven Mosher. He is one of the Berkeley Earth guys.

    The way they troll, the tactics they use, makes me think they are following some central plan or play book. They really try to get under your skin and run you off. And if you do block them they will crow about it and claim they kicked your ass. Another denier bites the dust. So I have not blocked them as yet.

    I have commented and put forth tidbits of my work. They pounced like flies on a raw piece of meat. It was really funny, but it is hard to not get drawn into their game. That’s the entire point of what they do.

    Anyway, I am going to try posting an image. If that works I will comment further.

    • Mark Fife says:

      This is the direction I am looking at. I have seen a pattern in the data with respect to latitude. The unfortunate thing is there is very little usable data in a lot of ranges. However, these charts make it clear. The concept of a global average temperature record does not make sense. There are similar trends, however there are serious differences. Temperature wings in the most northerly latitudes are far more pronounced than anywhere else. This is clear from the GISP2 and Vostok ice core studies. It is clear in the climate data as well.

      There is no unusual warming. There is an indication of regular cycles north and south, but on different time scales. It does appear these cycles have coincided to some degree.

      My big problem with the warming view and charts has been how they fail to match most individual station records. That is apparently not a problem with my projections. A random sampling of individual records in every latitude zone I have defined shows a very close approximation. Far better than what I see when looking at their projected record.

      One test for a model or derived trend is does it adequately describe the data it was made from at a sufficient percentage. How far do the individual trends vary. I have more verification work to do but as of right now it looks very good. And it makes sense to the physics. The keys are the ratio of land to water and distance from the sun.

      How is it these experts can believe orbital variations have no affect when the curvature of the Earth has such a tremendous and well know affect?

      This in my opinion is why the GAT concept is ultimately inadequate and misleading. Oh they have other problems. For example the way they cobble together a bunch of short records most from 1990 onward creates a warming trend which is simply not there.

    • arn says:

      The tactics they use are usual communist tactics used long before Alinsky made them official with his “Rules for radicals”(machiavellism for average joe).
      Like a swarm of mosquitos they attack the horses and cown until they run mad and jump of the cliff.

      One man/institution at a time is getting attacked that way until they have so much power to do it openly.

    • feathers says:

      I agree with the central plan statement – we also see this strategy in the partial birth abortion debate. I’m in Virginia and the details about House Bill 2491 and the ensuing comments about post-birth abortion by Gov. Northam got everyone with a soul motivated to rebuke the demonic behavior. I got into many debates online with local “supporters” of the bill (my delegate was a co-sponsor). I quickly noticed their defense was identical to the tactics used by demonocratic pundits on TV. First they start with “I’ve read the bill”, this tactic is to immediately claim “knowledge superiority”, hedging that you have not read the bill – and in most cases indeed their opponent has never read the actual bill. Then after claiming they’ve read the bill – everything that comes after is a complete and total lie! “Its already the law”, “it was republicans that wrote the bill”, etc. all lies!

      Notice the parallels with the climate change debate tactics?

      I see the same level of coordination with climate change. One day we are going to intercept the “memo” and understand just how deep the coordination goes: (MSM > Democrat leadership > Rank-and-file democrats > Big Tech > Academia > Hollywood).

    • The attacks on Tony are much like those on Petr Beckmann, the Czech Engineer who defended nuclear electricity from Boulder. But Tony has gained visibility, so the frenzy is all the more desperate. Also, the looters can no longer draw on the Soviet Union for funding and logistical support. Still, even Reason magazine is infiltrated by a kid who knows no physics but impersonates a science writer and cranks out nonsense.

    • -B- says:

      Leftists go for the personal attack time and time again. It’s as if they are trained to do it. They will parrot authority, babble to try to look smart, mix in insults throughout. But they never make a rational and supported argument of their own. It’s grade school bullying mixed with being the smart kid who always knew how to repeat what the teachers said.

      On another note, I prefer heretics and kooks. Even if I don’t agree with them or their conclusion is complete BS they will work to support their arguments and I may learn a fact or two I didn’t know. The leftist offers nothing but repeating authority. I know what authority said already and judged authority as being wrong and often lying to further its purposes.

  7. arn says:

    is utter bullshit as the very definition of
    climate science of the last 50 years was and is “alarmism and catastrophic thinking”.
    In the 60ies and 70ies it was alarmism and catastrophic thinking because of the coming ice age,
    since the 80ies it is because of global warming.
    Climate science did a 180 but the fearmongering stayed the same,as the temperatures and sea levels.

    But this kind of propaganda is understandable as the very cold winter in the USA massivly increased the doubt in AGW as the results of reality are hard to ignore
    so someone well paid who sits in his war(m) room was ordered to release this message(+others,eg. AOC is the new messiah)

  8. Psalmon says:

    Get ready for flood of “early Spring” or “early cherry blossoms” or “unprecedented February warmth for the Southeast…

    The ambulance chasers will get back to the West Coast later this Summer when it is not frozen or underwater.

  9. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Well a big part of the so-called solution to the so-called AGW is to use windmills. A recent study shows this is a bad idea.

    Home Wreckers: Finnish Study Finds Wind Turbine Infrasound Unsafe For Residents Living Within 15 Km – see

    A quote from the article:

    – Later in 2017, based on infrasound measurements made in different parts of Finland, it has been found out that 15–20 km is a typical distance where the infrasound pulses of wind turbines can be detected by measurements to travel in almost all circumstances, says Mehtätalo [1–4]. According to an American study, infrasound travels under favorable conditions to a distance of 90 km from wind farms [5].

    If the sample of the pilot study is representative, about 400,000 of the Finns suffer from symptoms due to wind turbines and only about 10,000 of them combine the symptoms with wind power plants. Because of the small amount of research data, strong conclusions must be taken with caution.

    • arn says:

      “We must built the windmills we fight”
      (to make people believe us)

      quote from an unknown AGW scientist

    • -B- says:

      The goal is to make energy scarce and expensive.
      If wind and/or solar power ever works there needs to be reasons to limit it. Maybe infrasound problems are real, but real or not they are waiting in the wings. If wind power never really works and is self limiting infrasound will be derided as a “conspiracy theory”. If wind power works it will be a troubling issue that must be dealt with by limiting the use of wind turbines with no substitution.

  10. See
    Here is the conclusion
    “When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is useful to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. The 2017 paper proposed a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991,that this turning point correlates with a temperature turning point in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650.
    The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.
    See the Energy and Environment paper The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
    and an earlier accessible blog version at See also
    and the discussion with Professor William Happer at

  11. Bob Hoye says:

    “Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.”—James Madison.

    “Brutality is respected. The people want someone to frighten them and make them shudderingly submissive.”
    –Adolf Hitler, Table talk.

  12. Mark Fife says:

    In battling with these idiots they let slide a crucial a crucial fact. They statistical technique they are using to fill in the data is kriging with drift.

    “kriging with external drift, where auxiliary predictors are used directly to solve the kriging weights”

    So what do you think the auxiliary predictors, or should we say predictor, probably is?

    This is an admission from Steven Mosher from BEST. They are literally making up the data. Obviously there is uncertainty inherent in any estimation. How does this impact the estimate? What is the variance of estimation?

    I did a test on estimating the annual 1981 temperature when 1980, 1981, and 1982 are known. I derived a 2nd order polynomial equation based upon the relationship between T increase from 80 to 81 and from 80 to 82. I then tested the predictive ability against the actual. The average estimation error was 0, but with a standard deviation of 0.58. That is a variance of 0.34 every time I estimate a single missing year in an existing record. Just one missing year.

    Yes, it is a bad joke.

    However, I have a joke I think is not quite as bad as that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *