The child of the AGW cultists is already delivered!

Scientific American, a publication I subscribed to when younger and ravenously read in my pursuit of knowledge and information in my younger years, when completely drawn and consumed by the world of science, was one of the main reasons I went to school and studied engineering. Of course, as they began shilling for AGW over a decade ago, publishing one dumb article after another that pushed a political agenda and leftist one government end goal, with consensus, manipulated models, and other such pseudo-science that completely ignored or dismissed relevant information so they could drive the narrative as their proof, I dropped my subscription. I have not regretted that choice, considering the revelations of how corrupt the cult of AGW and those that helped them push their agenda have shown to be, despite the LSM blackout and/or massive attempts at damage control, and I feel vindicated that dropping that subscription was a wise move, since Scientific American has been a willing participant in that campaign of pro-AGW lies.

As most people are wising up and support for the AGW cult’s plans and schemes dwindles, now that more and more of the exaggerations about the dangers of AGW are coming out, and support only remains amongst the true believers and the ones that still want to push the political agenda that fueled the AGW cult, the leftists at Scientific American seem to be moving on to the next narrative to push the same old agenda: bio diversity.

Governments from more than 90 countries have agreed to establish an independent panel of scientists to assess the very latest research on the state of the planet's fragile ecosystems. The decision, which will create a body akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was made in Panama City this weekend, after years of negotiations.

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) will be responsible for producing international scientific assessments on issues such as ocean acidification and pollination, to help policy-makers to tackle the global loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems.

“I hope that this body will allow biodiversity to be better taken into account in sustainable-development strategies, as the IPCC has for climate change over the past 20 years,” says Irina Bokova, director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), based in Paris.

The themes of the panel's assessments, along with its overall budget, are to be decided at the newly established body's first plenary meeting, which is scheduled for 2013. But the IPBES will begin work immediately on reviewing existing assessments — such as 2005's global Millennium Ecosystem Assessment — to analyze their scope and impact on policy.

No freaking way! Another UN panel populated by a bunch of credentialed marxists and pseudo-marxists hell bent on yet again finding that the answer to some new or old calamity, or series of calamitous events, are caused by man’s use of energy, will soon tell us that the only solution or answer, yet again, lies with a big one world collectivist government, with the power to control access to energy and people’s freedoms through some massive regulation and taxation, while enhancing the power of these elite and the governments they actually shill for. Color me shocked. And if you doubt this is the plan, I point you to this revelation in the Scientific American fluff piece:

Governments will make the final decisions as to which scientists will sit on the panel, but scientific bodies such as DIVERSITAS will be invited to make nominations. Selection procedures have yet to be agreed. “It will be key to have a selection process for nominations based on the highest scientific credentials,” says Larigauderie.

So, the same people that have the most to gain from putting the shills that will declare that without letting governments wield more power and limit people’s access to energy and thus freedom, and have been the big financiers and stakeholders in the AGW cult scam, are now in charge of this project? What could go wrong, or for that matter, be different from what was done to abuse the AGW narrative? We need to save those fragile ecosystems after all!

The problem these shysters had with AGW – that everyone not compromised by the want for their end goal, you know the watermelons that pretended they were concerned about saving Gaia, when what they really wanted was that collectivist expansion of power, clearly saw through – is going to be the same here. The AGW cultists’ argument was destroyed by the fact that temperatures and climate changed. It varied throughout Earths 4.5 billion years of life, long before man and his gas guzzling CO2 producing factories and SUVs came on the scene. There had been warming and warmer times, much warmer I add, both in the immediate and far away past, as there had been cooling and much cooler times. And man had nothing to do with any of that. The sun, the oceans, and a climate system they still lack massive understanding off its inner workings and had been badly modeled, on purpose I add to produce the lies they needed to frighten the rubes, all where ignored, manipulated, or explained away to pretend that this phenomenon was new, caused by man, and could only be stopped by collectivism writ large.

The ecosystem champions will face the same problem. The fact is that Mother Nature is a cruel thing: ecosystems come and go. Adapt or perish is the law of life. There are more extinct species and systems than there are species and systems around now, and that’s not by coincidence. I am not arguing that we should try to preserve some species or ecosystems, but I am going to go bat shit when these morons tell us we need to preserve everything as is, blame man for it all, then tell us the answer to this dilemma is the same crap they wanted when lying about AGW. And have no doubt that no matter how they camouflage it, the end goal remains the same. Here is to hoping this bullshit dies long before it gains any traction, costs us billions, if not trillions, eats up another decade or two of time, while governments everywhere steal more wealth and freedoms under the guise of saving us from ourselves, and harms as many as the AGW lies have. Unfortunately it will not be the last attempt by these shysters to sell their snake oil and I will not be surprised to see Scientific American at the forefront of selling those lies either.

Collectivists suck.

Comments are closed.

  1. JimK

    Look, I can’t very well expect that people won’t spend fucking DAYS arguing the dumbest shit on this topic if you’re just going to post diatribes about it, Alex. NO more of this shit. Everyone is sick of it. Except the two people that love to argue forever about it, and frankly if you two want to go around and around on this, you need to find somewhere else to do that.

    Enough with the global warming. No one is going to change their mind at this point. It’s a dead issue, at least at this site.

    Thumb up 6

  2. Dave D

    I too used to voraciously read SA. I quit reading not only because of the leftist bias, but also the trend towards shorter, soft opinion pieces on lots of other topics that were not pure science. The content has gone (even more) to shit in that rag, and I verify this by an annual persual of a copy in our research library. Science seems to be going this way, too.

    Also, I quit my 20+ year membership to the American Chemical Society PRECISELY because the editor of their weekly magazine is an avowed and unapologetic leftist and hater of American progress.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *


    My post wasn’t about AGW, other than to point out that the same liars behind that scam have now found a new scam they can glom onto, that Scientific American, once a great publication for people with interest in science, has devolved so drastically that it isn’t worth the paper they print this kind of nonsense on, and finally that the collectivists got caught again saying what they really believe and want to do and that is insane, and certainly isn’t intended to rehash all the old arguments. I have no intention of wasting my time debunking the crap from the other side no matter how many link laden crap posts they put up. It is a futile and colossal waste of time as you point out, and besides, it is already DOA, as both the public perception and the movement by the clergy of the cult to a new crisis that can be used to push the same solutions, evidently shows.

    That doesn’t mean we need to pretend the people behind this nonsense are not at it again when they are doing things like this. And it can be done without having to dreg up the old arguments. Besides, we can now argue about the Polar bears, the spotted ass-rape owl, or the Guinea trouser lizard going extinct and why government should limit our freedoms and access to energy and prosperity. Oh wait, this smacks too much of the same old shit…

    Thumb up 3

  4. CM


    My post wasn’t about AGW,

    I clicked your first link and that was sufficient to tell me this is yet another substance-free ideological diatribe.
    I’ll pass. Nothing new here.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Mississippi Yankee

    Alas Alex, Discovery, Popular Science and even The History Channel magazine have all gone down this Marxist path.

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    Just to be clear, what has Scientific American actually done wrong here? They seem to have just reported on what is happening, by printing a piece from Nature magazine. If they didn’t mention it, they would no doubt get slammed for failing to report it. Is the problem that they didn’t interject politics into it by suggesting “it’s all Marxist bullshit” etc etc ? Notwithstanding the fact that IT’S NOT EVEN A PIECE WRITTEN BY ANYONE AT SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, isn’t that exactly what you’re complaining about? Or are they required to denounce “Marxist bullshit” otherwise it’s just proof that they’re pushing for “Marxist bullshit”? Or are you somehow suggesting that Scientific American magazine is responsible for the IPBES (another evil UN group)?

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    Considering it the greatest sentence ever would seem to be a love of that particular theory.

    EDIT: Wait, this isn’t from The Onion?

    Thumb up 0

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    Considering it the greatest sentence ever would seem to be a love of that particular theory.

    And what theory, pray tell, would that be CM?

    Thumb up 0

  9. CM

    That the love of theory is the root of all evil.

    Anyway, anybody pretending that AGW involves only theory doesn’t deserve to be be taken seriously as they clearly have no idea what they’re talking about. Whittle comes across as semi-retarded.

    Thumb up 1

  10. CM

    The human component is measurable, so arrogance doesn’t even figure into the equation. So IMHO believing that we can’t possibly be responsible is the arrogant position. Especially as it involves (relies on) sticking fingers in ears.

    Thumb up 0

  11. CM

    I’ll spell it out a little further.
    This Whittle guy appears to be enthralled with an idea that AGW is “just a theory”, not borne out by any evidence. Yes, apparently “the love of theory is the root of all evil.” And yet theory is all he’s got. He provides no evidence that AGW is just a theory (with the scientists being essentially just sitting in basements constructing vast train sets). He clearly loves his theory though. He’s punked himself. In actual fact there is a vast amount of evidence. Pretending AGW is just about models is just admitting he’s got no clue whatsoever.

    Oh, ok, yes, he does mention Rutan as the person with the evidence. I had a skim through Rutan’s 60 odd page “devastating” PDF take-down of AGW. It’s nothing more than the same old collection of long-debunked nonsense and red herrings. Rutan bangs on about how in systems engineering there is no bias; the system is what is assessed and the outcome is the outcome. Apparently he believes all climate scientists are biased and the outcomes they arrive at are all predetermined.
    And yet he says (proudly):

    “[I] do not hide the fact that I have a clear bias on AGW. My bias is based on fear of Government expansion and the observation of AGW data presentation fraud – and not based on any financial or other personal benefit.”

    So he’s gone and punked himself too.
    No wonder Whittle is a fan. They make a good pair.

    What both Whittle and Rutan have put together appears to be what I’d expect in a poor 7th grade school project, written up the night before.

    So now we’ll get the vague ideological responses to further prove my point…..yawn.

    Thumb up 1

  12. CM

    JimK who are you referring to? I assume you’re not having a go at me as that would be absurd given the comments from others, which are pretty much all band-width-wasting personal abuse because yet again they’re unable to respond to the substance.

    Thumb up 0