“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak,” Sun Tzu, The Art Of War.
One of the big mistakes Trump’s critics make is to assume he is very stupid. Hence the liberal media’s delight in his Pershing tweet in the aftermath of the Barcelona massacre.
They think it shows the president to be an historically illiterate and gullible fool because – or so they claim – he is repeating a debunked myth that General Pershing used bullets dipped in pig blood when fighting Muslim terrorists in the Philippines.
Lovelock is probably best known in environmental circles as the progenitor of Gaia theory – the idea that the planet is a self-regulating, living organism. In 2006, he boosted his green credibility even further with his bestselling book The Revenge of Gaia, whose doomsday narrative predicted that by 2100 climate change would have wiped out 80 percent of the world’s population.
But Lovelock has since renounced this view. Though he still thinks carbon dioxide is a problem because of its warming effects on the climate, he now believes the threat is not immediate.
His change of heart was brought about partly by being in Oslo when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He was not impressed by the calibre of the scientists attached to the IPCC – least of all its then-head Rajendra Pachauri “who turned out to be somewhat corrupt.”
“There is global warming. But the stupid bloody academics screwed it up,” he says now – meaning that they got their sums wrong and exaggerated the speed with which the planet is warming.
A bigger worry, he says, are the wrong-headed policies being introduced supposedly to combat “climate change.”
He particularly loathes wind turbines because they are expensive, inefficient and environmentally damaging. The only reason they are being built, he says, is because “there is so much money in renewable energy. I’m sure there’s giant corruption going on.”
The solution, he argues, is nuclear power which has had a terrible press because of green propaganda most likely funded by fossil fuel industries. Nuclear’s health risks have been exaggerated by credulous greens who say “there’s no amount of radiation that can’t give you cancer.”
(Scott’s wife, Catherine McKenna, is the Eco Barbie currently serving under Prime Minister Justin Bieber as Canada’s Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, so perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised by the lameness of the politics…)
And here’s another, from a pubescent left-wing activist and BBC regular called Owen Jones, which ought to bring up whatever there is left of your breakfast.
And here – dry heave, now, I fear – is a particularly smug and noisome offering from the deputy editor of what used to be a men’s style magazine, Esquire.
Did you see what they all just did there? Well, let me explain, with reference to a rather strange trip I took about 25 years ago, to Europe’s last (and worst) Communist tyranny, Albania.
The country had just opened up to the West after four decades of abject poverty and misery, most of them under the tyrannical Stalinist dictator Enver Hoxha. Albania was a prison state akin to North Korea. People who tried to escape were shot; food was meager; the cities were polluted and uglified with dreary communist architecture; everyone looked gray and miserable; freedom of speech was, of course, forbidden: there were spies everywhere and political prisoners ended up in jail or worse…
I guess congratulations are in order for Nolan managing to unite high-brow male critics and very annoying people on Twitter under a common bromance, but to me, Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness—which apparently they don’t get to do enough.
Yes. Can confirm; saw the movie at the weekend: the film really does celebrate maleness.
It celebrates the kind of maleness which – contra Marie Claire‘s movie critic Mehera Bonner – we hear all too little of these days in this feminised, unpatriotic, self-hating age when papers like the Guardian think the time is now ripe to publish essays like this:
“It’s never been harder to be a climate scientist,” claims a heartrending piece in New Republic.
Climate scientists working directly for the Trump administration are the most affected. A report published last week by the Union of Concerned Scientists describes a “culture of fear” as government scientists are gagged, sidelined, or fired, and funding cuts loom. “Some are afraid to utter the words ‘climate change,’” the report reads.
But wait. You haven’t got to the saddest part, yet.
“All action at the agency on climate has effectively stopped,” an EPA air quality scientist told The Guardian in June. And they’re being discouraged from interacting with other climate scientists. “There was a climate conference in Atlanta last month and EPA employees were told not to go,” the scientist said, “so even simple interactions are coming to an end.”
In sadness terms I would say that this is quite literally even sadder than a picture on the internet of a cute kitten with a bandaged paw.
Think about it. These EPA scientists work hard to spend your tax dollar. That trip to the climate conference in Atlanta would have afforded them a vital opportunity not just to rack up air miles but also to broaden their understanding of the challenges facing us. For example, by visiting the legendary Georgia Aquarium they would get to experience at first hand all the innocent sea creatures that are likely to be melted if ever ocean acidification actually becomes a thing.
Have you ever wondered what kind of sadistic, totalitarian mentality you might need to want to carpet the countryside with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes in order to save the planet from an imaginary problem?
It’s by a Nazi inventor and industrialist called Dr. Franz Lawaszeck, whose proposed solution to Germany’s energy problems in the 1930s was the wholesale adoption of wind turbines.
In his book, he writes:
Wind power, using the cost-free wind, can be built on a large scale. Improved technology will in the future make it no more expensive than thermal power. This is technically and economically possible and opens up a quite new life-important type of power generation. The future of wind is no longer small windmills, but very large real power plants. The wind towers must be at least 100 m [330 ft] high, the higher the better, ideally with rotors 100 m [330 ft] in diameter. This kind of high cage mast is already built in the shape of high radio masts.
Here is a picture of the kind of structure he envisaged:
Here is what the Chancellor of Britain’s University of Kent thinks about Breitbart.
Völkischer Beobachter was, of course, the house newspaper in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s of the NSDAP – aka the Nazi party. So what Esler is doing here in his not-so-subtle way is accusing Breitbart of being a Nazi publication.
Yes, part of me thinks: so what? Angry leftists are forever accusing people who disagree with them of being Nazis; and of course in Breitbart’s case the charge is especially absurd given that Breitbart’s founder and CEO (together with several senior editors) is Jewish, that the site is pro-Israel, pro-freedom-of-speech, pro-property-rights, pro-free-markets, pro-civil-liberties, pro-democracy – none of which policies would have found much favor with the Nazis.
Bill Nye has a new nickname. It’s not as snappy as his old one, “the Science Guy,” but it’s a lot more accurate. Nye wants all the old people to die, preferably sooner rather than later, because they stand in the way of his holy mission to save the planet from climate change.
Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It’s generational. So we’re just going to have to wait for those people to “age out,” as they say. “Age out” is a euphemism for “die.” But it’ll happen, I guarantee you — that’ll happen.
Perhaps he could have some help from his zany colleague Marcello Arguello, a stand-up comedian who writes scripts for his Emmy-nominated [lol] show Bill Nye Saves The World.
Arguello apparently shares his enthusiasm for some kind of old peoples’ cull, as she recently confided to her friends on Twitter in the wake of the Congressional baseball shootings.
She subsequently deleted the tweet but expressed no regrets for the sentiment.
Elsewhere in his LA Times interview, Nye was given space to rehearse many of his favorite straw men arguments about climate change.
Like the one about climate skepticism being the same as not believing in the moon landings:
Those of you out here who want to deny humans landing on the moon, if you’re into that — look at the amount of paper NASA generated. You couldn’t afford to fake that much paper! I’m not kidding, you guys. It’d be prohibitively expensive. There’s warehouses full of documents, of specifications and drawings and engineering drawings and so on — just that alone would overwhelm you as a faker.
And the one about people who aren’t “experts” being incapable of forming an intelligent opinion about climate change:
Dunkirk is a great movie but there aren’t enough “women” or “people of color” in it, according to a review in USA Today.
The movie – with a cast including Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, and former One Direction singer Harry Styles – has been given a slew of five-star reviews for its vivid, nail-biting depiction of the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk in 1940.
But though USA Today’s reviewer praised it too, he couldn’t resist giving it a little rap on the knuckles about its shameful lack of diversity and equality:
The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way.
Yes, it’s true that Dunkirk’s leading roles are indeed dominated by white European males.
But one possible reason for this is that Dunkirk was an actual historical event which director Christopher Nolan has gone to considerable trouble to recreate as accurately as possible.
It’s clear that global warming, caused largely by burning fossil fuels and agricultural practices, is contributing to the broader destabilization of Antarctica, said Eric Rignot, professor of Earth systems sciences at the University of California, Irvine, and a senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
“This break-up signals that the ice shelf got too thin,” Rignot said in an email. “It got thinner because climate has been warming, over decades; the ice shelf will eventually collapse in the coming decades. This is absolutely related to climate warming.
The New York Times goes for the “even though this has nothing to do with global warming, it kinda sorta does really” approach:
Some climate scientists believe the warming in the region was at least in part a consequence of human-caused climate change, while others have disputed that, seeing a large role for natural variability — and noting that icebergs have been breaking away from ice shelves for many millions of years. But the two camps agree that the breakup of ice shelves in the peninsula region may be a preview of what is in store for the main part of Antarctica as the world continues heating up as a result of human activity.
Meanwhile the Guardian – clearly frustrated that the scientists it consulted refuse to play this game – throws in this random paragraph: