Climate Cultists Recommend Climate Lockdowns To Stop ‘Climate Change’ (scam)

I haven’t told this story in a while, so, way back in the 1980’s I was a believe in the notion that Mankind was mostly responsible for what was called global warming at the time. I even wrote a massive grad school paper on how ocean pollution from Mankind helped cause a lot of this. I switched to the skeptical side, with the notion that mankind was responsible for maybe, at most, 25%, in the early 2000’s, as I was able to get new Non-Approved information that was most certainly Wrongthink. And, among the things that made me switch was noticing that the grand poobahs in the Cult of Climastrology seemed to be pushing the same type of Big Government Progressive (nice Fascist) stuff that the Democrats were pushing, that far left (technically far, far right on the political scale) parties and such were pushing around the world, including the Marxists and Socialists. It was all about you being subservient to Government, about government controlling your life, including what you can say and what you can do.

People told me I was nuts back then, that this was about competing sciences. Interestingly, over the years, I see more and more of those who focused on the science starting to spend more and more time discussing the politics of this, because that is what it’s about, and here’s proof once again

From the screed

Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.

COVID-19 is itself a consequence of environmental degradation: one recent study dubbed it “the disease of the Anthropocene.” (or, it could be due to people eating bats. Or an incompetent bioweapons lab) Moreover, climate change will exacerbate the social and economic problems highlighted by the pandemic. These include governments’ diminishing capacity to address public-health crises, the private sector’s limited ability to withstand sustained economic disruption, and pervasive social inequality.

These shortcomings reflect the distorted values underlying our priorities. For example, we demand the most from “essential workers” (including nurses, supermarket workers, and delivery drivers) while paying them the least. Without fundamental change, climate change will worsen such problems.

Addressing this triple crisis requires reorienting corporate governance, finance, policy, and energy systems toward a green economic transformation. To achieve this, three obstacles must be removed: business that is shareholder-driven instead of stakeholder-driven, finance that is used in inadequate and inappropriate ways, and government that is based on outdated economic thinking and faulty assumptions.

Does this sound like science or a Cult that is using pretend science to achieve a political goal? The Nazi party used “science” that said that certain people, like Jews, were subhumans, to push their own hardcore government control. I’ve never understood how these hardcore lefties these days fail to understand that the bad parts of Progressivism/Marxism/Socialism/Authoritarian government would apply to their own lives.

Corporate governance must now reflect stakeholders’ needs instead of shareholders’ whims. Building an inclusive, sustainable economy depends on productive cooperation among the public and private sectors and civil society. This means firms need to listen to trade unions and workers’ collectives, community groups, consumer advocates, and others.

Does that sound like science or Modern Socialist talking points which hate capitalism and want Government in charge of the economy? There’s lots more in the screed that reinforces that this is not science. Surprise!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

23 Responses to “Climate Cultists Recommend Climate Lockdowns To Stop ‘Climate Change’ (scam)”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    TEACH typed: … way back in the 1980’s I was a believe (sic) in the notion that Mankind was mostly responsible for what was called global warming…

    Of course, scientific theories aren’t about “belief” and political ideology but rather evidence.

    BTW, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded in the 1980s. “Global warming” and “climate change” have been used interchangeably for decades.

    • Kye says:

      “Global warming” and “climate change” have been used interchangeably for decades.

      Only for about the last two decades Elwood. Ever since the commies realized “global warming” wasn’t selling because there was too much coolin’ goin’ on.

      The switch was the typical leftist attempt to hide their lies. Your statement of it being interchangeable “for decades” though technically true (2000-2020 are “decades”) it’s your sad attempt to drop global warming down the commie memory hole.

      Hide, erase, obstruct, obfuscate are your weapons of choice when the hate and lies fail. We’re on to you commie creeps.

      Trump 2020 Keep the lying commies out of America.

      One of Elwood and Bidens TOP philosophers!
      http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-to-send-men-to-the-firing-squad-judicial-proof-is-unnecessary-these-procedures-are-an-che-guevara-71-66-28.jpg

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Kye,

        The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change formed in 1988. So the term Climate Change has been around at least 32 years.

        James Hansen published his influential paper discussing Climate Change and Global Warming in the same paper.

        https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf

        Much of what connies believe is untrue.

        Connie dogma is that “climate cultists” used the term “global warming” until it was “shown” by deniers that the the globe wasn’t warming, at which time the “climate cultists” starting calling it “climate change”.

        Of course, that is untrue.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Hansen didn’t have any proof either.
          Only a cheap PR stunt before a congressional committee on a very hot humid summer day in DC.

          Another Rimjob fail. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

          Lolgfy https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            The Dogsucker flaunts his ignorance, proudly! Try to keep up. It’s not surprising a piss-ant such as you would miss the point and attempt to change the subject.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Aw how nice! You’re the dipshit who brought up Hansen. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

            Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You’re the dogsucker who ignored the topic. The terms Climate Change and Global Warming have been used together since at least 1988. Q.E.D.

        • formwiz says:

          No, it didn’t gain any currency until the global wahoo crowd realized the label wasn’t selling. Kind of like Liberals turning into Progressives.

          Much of what Conservative believe is untrue.

          All of what Conservatives know is factual.

          Conservative dogma is that “climate cultists” used the term “global warming” until it was “shown” by deniers that the the globe wasn’t warming, at which time the “climate cultists” starting calling it “climate change”.

          Of course, that is untrue.

          No, it’s true and it shows how little your scam is believed among the general public.

    • Jl says:

      “Scientific theories aren’t about belief, but rather evidence.”. Yet everyday we hear alarmists, politicians, celebrities, etc., say “I believe in science”. Belief in science is just that-belief.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Science is a process, a process used to establish theories, facts and even physical laws. It’s a process of experimentation, observation and repeatability.

        Many connies reject the process of science. Do you have an alternative process for answering questions? Perhaps the sacred texts of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

        Why didn’t the Gita mention the laws of planetary motion? The Torah discuss evolution? The Bible, the speed of light? The Koran, the germ theory?

        Connies attack science because the results are counter to their beliefs. Connies attack democracy because most Americans disagree with nuCon dogma.

        • formwiz says:

          Science is a process, a process used to establish theories, facts and even physical laws. It’s a process of experimentation, observation and repeatability.

          Can’t you compose one simple declarative sentence that isn’t techno-gibberish?

          Science is a body of knowledge based on investigation using the scientific method.

          Many Conservatives reject the process of science. Do you have an alternative process for answering questions? Perhaps the sacred texts of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

          Well, it’s interesting how much of the Bible is vindicated by scientific investigation. And answering different questions requires different processes. You answer moral questions by consulting religious and philosophical texts. Scientific questions are addressed with the scientific method

          Your education really was a mess, wasn’t it? I was hoping it was just the way you calculated percentages, but, once again, I was hoping for too much

          And, no, Conservatives do not reject science. The Left does when it gets in the way of one of their scams.

          Why didn’t the Gita mention the laws of planetary motion? The Torah discuss evolution? The Bible, the speed of light? The Koran, the germ theory?

          You forgot the Communist Manifesto. That is your Bible, isn’t it? You have no real knowledge of what evolution is, but you need it to say there is no God and that’s where you get tripped up.

          In the immortal words of Charles Darwin, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”.

          And evolution has proven to be a little harder to prove than the Lefties would have hoped. Darwin mentions in his book how many holes there are.

          More to the point, the germ theory of disease wasn’t proven until the 20th century, but thanks for one again showing us your complete and total ignorance.

          The books you mention talk about the way to peace and a virtuous life, they are not science texts.

          Conservatives attack science because the results are counter to their beliefs. Conservatives attack democracy because most Americans disagree with nuCon dogma.

          Right, and what is being practiced on the streets of Louisville and Portland is democracy, mob rule.

          Conservatives believe in a federal republic with the rule of law. Our way’s better.

          And your version of science is a lie based on phony data and corruption of the scientific method because lies are the only way you can succeed. Conservatives believe in the truth

          And it’s the Bhagavad Gita, not Gita, moreon

        • Est1950 says:

          Science is a process, a process used to establish theories, facts and even physical laws. It’s a process of experimentation, observation and repeatability.

          As your editor I would have you edit this sentence for using the word process three times in one sentence. A good writer will not use the same word repeatedly in a paragraph let alone a sentence.

          Additionally you should typically never use conjunctions when writing. It’s should be It is.

          For example: Science is a process used to establish theories, facts and even physical laws. It is a (((mechanism, system, means, practice, operation))) of experimentation, observation and repeatability.

          Much can be learned about a person by their writing. In your case it is clear you do not write critically.

          Many connies reject the process of science. Do you have an alternative process for answering questions? Perhaps the sacred texts of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

          Again you are assuming anyone would know what connies means and use process twice in the second sentence of your writing. Conflating Religion with Science. Readers of your text are manipulated to the question of are these the only four religions that are affected by science. Are the rest of the religions of the world okay with science and do not have sacred texts to guide them on a spiritual journey?

          Your point is unclear. What is clear from your simple sentence is that in your mind Science and Religion cannot coexist.

          Why didn’t the Gita mention the laws of planetary motion? The Torah discuss evolution? The Bible, the speed of light? The Koran, the germ theory?

          You then attack religion as a means to prove your point. Clearly an Atheist since you even know what GITA is. Which translates to the Song of God from the second century writings of Hindu. What is particularly interesting about this is that it is only part of a select subset of writings.

          Definitely a well read Atheist(or perhaps an avowed googlist) who has spent a life time trying to prove the existence of God or lack of proof that an Almighty exists.

          This phrase or word for someone with a general knowledge of religions would not be thrown out in a sentence unless you have an obsessive desire to prove your intellect.

          Connies attack science because the results are counter to their beliefs. Connies attack democracy because most Americans disagree with nuCon dogma.

          Three things stand out here. The repeated used of Connies and NuCon. What tweaks my interest is your use of the word NuCon which is a corporation’s name owned by China. Secondly the Word NuCon is the name of a POP CULTURE CONVENTION held every year. This is a name that is being put forth by those on the left in a derogatory fashion which, as it turns out, attacks members of their own party, since a very large majority of those who attend the NuCon convention are liberal leftists.

          Connies attack democracy because their dogma somehow is at odds with the rest of the country.

          This is a blanket statement based in opinion and a very profound and popular idea that floats around the Politburo of the CCP of China. The people hate Capitalism. The people hate Democracy. The people want to be controlled.

          IN one very short post you addressed science, religion, dogma, communism and tied it all up with a bow pointing to the fact that everything about the right is anathema to communism. Well done.

  2. Professor Hale says:

    As always, my comment is, “great idea. You first”.

  3. Kye says:

    Elwood, they both start with questions. Religion starts with: why are we here, what is the purpose of life? You have a sloppy unintellectual way of disregarding things you don’t believe. You also confuse being ignorant with being intelligent. An intelligent person knows there are more things in heaven and earth than you have ever dreamt of and leaves room for all possibilities. He does not have a closed mind because he’s afraid of the answer.

    BTW, science exists because God created it.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Kye,
      No use typing a little sense for Rimjob.
      He’s on a roll thinking he’s scoring major points while ignoring the 1st Rule of Holes.
      Laugh along with the rest of us.

      Bwaha!Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Kye,

      But science provides a framework for answering questions (and some may be unanswerable), while religion provides “answers” without investigating the questions. As I always say, religions may be right, there may be gods, although based on evidence it seems highly unlikely (but not impossible). So I leave room for other possibilities. Do you leave room for the possibility of there not being gods?

      When asked what he would say when facing God on judgment day, philosopher Bertrand Russell replied that he would say “Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence,”

      Since the gods created science and scientists, isn’t it logical that scientists are conducting god’s work?

      • formwiz says:

        But science provides a framework for answering questions (and some may be unanswerable), while religion provides “answers” without investigating the questions.

        Obviously, you never read the Bible. Scripture uses object lessons (next to Shakespearre, it’s on of the best books on human psychology ever written) to illustrate its points.

        You really wallow in your ignorance, don’t you.

        As I always say, religions may be right, there may be God, although based on evidence it seems highly unlikely (but not impossible). So I leave room for other possibilities. Do you leave room for the possibility of there not being God?

        No, other possibilities are beyond your tolerance. It’s Communism or nothing.

        Question really is, what would you do without your gods? Plenty of evidence there is a God. Your petty deities will have no real God before them.

        When asked what he would say when facing God on judgment day, philosopher Bertrand Russell replied that he would say “Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence,”

        He was also a Appeaser and Collaborationist.

        Since God created science and scientists, isn’t it logical that scientists are conducting God’s work?

        You don’t do God’s work with lies and phony data.

  4. Kye says:

    God also created murderers and rapists. Are they too doing God’s work?

    Many questions are (currently) unanswerable but because they can’t be answered does not mean they should be ignored or considered. There is no proof good enough to make a non believer believe in God. God, like love and hope and other human notions is not seen but rather felt. That does not mean God does not exist.

    You can’t prove God’s existence to a person who refuses to believe. I think God made it that way to sort the wheat from the chafe. But I have observed in my life how much happier believers are than non believers at least in the Western world.

  5. formwiz says:

    And it’s moron, not moreon, moron.

    Mine come from fat fingers, yours come from ignorance and lies.

    You’re the dogsucker who ignored the topic. The terms Climate Change and Global Warming have been used together since at least 1988. Q.E.D.

    The imminent confirmation of Judge Barrett is driving Jeffery up the wall. He thinks dragging out the bear suit compensates for his impotence.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Porter Good’s pole-sitter, Sibley, also ignores the topic at hand. Please, one lie at a time. The terms Climate Change and Global Warming have been used since at least 1988, falsifying your belief that one supplanted the other for political reasons. Q.E.D.

      Has nothing to do with Judge Barrett, but everything to do with right-wing mythology.

      Go and suck no more, my son…

      • formwiz says:

        Try again. Climate change wasn’t used in common speech un til global wahoo became a point iof derision.

        And I was merging 2 different responses. You really have no independent thought, do you?

Bad Behavior has blocked 10159 access attempts in the last 7 days.