IFLScience: Where green activists go to wish everyone (but themselves) death

IFLS Super PredatorAnyone who watched Popeye growing up will remember his phrase “That’s all I can stands, I can’t stands no more!” That is how countless fans of science ironically feel while reading stories shared by the editors at “I Fucking Love Science.” The site, which was started by Elise Andrew, has well over 21 million followers. Admittedly, much of the content is interesting. The problem is that often times what is shared is a.) political claptrap masquerading as science, or b.) ridiculously packaged for clicks instead of accuracy. To make matters worse, its doomsday fare attracts environmental activists who wish everyone (but themselves) an early death.

IFLS comments section compilation

“We need a global pandemic that wipes out 80 percent of the human population,” says John Elliot. What are the odds that Mr. Elliot believes he should be part of the 20 percent that survives? Magic 8 ball says “Bet the wind farm on it.”

“We need to be extinct,” says Juanka El Lokopro, with the obligatory sad-face emoticon.

“Humans are a virus,” says Sara Haddox.

Go through any doomsday post shared on the “I Fucking Love Science” Facebook page, and you’ll find that it is in no short supply of self-loathing activists who are really excited for people to die — as long as it’s not their friends and family doing the dying.

IFLScience earth story

Check out the post “Humanity has already used an entire earth’s worth of resources this year,” and once you get done laughing you’ll realize that “Guardians of the Galaxy” director James Gunn actually buys into such absurdity. Sadly, the administrators closed down the comments section for that particular story. I wonder why…

IFLS Ice Age

Perhaps the most peculiar thing about rabid IFLS readers is that they also tend to be the most hostile towards religion. They hang on Neil “tall tale” deGrasse Tyson’s every word, which is fine, but it begs the question: If God does not exist, and we’re all just a bunch of sentient cosmic accidents, why does it matter if humans are “super predators” or if we use “an entire earth’s worth of resources” in a year?

If free will does not exist, then environmental activists really should not get mad that a dentist killed a lion in Africa for $50,000 — he couldn’t help himself. According to the atheist environmentalist, hunters are merely puppets acting out the demands of atoms and molecules bouncing around inside their heads. If there are no universal truths that can be discerned through logic and reason, then it really doesn’t matter if a man chooses to look after a rare tiger or opts for something entirely different (e.g., mounts its head on a wall).

The moral of the story here is that while IFLS is an interesting website, it should be called IFLPTS (I Fucking Love Politics, website-Traffic…and Science). Its editors tend to conflate their opinion with scientific fact, and its readers are often the kind of people who make fun of others while simultaneously wishing for global pandemics.

Who are the radicals: Guys and gals who agree with the editorial point of view of this blog, or guys like IFLS’s John “We need a global pandemic that wipes out 80 percent of the human population” Elliot? Feel free to let me know what you think in the comments section below.

Joss Whedon, Mark Ruffalo lecture fans on climate change, yet silent on ‘Age of Ultron’ carbon footprint

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” is said to have a budget of roughly $250 million. The Marvel movie required shooting in 25 locations, including countries like Bangladesh, South Africa, Italy, South Korea and England. With all the cast and crew and sets involved, it had to leave a hefty carbon footprint. And yet, somehow, director Joss Whedon and Mark Ruffalo (aka: The Hulk) thought it would be a good idea to lecture the rest of us on climate change this Earth Day.

Joss Whedon Climate ChangeIf Joss Whedon really cared about climate change as his self-congratulatory tweets suggest, then he would renounce the kind of big budget movies (and carbon footprints) Marvel Studios leaves all over the globe. He won’t do that though, because he really, really likes the millions of dollars Marvel puts into his bank account.

Mark Ruffalo is no different.

Mark Ruffalo Climate Change Earth DayYes, we can do something — like not act in a movie with a carbon footprint that 99.9 percent of moviegoers could not duplicate in 10,000 lifetimes.

The weird thing about hastags like #ClimateChangeIsReal is that there is basically no one who denies that climate changes. It’s always changed. In fact, yours truly blogged on climate change after my visit to Virginia Living Museum in Newport News, Virginia in 2013.

Here is what one of the educational notes next to the museum’s riverbank fossils said:

“Since the end of the dinosaur age, eastern Virginia has been covered by ocean water many times. Beneath these seas, layers upon layers of shells, bones and teeth from abundant ocean life accumulated to form fossil-bearing sediments. Coastal river bluffs now display these ancient sediment layers, in particular, a 3.5-to-5 million-year-old fossil-rich band called Yorktown Formation,” (Virginia Living Museum).

It is safe to say that the climate has changed quite a bit over the course of 5 million years — so much so that the great state of Virginia has been underwater multiple times.

Douglas Ernst geologyThe reason why Hollywood actors and directors engage in meaningless Twitter rhetoric like “#ClimateChangeIsReal” is because any time they’re forced to debate substantive questions they look “dumber than weather.”

Here are some real questions for your favorite “Avengers: Age of Ultron” environmental activist stars:

  1. How much does man have an effect on climate in relation to things like that giant ball of exploding gas called the sun?
  2. If man is responsible for significant changes to the earth’s ever-changing climate, what are the proposed political solutions to the problem?
  3. Will the political solutions put forth by Hollywood actors and directors result in losses to freedom and liberty?
  4. Will the political solutions put forth by men like Mark Ruffalo actually have any tangible effect?

Those are questions Messrs. Whedon and Ruffalo aren’t comfortable answering, which is why they opt instead for tweets that result in fawning praise by their Twitter followers.

The next time these guys essentially try to shame you because you like nice long showers or vehicles that don’t run on batteries, ask them how it feels to be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe juggernaut and its Galactus-sized carbon footprint. My guess is that that they’ll run away faster than Quicksilver.

Geoscientists: Al Gore should stop with the ‘oil sands threaten our survival as a species’ talk

Al Gore Climate Change

It was less than a month ago that NPR’s Bill Moyers and Canadian scientists shared their fantasies about throwing global warming … climate change … climate disruption skeptics in prison. Who would have known that the targets Mr. Moyers’ police state dream would be geoscientists.

James Taylor of Forbes writes:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

Weird. I’ve never seen a discussion of this study on NPR.

Have geoscientists been paid off by a shadowy conservative organization led by Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty”? Is the oil industry shoving wads of cash into the geoscientists’ pants to get them to say what the energy industry wants? If they are corrupt, wouldn’t that mean that other scientists would be just as open to changing their views if it meant getting another year’s worth of grants from the right government agency?

For the purposes of this blog post, we’ll assume scientists are almost all totally honest because that is what Bill Moyers and David Suzuki wanted us to believe when they discussed the logistics of tossing guys like me into a deep dark dungeon. (Mr. Moyers will deal with those turncoats at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration later — how dare they report that 2013 had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982!)

In light of this recent skepticism displayed by geoscientists, it’s probably safe to say that they would tell Al Gore to cool it on the doomsday rhetoric.

Organizational Studies quotes the former Vice President as saying:

With more than 15% higher GHG emissions than conventional oil, the [Canadian] oil sands have been categorized as particularly ‘dirty’ oil (Nikiforuk, 2008) and have become the ‘whipping boy of European and American green groups fighting the “Great Climate War”’ (Sweeney, 2010, p. 160). Al Gore builds on this by stating that the “oil sands threaten our survival as a species” and “Junkies find veins in the toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent” (Sweeney, 2010, p. 168).

The oil sands of Canada threaten our survival as a species. Gotcha. In the mind of Al Gore, the big threat to humanity isn’t the guys who want to create a giant Islamic caliphate in large expansive sandy regions of the Middle East (while slaughtering thousands in the process) — it’s the engineers trying to squeeze oil out of sand in Canada so you can enjoy widgets and gadgets that make life in 2014 really comfortable.


Militants from the al-Qaeda-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (Associated Press)
Militants from the al-Qaeda-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (Associated Press)

What makes the doomsday predictions and the calls to imprison skeptics even more bizarre is having to read New York Times articles that attribute a 15 to 20 year pause in global warming to “luck.” How very scientific of you, New York Times.

As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.

The point is that the “settled science” of Climate Change isn’t “settled,” at least not to the extent Al Gore’s “solution” (i.e., give the federal government complete control over entire industries and turn over billions of dollars to a federal Leviathan) should be explored.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think do some further reading on things like liquid fluoride thorium reactors — the kind of scientific research that Al Gore never talks about.


Bill Moyers, scientist fantasize about locking up Americans who question climate change

Obit Shriver Wake

FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he is “suspicious” of the federal government and that American should be as well. Why would he say that? There are a number of reasons, but one of them might be because there are men who think like Bill Moyers and geneticist David Suzuki running around the halls of Congress and occupying chairs in the administrative state.

The Daily Caller reported Tuesday:

Canadian geneticist David Suzuki urged Western governments to lock up politicians who question man-made climate change, telling PBS’ Bill Moyers “our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness!”

Suzuki appeared on “Moyers and Company” earlier this month to express his abject frustration over politicians, in both Canada and the United States, who refuse to accept the “settled science” on man-made global warming.

“Our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness!” he asserted. “If we are in a position of being able to act, and we see something going on and we refuse to acknowledge the threat or act on it, we can be taken to court for willful blindness.”

It’s a good thing that modern science can be “settled” with computer models that have shown to be wrong time and time again. It’s a good thing that modern science can be “settled” by the brilliant (i.e., corrupt) minds who brought us The University of East Anglia “Climategate” scandal. It’s a good thing that modern science is “settled,” even though there’s a gigantic ball of exploding gas that affects our planet in countless ways we still don’t fully comprehend.

Scientist PBS
Remember when FDR rounded up Japanese people and threw them in internment camps? Well, I want to do that sort of thing again, but I want the prisons to be more diverse. And I want to do it in Canada as well. Score!

Regardless, it is always refreshing when men like Mr. Suzuki come straight out and tell the world that their hearts are filled with totalitarian urges. It’s merely hilarious when a guy like Bill Moyers interviews a wannabe tyrant and essentially says, “I’d totally be down with that if the numbers were small enough to do it without drawing too much attention to ourselves.”

“The problem is, if that should happen — if politicians were to be convicted to willful blindness to the fate of the Earth and future generations — there would have to be mass arrests, and lots more funding for new prisons,” he noted. “We’re not talking about a mere handful of culprits. It’s hard to know where to start,” (Bill Moyers — aka, guy who would love to circumvent the rule of law and imprison people who disagree with him if he didn’t think it would get too messy.)

Here’s what I said after visiting the Virginia Living Museum (where I learned that the region has been under water many, many times over millions of years) Oct. 7, 2013:

There is no doubt that the climate “changes.” The question is: How big of a role does man play? Is it big enough to warrant the redistribution of wealth — to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars — from the private sector to a bureaucratic Leviathan? Answer: No. Is shaving a few degrees off computer models that even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now admits are flawed worth the price in individual liberty? Of course not.

To David Suzuki and Bill Moyers, that is apostasy. Globalwarmingclimatechangeclimatedisruption (one word) will not be questioned. It is “settled,” and those who are suspicious of the solution (i.g., consolidating power into the hands of an “elite” group of master minds along with massive transfers of wealth to their friends, family and political allies) must be silenced.

There are many good scientists out there, but there are also many authoritarian thugs (and authoritarian thug wannabes) who have abandoned the old camouflage fatigues for white lab coats. In countries like the United States, it is much harder to control the population by force (thank God for the Second Amendment), so the only option is to get the individual to willingly abdicate his freedom and individual liberty. Now that science has become its own religion for many people, the statists have found countless ways to take advantage of the situation.

Keep questioning. Always question. And when a thug like David Suzuki makes it known that he’s the type of guy who would have cheered on Japanese internment camps when FDR (the left’s Moses) was in office, call them out on it every time. We should never allow for the theft of individual liberty, but if it’s going to happen we should not allow ourselves to become so passive and self-absorbed that it happens in broad daylight.

DiCaprio: I Don’t Want to Control You. I Want the Bureaucrats to Control You.

Leonardo DiCaprio is great at playing characters who are psychologically confused, as was the case with Shutter Island. It's fitting, because he sounds completely lost when he defines the green movement's relationship with the average American.

Leo has a brand new ride. A $100,000 ride. Sure, he could have saved himself over $99,000 and bought a bicycle (the only carbon emissions come from your pesky, polluting lungs!), but that’s all right. He’s Hollywood. He needs to be cool. And how much cooler can you be than by owning a 2012 Fisker Karma? Yes, Al Gore is on the waiting list, which instantly makes it a little less desirable, but for a few short months Leo will be in an exclusive club. He can probably even ride it to any of James Cameron’s North American mansions without ever running out of gas.

Regardless, if it wasn’t for the gross inequalities liberals like Leo claim to abhor—before demanding millions for their next big film—who would be able to shoulder the R&D costs that will eventually bring the Fisker Karma down to price range normal folks can afford? Sadly, a Leonardo DiCaprio stunt double is not given a Leonardo DiCaprio stunt bank account.

Some might look at Leonardo DiCaprio’s new car and wonder why he would buy a vehicle with a “diamond dust” paint job. Who mined those diamonds? Which African country was exploited by which Chinese company outsourced by an evil American corporation to bring that diamond-dust paint to the market? Why mine diamonds in the first place, when they’re perfectly happy resting between the breasts of Mother Earth where they belong?

Asked whether or not he should be the poster boy for environmentalism, the actor recently responded to The Mail’s Live magazine:

“This is not about me…And it’s not about one group of people telling any other group of people how to live. I don’t think it’s fair to tell people to install solar panels, buy (low-watt) light bulbs or drive a hybrid – that’s not a reality for most people.’

‘It is about something much, much bigger. It’s about getting the governments of the world to implement environmental policy.”

Did you catch that? In between the first and last sentences were a few platitudes about caring about the rights of consumers, so it may have been easy to miss. Here it is again:

“It’s not about one group of people telling any other group of people how to live…It’s about getting the governments of the world to implement environmental policy.”

It’s not about telling you what to do; it’s about telling you what to do. Still confused? Leo doesn’t want to tell you what to do—he wants nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA to tell you what to do. That way, you still think he’s a really cool guy, see his movies, fill his pockets with cash that will allow him to buy expensive toys, and he still gets to feel good about himself at Hollywood fundraisers for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.

Shutter Island and Inception were both great movies that starred Leonardo DiCaprio. Both involved mind games. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell Leo that the American people like watching mind games on the big screen, but they don’t like experiencing them in real life. Hopefully the king of the world will take his $100,000 luxury car that can get 100 miles to the gallon and drive far, far away until J. Edgar Hoover comes out.

Oil Boom in Texas Causes Salty Tears in Al Gore’s Mansions.

Tony Starks in Texas are literally breaking down barriers to oil. In an undisclosed mansion Al Gore cries salty tears.

The interesting thing about predictions about the world’s supply of oil is that no matter how many times the “experts” are wrong the predictions keep coming. And each generation of gullible college kids keep latching onto them. The reason those predictions are almost always inaccurate  is because hard core liberal prognosticators usually fail to factor in the creativity of the human mind. New technologies set to release large quantities of oil from “tight rock” formations in Texas have, without a doubt, caused tears to flow in the private jets and mansions occupied by Al Gore, his Gorebots, and Keith Olbermann.

I have no problem with private companies doing research and development into wind turbines (also known as next-generation windmills). I just wish that liberals would applaud other breakthroughs in technology that will raise the standard of living of millions of Americans:

The oil industry says any environmental concerns are far outweighed by the economic benefits of pumping previously inaccessible oil from fields that could collectively hold two or three times as much oil as Prudhoe Bay, the Alaskan field that was the last great onshore discovery. The companies estimate that the boom will create more than two million new jobs, directly or indirectly, and bring tens of billions of dollars to the states where the fields are located, which include traditional oil sites like Texas and Oklahoma, industrial stalwarts like Ohio and Michigan and even farm states like Kansas.

Only a few years ago, mining from these rock formations in an economically feasible way was unheard of. Now, through a process called “fracking,” (extraction by using “a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hazardous chemicals to blast through the rocks”) huge amounts of oil are well (no pun intended) on their way to the market.

Worried about “hazardous chemicals”? If you’re a normal human being, you just said yes. I like drinking clean water and breathing clean air just as much as the next guy. However, if you’re a conservative you can rest easy because you trust that the same great minds that figured out how to extract oil in new ways can also figure out how to deal with hazardous materials. If you have pictures of Al Gore hanging over your bed, you’re probably inclined to regulate the process into extinction tomorrow.

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives trust that there’s a little Tony Stark in each of us waiting to be unleashed, while liberals fear that there are Tony Starks out there who need to be controlled. In short:

God gave each of us gifts, and wants us to take full advantage of them. Capitalism, Science, and The Rule of Law fused in America to produce a system that churns out ideas and innovation and entrepreneurs at an astounding rate—when the government gets out of the way. The spirit of America is embodied in the character of Tony Stark: He’s big. He’s bold. He shoots for the stars, and he’s unapologetic about his accomplishments.

Texas and its shale oil engineers are big, bold, and unapologetic about their accomplishments—and we should embrace them. Likewise, I suppose there are Tony Starks in San Francisco who will blow our minds with the windmills of tomorrow—and they should be embraced for their successes. I just wish Al Gore, residing in one of his many mansions with the temperature set to his exact specifications, thought the same way.

Side note: Let’s also give thanks that more oil will be coming online in the United States, as opposed to…Venezuela.

Hank Johnson: When Captain Planet meets Congress, YOU Lose.

I was recently talking with a smart young woman when the conversation started to veer towards environmental public policy issues. It was intimated that I should tread carefully, because this person cared about

Captain Planet is telling me Gaum will sink into the ocean if there are too many people on it. And businesses all destroy the environment. Now hand over more control of your life to me.

the environment. Notice anything weird about that? Just as most of the liberal “anti-war” folks I’ve run across have a hard time contemplating how those who support efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan also abhor war (we just remember poster-boy “anti-war” hero Neville Chamberlain a little too well)—conservatives have also allowed their intentions to be defined by the left as it pertains to environmental policy. And, while I’m more interested in results instead of intentions, it’s tough to reach people when their knee-jerk reaction is to assume you don’t care about their feelings

Because guys like Mahmoud “there aren’t any gay people in Iran (probably because we kill them), and speaking of which can we get back to my desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth” Ahmadinejad exist, and the danger they pose to world peace so stark to the majority of Americans, self-congratulation as a form of social policy is often a hard sell on national defense. Environmental policy is not.

During a conversation I had a few weeks ago with a guy who knows a thing or two about environmental issues, I mentioned how conservatives slept in class as Professor Pop Culture was inculcating generations of kids with Al Gorwellian talking points. Ever watch Captain Planet, where big-bad businessmen were always plotting and planning ways to harm Mother Earth? Do you remember The Simpsons episode Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish? Then you know what I’m talking about.

The last time I checked (although not in the way President Obama did after he signed the Health Care bill) I liked breathing clean air and drinking clean water and not dying of rectal cancer caused by Sean Penn’s weird death wish or an Airborne Toxic Event: Sometime Around Midnight. I mean, I really, really like breathing clean air and drinking clean water. And I want a world where my kids and grandkids can experience that as well. I just don’t think handing over large chunks of the US economy to liberals like Hank Guam might tip over and sink into the ocean Johnson and his Planeteers is a good idea. I think the creativity of the American people, entrepreneurs, global markets, and a freeing-up of unnecessary artificial constraints on our energy infrastructure is a better bet.

Am I wrong? I don’t think so, but I also don’t think I care about the environment any less than someone who looks at rocks and cries. I’m just not insane.

Al Gore thinks He’s Scott Bakula in Quantum Leap. He’s Not.

If even the shareholders at Apple are calling him joke, I’m not sure if many more Al Gore blog posts on him are needed. As the good folks at Hotair point out, it’s rather interesting that a man who views himself as an “instrument of human redemption” (Yes Al, you are a tool…) doesn’t like answering questions. This, coupled with the IPCC’s ongoing troubles stemming from another debacle, in which the world’s leading scientists thought global warming was so important to the survival of mankind that they threw out their raw data, does not bode well for the president that never was.

Scientists keep detailed records on the immune systems of dung beetles, but apparently Al Gore’s number crunchers, who are willing to shell out $1200 to not shake his hand, thought throwing out raw data was consistent with the scientific method when the statistics keep giving you headaches.

In this case I think the most interesting thing to take away is the instrument of human redemption line. It’s not that I don’t think laws can be used to right wrongs like Sam Beckett from Quantum Leap, but I do have an issue with small groups of elites that think they can plan complex economies based on a few computer models and the word of their friends who–again–throw out raw data the rest of us could use to cross-check their claims. And besides, we know Scott Bakula, and you sir Mr. Gore, are no Scott Bakula!

I HIGHLY SUGGEST reading living legend Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed. It will change you life.

Save Polar Bears: Have American Babies.

Want to save the polar bears? (that don’t really need saving…)Want to have a cleaner world? Then have babies. Lots of them. More specifically, I think Americans should have babies.

Whereas liberals debate whether conservation or a Sentinel sized federal government is the proper way to care for the environment, the conservative position should be self-evident: Free countries and free people can unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of their citizens to overcome almost any obstacle.  Want a renewable natural resource? Human creativity is a well that never runs dry.  You can tap into the human spirit again and again and never come up empty.

The problem is, liberals tend not to trust the population to provide answers to the world’s problems because they’re under the impression it’s filled with racist, bigoted, redneck hicks. And sometimes, people who claim to be of the conservative world view really aren’t. Which is weird because liberal politicians and those who agree with the notion that only mama government can cure what ails you often are rock solid examples of what the human body and human imagination are capable of.

Why is it that liberal self-made millionaires bash the system that made them rich? Why do self-righteous hypocritical filmmakers believe technology and capitalism are great for making 3D movies, but inconsistent with being good stewards of the environment?

Conservatives need to make the case that the way to a “greener” world is by having free people make money -more specifically dollars- and by having their children grow up to be the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates instead of the next Harry Reid.