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.

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.

Virginia under water ‘many times’ since the dinosaur age — to the dismay of the climate change crowd

Douglas Ernst geology
Since Monday is my day off, my wife and I decided to take a trip down to Virginia Living Museum in Newport News Va., hoping to learn a few things. Mission complete.

After reading up on all sorts of wildlife that can be found in the beautiful “Old Dominion,” talking to sweet old ladies and the other kind staff who volunteer their time to care for the animals, I ran across the following placard:

“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).

You mean to tell me that long before the internal combustion engine was invented that the planet was in such constant flux that much of eastern Virginia was submerged underwater “many” times? Answer: Yes.

Douglas Ernst turtle 1
Here is me and my buddy the Loggerhead Sea Turtle. These guys are the only sea turtles that still nest in Virginia.

The next time someone warns you that unless we hand over more power to politicians in Washington, D.C., that the eastern seaboard will be underwater in a decade or two, ask them the following question: Did dinosaurs literally drive themselves to extinction in really big gas-guzzling trucks made for reptilians with tiny arms?

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.

The IPCC is in full damage-control mode after it leaked advance copies of an upcoming Summary for Policymakers to what it assumed would be friendly journalists. The journalists, however, quickly realized the IPCC Summary for Policymakers contained several embarrassing walk-backs from alarmist statements in prior IPCC reports.

Two of the most embarrassing aspects of the Summary for Policymakers are (1) IPCC’s admission that global warming has occurred much slower than IPCC previously forecast and (2) IPCC is unable to explain the ongoing plateau in global temperatures. IPCC computer models have predicted twice as much warming as has occurred in the real world, and virtually none of the IPCC computer models can replicate or account for the recent lack of global warming.

These days, instead of admitting that they used fear mongering to try and consolidate power and enrich themselves, the Climate Change crusaders (formerly the Global Warming police) are doubling down: global warming is hiding … at the bottom of the ocean, but will return sometime in the future. How convenient.

If you're swimming in Virginia, be careful you don't get too close to the Stinging Sea Nettle Jellyfish. They've been around for 650 million years, and will likely be around long after humans abandon earth to explore the rest of the cosmos.
If you’re swimming in Virginia, be careful you don’t get too close to the Stinging Sea Nettle Jellyfish. They’ve been around for 650 million years, and will likely be around long after humans abandon earth to explore the rest of the cosmos.

Want to increase the probability of causing a climate change disciple to go into a fit of rage? Visit museums. Talk to the staff. Read the literature. Learn some science and write about it on your blog.

NYT: Earth isn’t warming quickly — but it will one day, so cough up your freedom

The sun is a giant exploding ball of gas that is essentially to all life on planet earth. Perhaps — just perhaps — it plays a role when it comes to climate change here on earth. Just don't tell the New York Times that or its editors might accuse you of not believing in science.
The sun is a giant exploding ball of gas that is essential to all life on Earth. Perhaps — just perhaps — it plays a role when it comes to climate change here on earth. Just don’t tell the New York Times that or its editors might accuse you of not believing in science.

Years ago politicians said that the world was going to end if we didn’t do something about “Global Warming” — now, now, now (i.e., cede more individual liberties to the guys who are now totally cool with indefinite detention without a trial, sending drones to blow up Americans overseas and NSA wiretaps on your phone calls because Diane Feinstein thinks you might be a terrorist … in the future).

Well, Global Warming didn’t pan out, so the term was changed to “Climate Change.” It might not get as toasty as the scientists thought, but it was going to get really violent out there unless you coughed up more freedom and tax dollars to the guys who were going to “solve” the problem (e.g, men like Congressman Hank Johnson, D-Ga., who believe if Gaum becomes too heavily populated it will “tip over and capsize” into the ocean). Why talk about the potential of liquid fluoride thorium reactors when we can talk about expanding the size and scope of the federal government?

Anyway, the New York Times is looking around at the lack of devastation due to man-made globalwarmingclimatechange (one word), and it wants to assure you: even though scientists don’t know what’s going on — they’re right. They can’t prove that they’re right, but they are.


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.

How do you know it’s “luck” if it’s a “mystery”?

True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

President Obama said “progress comes in fits and starts.” It’s comforting to know that the Climate Change apocalypse will follow the same pattern.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

“Important gaps”? I thought this was a done deal? That’s what we’ve been told for decades now (unless you were alive in the 70’s, at which time they said we were on the verge of a new ice age).

As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Nino weather pattern.

Somebody who wanted to sell you gold coins as an investment could make the same kind of argument about the futility of putting your retirement funds into the stock market. If he picked the start date and the end date carefully enough, the gold salesman could make it look like the stock market did not go up for a decade or longer.

Hmm. The New York Times is saying that if you don’t quite believe the scientists who say it’s all going to end soon unless we fork over authority to the federal government, then you probably like to fudge data. That’s really odd, since that’s exactly what globalwarmingclimatechange (one word) advocates got caught doing on a massive scale.

Here’s a short summary of “Climategate,” via Watts up with That, to refresh your memory:

1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.

2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.

3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.

4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.

What the emails/files don’t do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don’t preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science.

Wow. Hey. That last paragraph sounds pretty measured. It sounds like a guy who acknowledges that humans have an impact on the environment, but that it might not be nearly as consequential as we’re being led to believe.

When push comes to shove, the scientists are forced to acknowledge that for all their knowledge, they don’t know s**t. The conservative knows this (e.g., we don’t think 535 people can “plan” a $14 trillion economy), which is why they aren’t enthusiastic about handing over individual liberties to Big Brother in the name of saving Mother Earth.

And with that, I leave you with George Carlin, who nails environmentalists to the wall:

Note: Check out Hube’s take over at the Colossus of Rhodey.

William Shatner: May His Carbon Emissions Never Cease.


If Stalin cut carbon emissions by hundreds of millions of cubic tons, does that make mother earth happy? And why do I have this weird self-loathing that grows in concert with my bank account?

I would have posted this on Earth Day, but I spent it thinking about some of the strange people that inhabit the planet, particularly those who are on the brink of insanity. Say, for instance, your average liberal from Berkeley:

So right now I am panicking. And in my panicked state, I become shrill and unrealistic. So I am calling for four actions–at least one of which, in particular, is robustly unappealing.

  • Beg the rulers of China and India to properly understand their long-term interests;
  • Nationalize the energy industry in the United States

I’m not going to bother with his third and fourth propositions, because the first two bullet points are already giving me a headache.

It used to be that liberals called on the United States to be a better member of the “world community” (i.e., they wanted us on equal footing with countries like Iran, North Korea, and any number of backwards nations run by weird warlords with a penchant for tuxedo shoes). That was bad enough… But now we find out it was all one big euphemism for grovelpolitik. Reagan had peace through strength. Your liberal economist from Berkeley has peace through lowliness. The plan seems to become an irrelevant outpost in a world filled with tyranny.

The second point is interesting, in that, if government control was strongly correlated with cleanliness the Soviet Union would have been a paragon of Green Living. Instead, it was simply Red. With blood.  I suppose you could count the weird shade of green gulag victims turned after our Commie counterparts were done with them… Sometimes, strange microbial things feed on your body when you die. And bizarrely, there probably is a strain of the environmental movement that quietly cheers Stalin’s handy work in “cutting down on carbon emissions” by millions of cubic tons. I’m assuming they would also redefine murder as “aged zygote termination” or “blastocyst from the pastocyst”  wish-fulfillment.

Regardless, the difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to solving our environmental problems couldn’t be clearer. Liberals have strange self-loathing and subconsciously think we’d all be better off if there were a few billion people less in the world, and conservatives believe the answers to our problems can be found by mining the creative mind of man. We are the world’s greatest resource, whether liberals like it our not. Exhibit A: Alpha Zygote William Shattner.

Darn it, you conservatives: You're not humans. You're always just a zygote somewhere in the space-time continuum.

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.