The phrase “believe survivors” is an intelligence test.
If they are proven survivors, you don’t need to “believe” them.
If they are posing as “survivors,” they are exploiting real victims.
“Believing” does not tell you which is which.
And it is essential to know.
— Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux) October 7, 2018
A couple of the comments by others under STEFAN’S TWEET:
- Macron’s step kids are probably older than him
- They clearly wouldn’t want to bring children into this hellish world that they are helping to bring to fruition.
- Nor does Sweden PM Stefan Löfven or Holland PM Mark Rutte, far as I know. Maybe a few trainee Prime Ministers will migrate to Europe.
- Explains why they have no problem destroying their own counties, they have no biological stake in it!
- — A point well made, no emotional capital in the future of their countries. No guilt when the mayhem starts
- Europeans liberal leftist snowflakes don’t want children. it gives stretch marks. That’s why they let in millions of migrants to make them
- They are the Mom & Dad to the Middle East
- Neither do my friends who voted for Killary.
- Actually… … Thank God.
- That would make them natural *Keynesians* (Keynes also had no children): “In the long run we are all dead”.
- Don’t forget the Netherlands and Luxemburg.
- They don’t need them, they’re busy nannying the whole world.
- That means that they don’t understand the truths of life which having children teaches you.
John and Ken discuss the legal attacks against Trumps temporary travel ban with Professor John Eastman, who is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. Dr. Eastman makes note that the provision allowing for the President to do this is clear. It is also clear the Courts (specifically the 9th Circuit) has overstepped its bounds… yet again. Stefan Molyneux points out that in 2012, The U.S Supreme Court reversed 86% of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings that it reviewed. WOW. That is a clear sign of something going on — like Judicial activism. Since the argument Trump used is essentially the same as Obama’s, it is hard to see why all the Justices via SCOTUS wouldn’t agree with Trumps Constitutional right in this matter.
As an aside, Bill Nye the “Science Guy” is saying floods in California are due to Global Warming… a year ago the drought in California was attributed to Global Warming by this “science guy,” even though California has been three degrees warmer on average in the past and even has had 200-year long droughts further back than that. A model that is non-falsifiable and explains EVERYTHING is not scientific! First, an introduction in case you missed my post on this (hubris included for free), here is Dr. Happer educating the CNBC crowd: A must read article co-authored by Dr. Happer (originally from the Wall Street Journal, is here: Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide This guy has lived a life books are written about. What a great guy, patriot, and scientist. For quotes and topics more zeroed in on Global Warming via the longer interview, see WUWT‘s post. Here is a bit more biographical run of the interview… I will include another recent video discussion on Global Warming between Stefan Molyneux and Dr. Happer below.
As an aside, Bill Nye the “Science Guy” is saying floods in California are due to Global Warming… a year ago the drought in California was attributed to Global Warming by this “science guy,” even though California has been three degrees warmer on average in the past and even has had 200-year long droughts further back than that. A model that is non-falsifiable and explains EVERYTHING is not scientific!
First, an introduction in case you missed my post on this (hubris included for free), here is Dr. Happer educating the CNBC crowd:
A must read article co-authored by Dr. Happer (originally from the Wall Street Journal, is here: Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide
This guy has lived a life books are written about. What a great guy, patriot, and scientist. For quotes and topics more zeroed in on Global Warming via the longer interview, see WUWT‘s post. Here is a bit more biographical run of the interview… I will include another recent video discussion on Global Warming between Stefan Molyneux and Dr. Happer below.
This video is based on David E.W. Evans work over at MISES DAILY…
- We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.
(BIO) Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.
“The idea that ‘Climate science is settled’ runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.” ~ Steven E. Koonin, Undersecretary of Energy for Science under Obama.
My resource on throwing deniers in jail is the best online:
A great site bringing together the professional as well as the media’s critique of the 97% consensus can be found HERE: 97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” This really the bottom line:
Cook misquoted papers (the one’s he included… not the 8,000 he excluded) as representing consensus… the original post by Popular Technology is HERE, but FORBES did a good job on explaining the discrepancies as stated by the “consensus scientists/specialists.”
Here are some visuals… and note that if 75 climatologists are a consensus, or 0.5% is a consensus, then how bout this very short list of specialists rejecting the issue in some form… what kind of consensus is that?
I bet many make the point that these specialists do not count. Let me get this straight… they counted when used to promote consensus but do not now that they say their works were misquoted/misused? Forbes and the Wall Street Journal or leading climatologists/physicists (like top-notch persons in their field like Richard Lindzen or Freeman Dyson as examples — or these 1,000 scientists, or these 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment and 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solid, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.) aren’t enough… how bout this PEER REVIEWED PAPER delving into the consensus in an in-depth manner. Here is the abstract… followed by some visuals:
AGAIN, to be clear, and to quote the post by STEVEN CROWDER:
And here are some more points from Obama’s man:
BREITBART adds to the idea of the “Cooked” Cook paper with a real survey:
- 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (Friends of Science)
- Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (Forbes);
- (WSJ) The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’; What is the origin of the false belief that almost all scientists agree about global warming? (Hockey Schtick);
- 97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” (Popular Technology);
- 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them (Popular Technology ~ Update to Above Article!)
- Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (New American)
- Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science (Climate Change Dispatch);
- Undersecretary of Energy for Science For Obama Rejects “Scientism” (RPT);
- 100% Consensus ~ As If More Were Needed (RPT).
- The myth of ‘settled science’ – When the left shuts down debate, it’s time for skepticism (Washington Times)
- Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis (Forbes)
- Debunking the 97% ‘consensus’ on global warming (American Spectator)
- Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper (WUWT – See Dr. Tol’s blog)
- The 97% Cook Consensus – when will Environ Res Letters retract it? (JoNova)
- UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Debunks ‘97% Consensus’ Claim (Breitbart)
- The 97 Percent Climate Change Consensus That Wasn’t (Heartland)
No matter what you think of the following long and short lists… the bottom line is this, WAY more than 75-Climatologists think that man is either not the main contributor to global warming at all, or that global warming is not a catastrophe waiting to happen: