Harvard’s Jacinda Ardean Calls on the United Nations to Crack Down on Free Speech as a Weapon of War

Jacinda Ardern may no longer be Prime Minister of New Zealand, but she was back at the United Nations continuing her call for international censorship. Ardern is now one of the leading anti-free speech figures in the world and continues to draw support from political and academic establishments.  In her latest attack on free speech, Ardean declared free speech as a virtual weapon of war. She is demanding that the world join her in battling free speech as part of its own war against “misinformation” and “disinformation.” Her views, of course, were not only enthusiastically embraced by authoritarian countries, but the government and academic elite.

In her speech, she notes that we cannot allow free speech to get in the way of fighting things like climate change. She notes that they cannot win the war on climate change if people do not believe them about the underlying problem. The solution is to silence those with opposing views. It is that simple.

While some of us have denounced her views as an attack on free expression, Harvard rushed to give her not one but two fellowships. While the free speech community denounced her for unrelenting attacks on this human right, Harvard praised her for “strong and empathetic political leadership” and specifically enlisted her to help “improve content standards and platform accountability for extremist content online.”

I actually have no objection to the inclusion of Ardern as a Harvard fellow. She is a former world leader who is leading the movement against free speech. It is a view that students should consider in looking at these controversies. However, Harvard has heralded her views with no acknowledgment of her extreme antagonism toward free speech principles. There is also little countervailing balance at the school with fellows supporting free speech as a human right. Rather, Harvard (which ranks dead last on the recent free speech survey) has become a virtual clearinghouse for anti-free speech academics and advocates.

Free speech is now commonly treated on campuses as harmful. Rather than the right that defines us, it is treated as an existential threat.

What is so chilling is to hear Ardean express her fealty to free speech as she calls on the nations of the world to severely curtail it to prevent people from undermining their policies and priorities. She remains the “empathetic” face of raw censorship and intolerance. She is now the virtual ambassador-at-large for global speech regulation and criminalization.

247 thoughts on “Harvard’s Jacinda Ardean Calls on the United Nations to Crack Down on Free Speech as a Weapon of War”

  1. “St. Thomas More:…And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you–where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast–man’s laws, not God’s–and if you cut them down…d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

  2. “While the free speech community denounced her for unrelenting attacks on this human right…”

    For something to be a human right, it has to start by being something definable with a clear meaning. Problem is, the so-called “free speech community” have done everything in their power to render the concept entirely free of meaning, and they have succeeded at that. Does “free speech” mean that people should feel able to speak their minds in normal conversation with their friends? Well, the “free speech community” has made it truly hard to speak about threats like climate change even among family and friends. Does it mean that people should be able to get their views discussed in the media, should the issue be important enough? The “free speech community” has turned the news into a circus where important policy issues get mixed with entirely pedantic points about minute details of a single person’s life, robbing time from other important policy issues that could be discussed as well. Does it mean that nobody should feel like they’re staring at the sun in the course of a normal conversation? QAnon pretty much proves the point that many people felt exactly that way.

    1. Wrong. It means my right to say w/e the F i want. If you don’t lioke it, too bad, if you don’t believe it, too bad, if you are a moron and believe everything that you are told, too bad, if you need an authority figure to tell you what to think – they’re there for you – for free, even.

      You can post (above) that it has been the warmest 3 month stretch in a geologically insignificant period of 175-years and then extrapolate that the obamma’s houses in MV and HI will be underwater before the dems steal another election, and i can either believe you, ponder it and look for more information, or laugh at you – too damned bad for both of us.

      Stop pretending that “climate science” is some kind of settled series of inputs and outputs. Stop thinking that the bimbo kiwi knows something others don’t and that she isn’t simply the spokesmodel du jour for the coming totalitarian global leftist movement. Stop telling others what they can and can’t do when it has no impact on anything, or that telling that C&%t she can SMD is bad for the environment.

      Go away, you have a very short time on this earth relative to our consciousness and geologically. You are insignificant both in the causes of and solutions to real and made-up issues. Go gently into that good night – for the sake of us all.

      PS I would rather die in a climate catastrophe with my kids and all my DNA then live under the boot of Aholes like soros, this kiwi c&^t, or you.

    2. If “the “free speech community” has made it truly hard to speak about threats like climate change even among family and friends,” they are not part of the free speech community, and neither are the other examples in you straw man comment.

      1. Clay, I think you’re being too literal. These people are not saying the “free speech” segment is somehow “shutting them down for speechifying.” Rather they are bemoaning the very essence of free speech; the competition of ideas in the hearts of the audience. And there’s the threat. If you can’t compete with someones ideas then shut them up is the solution that the Clueless’s and Jucinda Ardean terrors are advocating.

  3. The thing JT is missing is that freedom of thought and expression are maximized when it reaches up to, but does not include deceptive infowarfare. There are two competing definitions of “truthful information” locked in a battle that will determine whether free societies remain free — or fall under the iron grip of authoritarianism:

    Definition 1: That information which stands up to healthy skepticism and scrutiny over the long term.

    Definition 2: That which is in my interest for you to believe.

    How does JT envision a society remaining free if Definition 2 predominates over Definition 1? Those who thirst for unchallengeable, autocratic power depend on Definition 2 to reach their goal and then remain in power. The surest way, then, to thwart those totalitarian ambitions is to regulate the infosphere so that purposive deceptions get forcefully challenged in realtime — that they become exposed and defanged in the timeframe before important decisions can be “nudged” by self-interested liars.

    Obviously, this regulation must be highly decentralized, and expose whoppers to the same timely counterforce — whether they originate in government, campaigns for government, in powerful corporations/lobbying groups, ministers of information in adversarial nations, media execs, or just disgruntled misanthropes who play infowarfare for vicarious thrills like a video game.

    The news media cannot be trusted to regulate the infosphere for quality information that will stand up to extended scrutiny. Big media have business interests and political biases that pull them toward Definition 2. And, as we see having happened in Russia, Turkey, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, media can voluntarily align themselves with a ruling regime, essentially acting as its mouthpiece. When JT argues for “free speech”, he is implicitly defending that pernicious style of media — acceding to artful propaganda as “co-equal” in legal status to honest, fact-based reportage. That permissiveness is essentially handing wannabe despots the toolset to lie their way into power.

    I propose expanding defamation torts law to cover Public Frauds as the best way to regulate the political infosphere
    against the danger of highly skilled psyOps. Civil Courts offer just the right combination of adversarial challenge, rules of evidence, subpoena power to penetrate the infowarrior’s cloak of secrecy, a powerful neutral Judge to discipline the litigants, a schedule to solve the conflict, and a jury of 12 Americans voting unanimously as finders-of-fact. Public Frauds courts would have to offer rapid-response due-diligence in order that deceptive infowarfare be countered in the timeframe where the public knowing the truth still matters.

    We have to evolve a modern infospace that does not cede political influence and power to the best liars. And, we have to design it so that good, dependable information (Definition 1) flows freely. We can do both, and must to fend off blunders borne of duping the public — and the ultimate extreme of that — electing authoritarian leadership that dupes enough of us into giving consent.

    1. The world being round and moving around the sun were “whoppers” once.
      Perhaps we should go back to doing what was done to those heretics.

      1. Nobody was able to measure the speeds until the speedometer was invented, so how could anybody know that the Earth is spinning at 1080 mph, the Moon moves around the Earth at 2288 mph, and they both circuit the Sun together traveling some 70,000 mph. Now that’s unbelievable! But we know it true, because it is the science.

    2. pbinCA you haven’t thought this thru much have you. Your “Definition 2: That which is in my interest for you to believe” includes all forms of “advocacy persuasion” — everything from advertising to criminal defense representations. All speech, outside of the delusion of “scientistic” speach, involves “exaggeration” if it is the product of human imagination (and not some rigorous generative AI system void of algorithm bias — assuming that’s possible). This is so since exaggeration is a hallmark of imagination. All imagining includes exaggeration whether or not the person doing the imagining is aware of the exaggeration. And what makes you think there is any kind of conflict between your definitions? They are simply aspects of the same general concept of speech; just as the yoke is is different from the egg white, they are both aspects of the egg. And you can’t separate the two in any meaningful way without breaking the egg. Prevarication regarding speech like this just seeks to break the egg of speech in the name of some imaginary society where conflicts in ideas (imagination and exaggeration) is banished.

  4. Once again, the people are calling Conservatives fascists ARE the fascists. We are living in 1930s Germany and Italy. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people alive today are clueless about what came after.

  5. This is a bit off subject, but it would be interesting if Professor Turley would invite the people who regularly read and comment on this blog to a two day symposium to meet and civilly discuss issues. I would love to put faces to names (or those who would not be named.)

    I am sure many saw a video a few years ago of four dogs who were barking at as many dogs on the other side of a sliding outdoor gate. When the gate opened, the dogs on both sides were quiet and calm. Nothing substitutes for face to face, in person conversations.

    Something to think about

    1. Yet another communist out of power or is she? Tucker Carlson once referred to her as the PM with the ‘funny teeth’.

    2. Anonymous: I don’t think I could spend 1 hour–let alone 2 days with some of the people on this blog in a “civility” symposium. “Tom” is the antithesis of “civility”. He thinks “denny’s latest crash and burn deserves a visit from Dick Head”. Whoever or whatever that is. “S. Meyer” thinks I am a “slim ball, libeler, and a liar”.

      These and other trolls aren’t interested in a “civil” dialogue. They only engage in trash talk–spewing out bile every day. They thrive in the dark. They wouldn’t last 2 minutes in the cold light of a two day symposium. They are like the 3 blind, deaf and mute monkeys!

      1. ” Whoever or whatever that is. “S. Meyer” thinks I am a “slim ball, libeler, and a liar”.”

        You are. All you try to do is ply your junk while attempting to smear Turley’s reputation.

        The important thing, however, is that it appears Jacinda Arden was at the UN as posted by Turley. You don’t have the backbone to apologize for your diligent mistruth. If this type of error occurred as a one-time thing, there would be no mention. Unfortunately, it is continuous.

        1. You don’t have the backbone to apologize for your diligent mistruth.

          This is Dennis’s MO. Shortly after I discovered this blog, I got a hint he was not a serious person when he misquoted Turley’s article in order to criticize Turley. The point he made would have been impossible without the misquotation. When I pointed it out to him, he refused to acknowledge his error even though it was right there in black and white.

          To give another example, he once claimed pro-lifers were inconsistent if they didn’t argue that a pregnant woman counts for two people in an HOV lane. That is not the type of thing a serious person would say.

      2. For once, i agree with Dennis. He woudnt last. What would he do, address us all as “jonathan” for 3 days. Would he look us in the eye as he spews his passive/aggressive nonsense in the third person? I doubt it. As to the discussion, would he do what he does here, tuck tail and run, when the discussion gets 3 and 4 levels deep, and he realizes he’s in over his head, with no DNC talking points or plagiarized nonsense to rely on. Would he resort to the uncivil things he does here, such as calling people misogynist, racist and sycophants whenever it suits him? Would he open a discussion with “headed out for the last barbecue of the season”, as though anyone gives a ff?
        Or would he just waste our time with totally predictable rants that are conspicuously ALWAYS in opposition to Turley, then immediately leave and come back a couple of hours later and lecture jonathan again. Would 75% of his “lectures” be completely off topic at this symposium, as they are here?

        Dennis, you are the epitome of a troll. You come here solely to antagonize and having done so, you whine about the response.

        Now you’re going to pretend you dont know who Dick Head is? More disingenuous crapola, you know full well who he is, and what “a visit from him” means. It means a roasting of another one of your lectures, demonstrating how ridiculous both your “discussion” style and content are.
        You dont come here for civil discussion, and you demonstrate disdain for everyone here by asking them to believe otherwise. You’re right, you wouldnt last 2 days.

        So, who do you think hunter and z called from dubai and why did they call?

        Thats what i thought. Your shower awaits.

        1. Meyer and oldman

          I didnt know dennis from a hedgehog on this site. I knew enough to know his keyboard diarrhea wasnt worth the read, so i scrolled past. Until one day when he tried to defend one of Gigi’s blatant, provable lies. He then made the challenge that i should “just try” to find him lying. It took 30 seconds to find these two statements in the SAME post.
          “Democrats are for violence when the cause is right”
          “Donald Trump is the only one calling for violence these days”

          When i asked him to explain which one was the lie, he disappeared faster than a cat can lick its a$$.

          I have caught him in numerous lies and misrepresentations since then, to which he has never once responded. Then he whines because he is labeled a coward, never addressing the reasons he earned the title.

        2. “this call between Hunter and Z , first of all I don’t even know what call you’re referring to “—-Gollum

          “false dichotomy of a question about Hunter”—-Smeagol

          Same post/different bot?
          Nice job grass cutter

          Tomorrow i will share what we used to do with guys like you on the boat.

    3. Actually I considered suggesting a informal camping like get together at Shenandoah national park about an hour WSW of Fairfax VA. I’ve hiked and camped there a few times.
      Arrive Friday afternoon.
      Saturday do some hiking.
      Leave Sunday.
      Have group dinner, and breakfasts. Engage in good conversation.
      I have a number of cast iron outdoor cooking pans, dutch ovens I would bring.
      And the bear spray. I know from first hand experience there are bears there!

    1. You should care because she has a platform. Many people, too, felt Hitler was a crackpot, a clown, and wondered why people should care. But he had a platform and a following plus a complicit media (complicit after he jailed –or worse–all dissenting journalists). The rest of Germany’s non-Jewish population either thought he wouldn’t last long or agreed in principle with him, especially when it came to their anti-Semitic sentiments. When they woke up to the reality, it was too late.

  6. Jonathan: I am a bit confused. You claim former ( she resigned in January of this year) PM of New Zealand, Jacinda Adhern, “used her speech this week to the United Nations General Assembly to call for “censorship on a global scale”. I’m confused because Adhern is no longer PM and not scheduled to speak this week. She is busy at Harvard. Ukrainian President Zelensky spoke yesterday but I couldn’t find Adhern anywhere on the schedule of speakers this year.

    After a diligent search I discovered the link you provided was to a speech Adhern gave to the UN GA back on 9/24/22–a year ago. In her address last year, Adhern talked about a lot of things–climate change, the covid pandemic, peaceful solutions to war and conflict, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and a complete ban on nuclear weapons. Adhern also mentioned the radicalized white supremacist who killed 51 worshippers at the 2 Christchurch mosques in New Zealand in 2019. Adhern deplored the online “misinformation and disinformation” that encouraged such brutal acts based on “hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology”. She also mentioned online misinformation about the deadly Covid virus. But I couldn’t find anything in Adhern’s address that called for “censorship on a global scale” as you assert–nor did she say she had a “plan” to implement such censorship.

    The Q is how could you get it so wrong? Mixing up dates, saying Ahern is the current New Zealand PM– and then misinterpreting what Adhern was saying a year ago. Maybe because you want to make Adhern the “smiling face of the new generation of censors”. That won’t work because Adhern doesn’t fit the bill. She has never called for “censorship on a global scale”. Oh well, facts don’t matter. Adhern is a convenient distraction to avoid addressing the real threats of censorship–book banning, firing teachers and prosecutors who don’t follow the right-wing agenda, telling LGBTQ+ students they don’t have the rights as everyone else. That is apparently the kind of “censorship” you like.

    1. “After a diligent search”

      Dennis, I refused to do a diligent search. I did not even search, but I looked at the video posted by Turley dated 11:08 AM Sep 19, 2023. The video shows a part of the audience showing representatives from India and Kiribati in a room appearing to be in the UN. Without further evidence, this is from Sep 19 and at the UN. The speech is not from her prior one that, after a diligent waste of time, you found.

      “The Q is how could you get it so wrong? Mixing up dates…”

      The question is, why do you get things so wrong and so frequently? Barely a response of yours is error-free. You provide erroneous facts more often than our chronic liars. Alternatively, are you associated with chronic liars?

      Can anyone take you seriously? No, but your bumbling is entertaining.

      1. Meyer – Dennis is a pot stirrer, not a serious commenter. I’ve learned that on multiple occasions and, as a consequence, I rarely read anything he writes.

        1. Oldman and Sandmann, you both recognize Dennis for what he is. He is a slimeball, libeler, and a liar who seldom checks his facts.

          Will he apologize to Turley or prove me wrong? No. He is a new type of man, a man without the cajones to do the right thing.
          He keeps saying he apologizes when he is wrong. Let us see what happens.

          1. The Bug probably said: “WTF. I don’t even comment and I get the flagrantly idiotic Allan…”

            Too bad. We will know soon enough if it was your post. It sounded stupid enough, so accept it if it isn’t, or use an identifiable name and icon. You do that frequently, and those names disappear like your anonymous ones.

            It is not up to me to separate your identity from the other anonymous posters. That is your job.

        2. He is actually correct here. This was not a recent speech. Here is a NZ website from 2022, which clearly shows this is an old speech from last year, while she was PM: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/09/full-speech-jacinda-ardern-addresses-un-general-assembly.html

          The news site has the transcript of the speech, which mirrors the snippet from the video posted on X.

          Do you agree he was right about the timing of the speech here?

      2. Mr. Meyer

        Truth is he saw someone else question the date of the speech and ran with it. He plagiarizes, lies, and misrepresents, and never has an original thought.
        He’s wrong more often than a broken watch. But you can’t shame him either, so there’s that.

        He wont be back to admit his mistake or apologize for calling turley a liar. He’ll just move on to his next lie, as always.

        Wasnt it Dennis that said close only counts in horseshoes. I’m thinking his brand of close is only useful in nuclear was.

      3. A comment, likely from the Bug, as the other anonymous figures aren’t that stupid: “Turley didn’t post a video of the speech. There’s no video link in the article. Liar.”

        The video is in the Tweet Turley provided within his article. Use your brain when responding., for even an incompetent brain will improve your drivel.

        1. Y’all, maybe X is not the most accurate place for getting your news.

          Here is a NZ website from 2022, which clearly shows this is an old speech from last year, while she was PM: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/09/full-speech-jacinda-ardern-addresses-un-general-assembly.html

          Dennis was right. The news site has the transcript of the speech, which mirrors the snippet from the video posted on X.

          Turley messed this one up. So ironic, given the subject of the speech.

          And as a side note, she does not actually advocate any means of censorship. She specifically states: “But while I cannot tell you today what the answer is to this challenge, I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value.”

          I challenge anyone to pick out a single policy she is actually advocating in the speech, which curtails First Amendment rights. ANYONE?

          1. …Looks like no one can name a single policy proposal from her speech that infringes on First Amendment rights! So what are we actually talking about here?

    2. “UN General Assembly brings ‘hooker convention’ to NYC — high-priced escorts from Vegas, Europe

      Business jumps “20% to 25%” for escorts when the UN General Assembly comes together in NYC, according to one source. Getty Images”

      Though the UN is indeed overloaded with prostitutes and the worst of the worst, I am only using this article to help Dennis become a productive citizen who can tell the truth from fiction.

      The article has a picture from Getty Images of the UN General Assembly. If one wishes to compare that to the Twitter video, one might see a similarity of the desks proving the video shown was from the UN.

      There you have it, Dennis, and I didn’t even do a “diligent search”. The article with the picture came in today with my other email.

      Dennis, do you know what the word diligent means?


    3. Thats messed up reasoning. Wanting certain age inappropriate books banned from schools is totally different than the left-wing method, wanting certain books banned everywhere. People are telling others they don’t have the rights as everyone else? I seriously doubt that. Unless it’s a lefty. They’re constantly shrieking and telling everyone about rights that they think they don’t have. It’s even more messed up reasoning that they demand people give up ACTUAL rights to appease the fury at others that won’t bend the knee to their demands. The left would censor everyone and everything they disagree with if they had their way so your holier than thou attitude is pretty hypocritical.

    4. Ardern is busy at Harvard alright, and this is why this address she gave is extremely concerning. Her work at Harvard involves sharing her erudite and superior ability to snuff out bad speech online. How fortunate we are to have someone who will take care if us and keep us safe!

      Don’t worry though, Dennis, I think Jacinda won’t have any problem with you. But she will protect you from the those here which upset you, so you never have to read things with which you disagree.


  7. What if the tyrant is right in believing that 2+2 equals 4? What’s wrong with enforcing this rightness?

    1. No one ever has to enforce what’s right, only what’s wrong requires enforcement. The truth wins on it’s own merits, it is only the lies that require force and compliance!

    2. It’s not about subjective rightness, but objective, inalienable truth.

      Your postmodernism is whittling away at the immutability of rights.

      The ability for a right to be controlled “for the good of all” removes people’s mechanism for reason and the ability to make a decision for themselves. It assumes and makes a moral choice for someone.

      Morality isn’t subjective.

      2+2 will always be 4 just like we all have a right to be free and people and governments don’t have a right to take away what they haven’t given.

    3. Public policy issues are never that cut and dried. Even the question betrays a thought process where you think complex issues are that simple, that you should be able to legitimately shut one side of the debate down. That is unrealistic.

    4. “if the tyrant is right …What’s wrong with enforcing this..?

      Say this crap out loud, it might save you from looking idiotic.

  8. Professor Turley Writes:

    “In her speech, she (Jacinda Ardern) notes that we cannot allow free speech to get in the way of fighting things like climate change”.

    Here Professor Turley believes that our freedom to spread disinformation is actually ‘more important’ than fighting climate change. Which makes us wonder if Turley is keeping track of weather events. The fact is that 2023 has arguably been a tipping point on the road to climate breakdown.

    Below is an excerpt from a Weather Channel report documenting billion dollar weather events in the United States in the first 8 months of 2023.

    NOAA estimates 23 U.S. weather disasters with damage of at least $1 billion have happened already in 2023.

    That’s an all-time record number for any year dating to 1980.

    Eighteen of those events were from severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.

    Others included California flooding, the Lahaina firestorm and a cold outbreak around Groundhog Day.


    Climate breakdown is playing-out as billion dollar weather events pile up around the world. And one needn’t be a scientist to realize these disasters will systematically bankrupt nations. Eventually central governments will break-down when no funding is left for disaster relief.

    1. Some people disagree with your analysis. You talk like a hysterical climate cultist. Yet I don’t advocate you be silenced. I think you should have your say and people who disagree with you should have their say.

      Only a tyrant would want to suppress the expression of opposing viewpoints. The concept that “disinformation” must be fought against because “climate change” is a concept that only an evil, freedom-hating tyrant would embrace.

    2. Can you elaborate on why are we constantly being told by Science that “climate is not weather and weather is not climate”, but scary storms today are PROOF that the climate is changing when stronger, deadlier storms in the past, are not?

      Also, please tell the group where the “climate” for a specific locale has “changed” in the past 140 or so years, when this ‘panic’ started including the “science” that proves humans ‘did that’.

      1. Yeah, JAFO, Ernst is stupid. Just because I live in Death Valley, doesn’t mean the weather is dry. And hurricanes don’t hit Florida because– Well you get the idea.

        1. I got the, “it’s YOUR media saying the same thing I said so it must be true!”, vibe from him too, Pernickle.

      2. “Can you elaborate on why are we constantly being told by . . .”

        Because their ends (looting, control, destruction of our energy industry) justifies the means (embracing and spouting contradictions).

        After decades of trying to debate those destroyers, I’ve given up. You can point out their inconsistencies and absurdities until you’re blue in the face. They remain unmoved.

        1. Indeed, Sam. One’s left with the impression they’re little more than shrieking zombies (if that’s a thing.) ’tis the season, I suppose. 😊

    3. Ernst, Some of the comments from our government don’t agree with the official paper from the IPPC. Do you trust your government or the scientists that wrote the paper?

      Should you be banned from this blog? You are spreading disinformation. Weather is not the same as climate change.


        1. What does this have to do with climate change?

          What does the article say about our government providing disinformation on climate change?

          1. No, Meyer, the question is, “How many billion dollar weather events can poor nations sustain before the world order falls apart?”

            1. I don’t have an answer to that since billion dollar weather events only occur in places that have a billion dollars worth of real estate.

              But along with your lack of understanding why damage costs go up (values go up concurrently), you don’t seem to get the important point that weather is not climate change. Start with the basics and progress from there.

            2. the world order falls apart

              There’s that cultish hysteria again. You might consider that weather events are far less likely to lead to social upheaval than famines. Yet attacking cheap energy sources will inevitably lead to famines in the poorest countries of the world. Unlike in the developed world, people in third-world countries live in extreme poverty and exist on the margin, meaning if energy costs go up even a little, large numbers of them will end up starving.

            3. Ernst not sure how old you are but climate alarmism has been going on for some time. Here are just a few of the last 50 years

              1966 Oil Gone in Ten Years
              1970 they predicted an Ice Age by 2000
              1978 No end in in sight for the 30 year cooling trend
              1988 Maldive Islands will be underwater by 2018
              1989 New York’s city’s west side highway underwater by 2018
              2000 Children wont know what snow is
              2002 Famine in 10 years if we don’t give up eating fish, meat and dairy
              2005 Manhattan underwater by 2015
              2008 Al Gore predicts Ice free artic by 2013

              What If anything I learned over the last 70 years is human beings can be scared into believing almost anything.

              50 years from now your concerns will just be another line on the long list of prediction failures.

            4. Silly Ernst. Poor nations have no billion-dollar events, because they have no billion dollars.

              We are not having record extreme weather. On the contrary, hurricanes are down, wildfires are at a global low, local heatwaves are historically unremarkable, etc. The only increase is in the cost of events, because there is more wealth for them to destroy. More people build more and more valuable things in disaster-prone locations, so when the disaster comes it does more damage. That’s all.

            5. “How many billion dollar weather events can poor nations . . .”

              The real “humanitarian” question is: Why do climate Chicken Littles want those poor nations to remain poor?

    4. Have you read that the Hunga-Tonga volcanic eruption last year put more water vapor into our atmosphere than 100 Hiroshima bombs, resulting in extreme heat and temperature increases? But of course the climate activists are discounting this as NOT climate change. Is that the kind of disinformation Jacklinda and you are talking about? Do you suppose that because growth and development has expanded to every available resource in many coastal states that a commensurate proportional increase in property damage may follow? Open borders appeases the money hooks, it is approximated that there are 10% of our total population, 33M illegals in our Nation. I see low end apartments going up everywhere in my area. Illegal immigration burdens the American peoples resources and provides illegal interloper’s income while they in turn burden US social programs and take a huge bite out of the annual budget. You believe our government that can’t find its own ass can meaningfully fight climate change without destroying its own people, give me a break.

    5. Given what you believe about the existential climate crisis, which predicts large rises in sea levels over the next several years, would you invest $12 million in an estate in Martha’s Vineyard, 10ft above sea level?

    6. Ernst: First, let me get the obvious out of the way: the people you rely on for information about climate change are biased, unreliable, hypers. I don’t know why the mainstream media have chosen that path. But they have.

      The United Nations body charged with analyzing ALL of the climate related research and assessing the risks posed by climate change is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every few years the IPCC publishes a Risk Assessment report. The sixth and most recent one was published in 2021. It is referred to as AR6.

      The reports are thousands of pages long and packed with dense technical jargon. Only a tiny segment of the global human population can read and comprehend the reports. Roger Pelke, Jr. is one. The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena:

      River floods

      Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods


      Drought (all types)

      Severe wind storms

      Tropical cyclones

      Sand and dust storms

      Heavy snowfall and ice storms


      Snow avalanche

      Coastal flooding

      Marine heat waves

      That summary is derived from Table 12.12, page 1856, Chapter 12, AR6.

      Worse for the alarmists, the IPCC does not even expect a signal to emerge before the year 2100 for most extreme weather events even under the most implausible RCP8.5 scenario.

      A signal has only been detected for extreme heat.


    7. “The fact is that 2023 has arguably been a tipping point on the road to climate breakdown.”

      And yet the *salient* fact is that since the early 20th century, climate-related deaths and destruction have fallen precipitously. Why? In large part because of Western industrialization and the growth of the fossil fuel industry.

    8. Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring

      Oil may not be formed the way we think it is.

      |Sept. 14, 2011, at 5:16 p.m.
      U.S. News & World Report

      Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring

      It’s our nature to sort, divide, and classify. We label ourselves to identify political leanings, religious beliefs, the food we enjoy, and the sports teams we cheer. The oil industry too has its own distinct labels which include the “Peak Oil” theorists, those who believe the world is fast depleting the finite supply of fossil fuel; and the pragmatists, those who recognize that engineering and technological advances in oil drilling and extraction continuously identify new reserves that make oil plentiful.
      And there’s a third group you may not know. These people are deeply interested in oil and its origins, but their advocacy of “abiotic theory” has many dismissing them as heretics, frauds, or idealists. They hold that oil can be derived from hydrocarbons that existed eons ago in massive pools deep within the earth’s core. That source of hydrocarbons seeps up through the earth’s layers and slowly replenishes oil sources. In other words, it turns the fossil-fuel paradigm upside down.

      Perhaps the breakthrough for this theory came when Chris Cooper’s story appeared April 16, 1999, in The Wall Street Journal about an oil field called Eugene Island. Here’s an excerpt:

      Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330’s output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.
      Then suddenly—some say almost inexplicably—Eugene Island’s fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.
      According to Cooper,

      Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs, he says.
      All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth’s surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.
      More recently, Forbes presented a similar discussion. In 2008 it reported a group of Russian and Ukrainian scientists say that oil and gas don’t come from fossils; they’re synthesized deep within the earth’s mantle by heat, pressure, and other purely chemical means, before gradually rising to the surface. Under the so-called abiotic theory of oil, finding all the energy we need is just a matter of looking beyond the traditional basins where fossils might have accumulated.
      [Read the U.S. News debate: Should offshore drilling be expanded?]
      The idea that oil comes from fossils “is a myth” that needs changing according to petroleum engineer Vladimir Kutcherov, speaking at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. “All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits.”
      Alexander Kitchka of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences estimates that 60 percent of the content of all oil is abiotic in origin and not from fossil fuels. He says companies should drill deeper to find it.
      Is abiotic theory the real deal? Is Eugene Island “Exhibit A?” Look how long it’s taken for this conversation to reach a tipping point!

      – U.S. News & World Report, 2011

  9. George, if that is the way you feel about it, then why don’t you grab your rifle and shoot your oppressors?

  10. Thomas Sowell said that any one person does not have more than one percent of the available knowledge on earth. So how is it that this one person with less than one percent of the knowledge available on earth thinks that she can correctly asses what we can or can not see or hear? The answer is simple. She possesses a character flaw constantly found in histories worst and most deadly dictators. Make no mistake, if characters like this women are allowed to gain power the Gulag camps will be very quickly renovated and those who do not comply will be forced to wear a yellow star on their sleeves. We’ve seen her bedfellows many times before. We should not keep her from speaking but we should be fully aware of her agenda for the basket of deplorables when she tells us what it is.

    1. We need more of this kind of thought. Thank you TiT.

      She possesses a character flaw constantly found in histories worst and most deadly dictators.

      They are only one person, and yet they still come to power. Why? Because everyone has character flaws. The most dangerous flaw is trusting the government to not abuse their power. Of course they’re going to abuse their power. It’s a self-evident truth. Jefferson said That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends… Not if ever. And this is a government class vs citizen class problem. The only reason we haven’t succumbed to these tyrants yet is because the government class isn’t done fighting amongst themselves for power. We are pretty damn close though.

      1. “…this is a government class vs citizen class problem. The only reason we haven’t succumbed to these tyrants yet is because the government class isn’t done fighting amongst themselves for power.”

        Olly, this citizen-class is also less likely to succumb to (roughly) a few thousand mini-tyrants who know The People posses hundreds of millions of arms and trillions of rounds of ammo in the unlikelihood the tyrant-class will sic the military on them.

  11. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  12. Enough hysteria, incoherence, “free stuff” and “free status.”

    Repeal the 19th Amendment.

    In full Lincolnesque form, the next conservative president must seize power, impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and repeal America back to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Immigration Law of the Founders.

    1. As I said 3 days ago in response to another comment, I strongly support the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote and I hope that position has widespread support across the political and ideological spectrum of this blog. Thanks for the 3 likes last time.

      1. Americans are down to 75% of the U.S. population.

        The border floodgates are wide open to invaders and conquest.

        The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral.”

        CC just loves the “death spiral” of his nation.

        Who makes Americans – or fails to do their duty to their families, countrymen and nations?

        Why is it that only women in foreign countries increase their country’s populations, causing those populations to be sufficient in size to defend and grow their nations, and causing extreme population excesses to “migrate” out of their disgusting and untenable countries of origin?

        Thanks be to women whose sole aspiration is to become men or man-like, significantly eschewing motherhood and procreation.

  13. The new generation of the “educated” are going to be authoritarian you know what’s. We know that harvard means they rule the government, so expect the decline to INCREASE IN SPEED.
    Hopefully they won’t resort to public muzzles or slicing vocal chords and only go with imprisonment for life on trumped up charges of anything with the thousands of felonies which most Americans commit several a day we are told.
    They probably already have go to lists – for instance, ANY support of the Jan 6th protests and entrapment fraud of the feds will result in solitary for many years , destroyed health, then death.

Leave a Reply