I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom for years, including in my book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. One of the most critical components of the British censorship system is Ofcom, the Office of Communications, which regulates the broadcasting, internet, telecommunications, and postal industries. The most recent controversy is detailed in the Telegraph, with Ofcom investigating GB News over the simple replaying of a Trump interview in which he called climate change a “hoax.” Ofcom is investigating GB News for failing to challenge Trump’s characterization, even though many people share his views on climate change.
It is a breathtaking demonstration of the censorship culture in the United Kingdom. World leaders make controversial statements in every interview. A free press allows the public to hear such viewpoints and reach their own conclusions on the merits of such arguments or policies.
The debate over the climate change data continues to rage. The dates for dire predictions for massive environmental disasters, including those of Al Gore, have passed. Professor Guy McPherson received widespread press attention for his 2016 prediction that the entire human race would be wiped out by 2026. It appears that he is wrong.
Al Gore received the 2007 Peace Prize for his film The Inconvenient Truth as media, academic, and government censors attacked anyone questioning his data. His apocalyptic predictions have not borne out, and recent scientific papers have rejected the predictions found in the underlying studies.
Gore predicted more frequent and stronger hurricanes, but some insist that global data reveal a slight decline in both frequency and intensity. Others argue that the number may be decreasing but the intensity is increasing. We have not seen the type of global hurricane disaster that Gore described in the movie.
Critics point to NASA data to argue that the areas burned by wildfires have fallen by more than 25 percent over the past quarter of a century.
While the global population quadrupled in the last century, deaths from climate-related disasters have plummeted from the 1920s, when an average of nearly half a million people died annually from such events.
Even the film’s famous use of polar bears has not panned out. Polar bear populations have more than doubled from around 12,000 in the 1960s to over 26,000 today. While some have contested those figures, it has certainly not resulted in the wipeout predicted by Gore.
I believe that climate change is real, and there are other signs of more severe climate events, including flooding, that present real dangers for various countries. The point is not to say that it is all a hoax, but that reasonable people can disagree on this question.
That brings us back to the British censors.
In the last two decades, free speech protections in the U.K. have been eviscerated and the government is doubling down on the criminalization of speech. The criminalization of speech has expanded exponentially as individuals and groups call the police to silence those who criticize them or advocate opposing views.
Even silent prayer or “toxic ideologies” can lead to arrest. Expressing concerns over Western cultural values is now treated as an admission of “right-wing ideology,” warranting investigation. A few years ago, a neo-Nazi living with his mother was found to have a room filled with hateful symbols and material.
Judge Peter Lodder dismissed free speech concerns over the defendant’s possessions with a truly Orwellian flourish: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.” Calling the defendant “a right-wing extremist,” Mr. Lodder said the contents of his room were evidence of “enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology.”
The British people have become conditioned to censorship as different groups seek to silence those who express opposing viewpoints. The result is one of the most speech-phobic nations on Earth as offices like Ofcom fuel the fear of free speech.
The Reverend would be better off to take this advice from the Bible:
“Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.” – Colossians 3:2
“Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” – Romans 12:2
The Reverend needs to read the Bible and renew his mind from it’s current satanic wokeness.
“Ofcom is investigating GB News for failing to challenge Trump’s characterization, even though many people share his views on climate change.”
Many people shared the views of Hitler about the Jews in Nazi Germany. And after all, those were political views about human society, not views about physics. In principle, it’s more defensible to maintain extreme views about society than to maintain extreme views such as the value of pi being 4, or well-studied 19th century physics being false (climate change is explained by 19th century physics). Just because the American president has an intense dislike for reality, and many others do, it doesn’t mean that the view that reality isn’t happening is defensible.
The whole thing is a hoax..(as Trump said)
There’s no “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere, no such thing as a “greenhouse gas” and certainly no “climate change”
Here’s the science..
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2021/02/science-says-change-the-weather-and-break-the-countrys-heart/
This last comment of mine, including the links, explains just about everything..
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2021/02/science-says-change-the-weather-and-break-the-countrys-heart/#comment-1596412
Mack,
Sky Dragon Slayer
Solving a complex challenge like mankind’s increasing impact on atmospheric chemistry benefits from keeping hyper-emotional manipulation to the sidelines. Under Turley’s theory of public discourse, a mix of emotion-stirring diatribes and cool, dispassionate reasoning should be allowed to compete on equal terms for the public’s attention.
Here’s the problem. It’s the same reason Socrates worked to keep ad hominem forms of argumentation from derailing philosophical debates. Once the personal accusations start flying, it’s hard to get the arguers to refocus on the nuances of the problem. Creativity gets redirected into how better to smear the opponent, and away from finding common ground to solve the conflict.
This leads to a dichotomization trap, where people narrow the choices to A and B, the most extreme, simplistic and polarized choices. What started out as a cognitive question evolves into side-taking. The cerebral middle paths are drowned out. The atmospherics are ruined for creative problem-solving. The warring factions become convinced that the only suitable resolution to the conflict is a win-lose outcome. Communication descends into infowarfare.
If you’ve ever managed a design team faced with a complex challenge, your key responsibility is maintaining team cohesion while encouraging divergent thinking. If you lose control of the atmospherics and allow factional tribalism to form, your project is on the road to failure.
Look through the comments below — the dichotomization trap has worked its intoxicating spell.
Behavioral genetics, pb. It’s a football game.
Score! Touchdown mentality.
Nice going LA. I wonder if the Mayor hired this jerk.
_____________________
MacArthur Park Update
This morning, @FBILosAngeles arrested Michael Angel Alvarez, 41, a.k.a. “Diablo,” an active 18th Street gang member, convicted murderer, and Los Angeles “Peace Ambassador” who is being paid with L.A. city taxpayer dollars.
Great job morons!
LA is not in the UK stoopid F.
Try reading some of you other ANO’s fool.
They are NOT talking about the UK ether.
That was yesterday.
Anything to insult… Typical lib.
Hate is all you have.
All you have is …. no brains. BTW, either, not ether. Anything to hate eh idiot.
you idiot!
Breaking news: UK passes a law making it illegal for anyone to have their own opinion. Punishable by up to 100 years in prison and a £100,000 fine. ($127,000).
Please be sure you have the UK government’s correct opinion before speaking. And remember Trump is an authoritarian! (the official UK opinion of Trump)
Slush Fund Comes Under Scutiny
A federal judge in Miami reopened President Trump’s $10 billion case against the I.R.S. in a striking turnabout, saying that she wanted to investigate “grievous allegations” that the hasty deal to resolve it was “premised on deception.”
The ruling by the judge, Kathleen M. Williams, on Friday to revive the case shortly after closing it was a significant blow both to Mr. Trump, who had voluntarily dismissed the suit last week, and to the Justice Department. After the president withdrew the suit, senior department officials released a pair of extraordinary agreements that settled the case by establishing a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people who claimed they were victims of government “weaponization” by Democrats.
The deal also conferred lucrative tax benefits on Mr. Trump, his family and his businesses.
Judge Williams’s decision came in response to court papers filed on Wednesday by a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges who urged her to bring the case back to life and dig into the details of the agreement to settle it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/29/us/politics/trump-irs-lawsuit-ruling.html?smid=nytcore-
……………………………………
Trump’s attempt to pay-off rioters, while escaping taxes for life, is now being viewed as a fraud against the government. Which it is!
This whole deal was between Trump and his former lawyer, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. No court ever authorized the settlement. Nor did Congress ever vote to spend that money.
But Trump wanted to demonstrate that rioting on his behalf could mean a million dollar ‘settlement’.
Trade you Trump’s winning IRS proceeds for a conviction of one group of coup conspirators.
How odd, these Judges didn’t give a flip when O-dumbers IRS went after the Tea-party, with zero proof.
That’s inaccurate. On the heels of the Citizens United decision, political PACS were being chartered right and left. Some of them arrogated to themselves tax-exempt status, by pretending that political action was < 50% of the entity's mission. The IRS spotted this cheat, and took action to stop it. It was about tax-non-compliance, but the conservative PACS who were cheating tax law blamed the enforcement action on they being CONSERVATIVE PACs (the IRS went after liberal PACS doing the same cheat, but they didn't go public with a phony defense).
A politicized deceptive narrative was constructed that demonized Lois Lerner for doing her job – enforcing tax law as written by Congress on PACs attempting to dodge taxes. This was an example of "rules for thee, but not for me" expressed by the organized right.
Most often the Tea Party groups were a hasty response to policies they didn’t like and they were submitting faulty paperwork.
There’s no evidence the IRS did anything but look at that faulty paperwork and request clarification or correction.
In short, a bunch of anti-government individuals didn’t follow the guidelines with regard to avoiding taxes and the IRS worked to confirm their status to allow them to avoid paying taxes.
ATS
Do you have a single Fact correct ?
I have no idea what the Judge has done – but as a rule the courts have no authority over civil settlements.
Purportedly there is some claim of deception being made – but not by Trump or DOJ/IRS the parties to the case.
That would be the only deception that matters – the courts have some authority to protect the parties from deception by the other party – but whether or not third parties beleive they have been deceived is irrelevant.
Of course that ignores the fact that no one was deceived. There is a public settlement agreement and the left does not like it.
I would note that Regardless of the judge – the parties are free to nullify this settlement and come to a different one – such as just Giving Trump the money and allowing him to do with it as he pleases.
The IRS illegally leaked Trump’s tax returns – there is zero doubt of that. Trump will win the lawsuit – there is zero doubt of that. The only question ever has been how large the damage award will be.
John Say is wrong…again.
“The courts have no authority over civil settlements”
Nope.
Courts possess absolute inherent authority to police agreements that manipulate the judicial system or abuse public offices.
Federal judges routinely retain jurisdiction over cases to enforce or review settlements.
More critically, under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judge has the explicit authority to set aside a voluntary dismissal or a judgment if it is discovered that the court was used as a tool for collusion or a “fraud on the court”.
In this specific case, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams formally ordered Donald Trump’s lawyers to address “charges of collusion” and whether her dismissal of the case was premised on deception.
“ Third parties believing they have been deceived is irrelevant”
Nope.
When the “third party” is a bipartisan group of 35 retired federal judges acting as amici curiae (friends of the court), it is highly relevant.
The legal system relies on the integrity of “case or controversy” standards.
The 35 former judges successfully petitioned the court because they demonstrated that the integrity of the judiciary itself was compromised. A plaintiff cannot use a federal lawsuit as a pretextual vehicle to extract public funds or legal immunity through a backroom deal without subjecting that deal to judicial scrutiny.
“The parties are free to nullify this settlement and come to a different one… like just giving Trump the money”
Wrong.
The executive branch cannot simply hand over $1.776 billion in taxpayer funds or grant permanent tax immunity to a sitting president without congressional appropriations and statutory authority.
Under the U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, money cannot be drawn from the Treasury unless Congress authorizes it.
Furthermore, a separate federal judge in Virginia temporarily blocked the administration from disbursing any funds from this deal, proving that the executive branch does not have a blank check to hand out taxpayer money under the guise of a “private settlement.”
“Trump will win the lawsuit… there is zero doubt of that”
Nope.
The lawsuit was on the verge of being dismissed by the judge before the sudden voluntary withdrawal.
A sitting president cannot easily sue a federal agency that he actively controls, because there is no true legal adversity (you cannot legally sue yourself).
Judge Williams had already issued a deadline for Trump’s team to prove that a legitimate “case or controversy” even existed.
Additionally, while the rogue contractor who leaked the taxes (Charles Littlejohn) was criminally convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, winning a $10 billion civil judgment against the federal government requires overcoming massive hurdles of sovereign immunity and proving direct systemic liability, which is legally highly improbable.
John Say views this $1.8 billion dollar federal settlement involving public tax dollars, executive branch immunity, and the president’s own defense lawyers (Todd Blanche) as if it were a minor fender-bender dispute between two private neighbors. He fundamentally misunderstands that taxpayer money and IRS audit exemptions are not private property to be bartered away in secret to avoid judicial oversight.
John Say,
There is only one party, the Executive branch of the Federal government. Bringing the suit was an abuse of process, was beyond the statute of limitation for filing the suit and, having only one party, had no basis. With no basis for a suit, the government cannot claim this is a civil settlement.
ATS – you have thoroughly misrepresented the tax portion of the settlement.
The IRS can not waive Trumps obligation to pay taxes – in the past present or future.
They can not grant him immunity from prosecution for Criminal acts including Tax evasion – Though as President Trump can.
What they can do is constrain access to Trumps tax returns Absent credible claims of criminal acts.
i.e. they can preclude left wing nuts at the IRS from again accessing Trump’s tax return and leaking it.
Further the agreement is only through 2026 – not for life.
John Say is…wrong again,
“The IRS cannot waive Trump’s obligation to pay taxes… or grant him immunity”
Nope.
The IRS can absolutely waive its right to enforce or collect taxes through legal releases, which is exactly what this addendum achieved.
The official, one-page addendum states that the United States is “FOREVER BARRED AND PRECLUDED” from prosecuting or pursuing any and all tax claims.
It specifically releases, waives, and acquits Trump from “examinations or similar reviews” and “injunctive relief” related to any returns filed before May 19, 2026.
Legal and tax experts across the country have explicitly noted that by legally banning the IRS from auditing or reviewing his past filings, the settlement effectively grants him financial and civil immunity from outstanding tax liabilities, including a pending $100 million IRS penalty dispute.
“What they can do is constrain access to Trump’s tax returns”
Wrong.
The settlement is not an IT security policy or a privacy restriction; it is a total ban on tax enforcement.
Internal data security protocols already exist to penalize unauthorized access (which is why rogue contractor Charles Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison).
This agreement goes infinitely further than “constraining access.” It actively blocks the IRS from doing its job. The agency is prohibited from examining, auditing, or investigating the accuracy of the tax returns.
If the IRS discovers a massive structural fraud tomorrow on a 2022 filing, this agreement prevents them from auditing it or collecting a single dollar owed.
“The agreement is only through 2026 – not for life”
Nope.
The word “FOREVER” is capitalized and heavily emphasized in the text of the legal agreement.
John Say is confusing the scope of the returns with the duration of the protection.
The agreement covers any taxes filed before May 19, 2026. However, the ban on the IRS auditing those specific years is permanent and for life.
Decades from now, the federal government remains legally barred from ever reopening an audit into any of the Trump family or corporate tax returns submitted up to that 2026 date.
John Say is suffering from deep cognitive dissonance. He is trying to defend the action as a standard, limited legal settlement to protect a citizen’s privacy. In doing so, he completely ignores that the sitting President’s own political appointees at the Justice Department handed his private businesses a blanket, permanent exemption from tax oversight on all past filings—a sweeping legal privilege available to no other taxpaying citizen in the United States. This is why even loyal Republicans in Congress are opposed to this “settlement.”
John Say is a group operating out of Moscow.
“. . . while escaping taxes for life . . .”
The Left is losing its talent for sneaky lies. That one’s a bit obvious.
The only group paying rioters is the left.
Those making claims against Trump’s fund must establish that their rights were violated by the government to collect anything. i.e. they were NOT Rioters.
There were very few rioters on J6 – but thousands of protestors.
Very few people engaged in violence – and of those many have a claim they were acting in self defense or defense of others.
The violence – which was primarily at the west tunnel entrance was initiated by the Capitol Police in violation of the law and the rules of engagement for dealing with protests. The CP initiated the use of force by lobbing CS Tear Gas into a peaceful crowd of protestors that was obeying lawful orders at the time. The CP then improperly used deadly force against a threat that did not allow the use of deadly force. Many of the supposed rioters were arrested for getting between CP officers and people they were beating who were not resisting. There is Video of Rose Boylan on the ground unconscious being beaten by a female CP officers
And more recently we learn that the CP response was preplanned – that Capt. Sunds subordinants in coordination with Pelosi;s office Planned to cause a riot – pelosi seeking the political benefit and sund’s subordanants seeking his ouster and their promotion.
Oops
So no I do not have a problem with people who were beaten by the CP, jailed without any legitimate basis, often for far longer than any reasonable sentence for the over charged cases they were facing getting compensation for the abuse of their rights.
Oh boy, John Say is…still wrong.
“Those making claims… must establish their rights were violated. i.e. they were NOT Rioters.”
The criteria for the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund contain virtually no strict legal constraints, and convicted rioters are actively expected to benefit.
The fund is managed by a five-member commission entirely appointed by Trump’s handpicked Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. The settlement explicitly permits payouts to proceed without public disclosure or judicial oversight.
Convicted Jan. 6 rioters—including pardoned individuals who openly admitted under oath that they violently stormed the Capitol—are already publicly preparing applications and gloating about massive taxpayer payouts.
Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio publicly stated he believes he is “owed tens of millions” from this exact fund.
“There were very few rioters… very few people engaged in violence.”
Oh..so wrong.
More than 140 law enforcement officers were injured during the assault on the Capitol.
Officers sustained severe injuries including traumatic brain injuries, cracked ribs, smashed spinal discs, and the loss of an eye.
NPR’s comprehensive review of thousands of court videos proved that the mob was heavily equipped with body armor, gas masks, firearms, and incendiary devices. Nearly 1,600 individuals have been criminally charged by the Department of Justice for their active participation.
“ The violence… was initiated by the Capitol Police“
Wrong…so wrong, geez.
Hours of continuous, unedited video footage and court testimonies show the mob initiating force by breaching barricades, smashing windows, and attacking officers with chemical spray, flagpoles, and stolen riot shields.
Police used tear gas defensively only after multiple security perimeters were violently overrun.
John Say’s claim regarding “deadly force” refers to the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, which multiple independent federal investigations deemed a lawful use of force to protect members of Congress evacuating just feet away.
“ The CP response was preplanned… in coordination with Pelosi’s office.“
Oooh, nope.
This is a completely fabricated conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly debunked by multiple bipartisan Senate investigations and Inspector General reports.
The Speaker of the House does not have direct operational control over the day-to-day tactical decisions or deployment of the Capitol Police.
Official timelines prove that leadership, including Pelosi, frantically called for National Guard reinforcement while trapped inside the building as the mob chanted threats against them.
John Say is desperately trying to rewrite history to justify why millions of middle-class taxpayer dollars should be handed out to political extremists. The legal reality has already caught up to this scheme: U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued an emergency federal order temporarily freezing the entire fund, ruling it an unconstitutional attempt by Trump to use an agency he controls to bypass Congress and enrich his political allies.
The rioting on Jan. 6 was so bad and painted Trump supporters and republicans in such a bad light by their own admitted actions and behavior that their only recourse was to try to re-write history and gaslight the entire nation.
ATS
We now KNOW beyond any doubt at all – as a consequence of testimony of DEmocrats under oath that the 2020 election was illegally conducted.
While there are many many other claims – some of which may be proven and others of which it is no longer possible to be able to prove, we now KNOW – beyond any doubt that Fulton County GA illegally counted over 315K ballots.
Those of you on the left keep pretending that January 6, Protestors have to Prove that Trump won to be allowed to protest.
That is false – they do not have to prove anything to protest. You can protest even if your claims are completely wrong.
You can protest even if you are lying.
But in this case the real question is not – who won the election – while there is plenty of evidence of illegal conduct and fraud,
It is not likely possible to determine the actual winner in 2020. That is PRECISELY why Fulton County’s lawless conduct matters. Why all election law matters – and specifically why Mailin Ballots are an abysmally stupid idea.
The legitimacy of a ballot MUST be established BEFORE it is accepted. Once a ballot is accepted by Election officials,
US secret ballot laws mean that it is impossible to reconnect that ballot to the person or circumstances of casting it.
Further we have chain of custody requirements because from the moment the connection between the voter and the ballot is severed, the only protection from injecting ballots into the election is abiding by the laws we have in place to prevent that.
Things like Chain of custody.
Fulton County has no chain of custody for 315K ballots – they have admitted that repeatedly under oath.
That means there is no way to know if those ballots are legitimate or fraudulent.
We can not tell whether they fell off a truck.
When the FC election commission discovered that in 2020 before certifying the election – they were required not to count ballots without proper chain of custody. Then third parties like democrats and Republicans could go to court to present evidence to try to construct a new chain of custody for those ballots – which the court would decide using GA law whether any of those ballots could be counted.
But Democrats did NOT want any court cases where claims of fraud could be argued in court and witnesses called and evidence examined. So they glossed over the law requiring chain of custody
Wow, John Say is on a roll being wrong.
“Fulton County has no chain of custody for 315K ballots”
John Say is confusing chain-of-custody documents with machine tabulator tapes.
Fulton County has never admitted to lacking a chain of custody for 315,000 ballots.
The actual admission made to the Georgia State Election Board was a failure to secure the required poll worker signatures on approximately 150 tabulator tapes—the printed paper receipts generated by early-voting machines.
These votes were cast in person during early voting, meaning voters walked into a precinct, checked in with a photo ID, and fed their ballots directly into a scanner. There is no “chain of custody” tracking issue for an in-person voter casting a ballot inside an active polling location.
“ There is no way to know if those ballots are legitimate”
Wrong.
The underlying legitimacy of these 315,000 votes has been verified repeatedly.
Every single one of these votes was backed by a verified voter check-in.Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger explicitly stated that the unsigned tapes were a “clerical error” that does not nullify legal votes.
These exact ballots were subsequently verified by three separate counts, including an exhaustive statewide hand-count audit and a formal machine recount. If 315,000 fake ballots had been “injected” or “fell off a truck,” the physical hand-count of the paper ballots would never have perfectly matched the voter check-in databases.
“ Democrats did NOT want (win) any court cases”
There were over 60 court cases filed across the United States—and numerous ones in Georgia—where Donald Trump and his legal teams were given full opportunities to present evidence of election fraud.
Judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans, including the U.S. Supreme Court, rejected these challenges due to a complete lack of credible evidence.
Trump’s claims regarding Fulton County were explicitly reviewed and thrown out by courts years ago. The assertion that a political party “glossed over” the law to block judicial scrutiny is completely backwards; the cases were heard and routinely lost on the legal merits.
“ The real question is not who won the election”
John Say pivots to this abstract argument because the actual election results have been unassailable for years. Biden won Georgia by 11,779 votes, a reality confirmed by three separate tallies overseen by Georgia’s Republican leadership. Trying to move the goalposts from “the election was stolen” to “the election was poorly administered” is a classic rhetorical retreat when claims of massive fraud are thoroughly debunked by facts.
John Say is trying to turn a procedural administrative violation—poll workers neglecting to sign a receipt tape at the end of the night—into proof that 315,000 votes are completely fake. Under Georgia law, a clerical oversight by a poll worker does not instantly disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of legal, verified citizens who cast their ballots in person.
I have two British friends who are too afraid to even discuss current events with me in email!
Aimslee is you-know-who, that highly prolific commenter who always has a personal link to the issue at hand.
Pathetic answer.
Typical of Ano.
You lost me at, ‘British’. Yes. England is essentially a Marxist country now. Many stated that modern Labour would be the final death knell, and here we are.
“Remigration”
Largely citations to literature of climate change and related matters:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/
For those preferring enlightened reading.
David,
Recall that when there were doubts about relatively an eclipse was used to see if light bent in gravity as Einstein had predicted. It did and that was seen as evidence that Einstein was right. Many other predictions since then have confirmed relativity.
An indication that an insight or theory is valid is its ability to predict outcomes.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming the larger predictions have failed spectacularly. For one, the ice caps were predicted to be gone by now. They aren’t.
If Gore [who now predicts an ice sge] and Obama truly believed the seas would rise as rapidly as they claimed, why did they buy mansions next to the sea?
As Feynman said, no matter how beautiful your theory is, if it doesn’t fit the facts it must be discarded.
As for citations, there has been so much fraud in scientific publications of late that every publication, particularly those that involve substantial rewards, should be viewed with caution. Fame and wealth can corrupt even scientists.
I obviously follow the scientific literature closely:
Ice sheets (not the little caps) were never predicted to ‘be gone by now’.
Both Gore and Obama purchased houses many hundreds of feet up the hillside overlooking the ocean. Neither is a scientist.
The basic fact is that the logarithm of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is proportional to, and causes, the increase of trapped heat. This has been known since the 19th century; see the section with the citations to the fundamental literature.
But even more sensible place to start is the UChicago climatologist’s book “The next 100,000 years”. If my memory hasn’t completely failed me, the author is Professor David Archer.
David,
Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard property is not ‘hundreds of feet up’ anything.
https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/president-obama-new-house-marthas-vineyard
Similarly a look at his Hawaii property shows it is protected by an artificial sea wall.
Neither property would be safe from a rise in sea level predicted by him or Gore.
The East Anglia Hadley Climate Research Unit has pushed much of the global warming narrative but a few years ago an insider dumped a lot of their emails into the public domain and some of it appeared to discredit then. Phil Jones was in an exchange where they appeared to be trying to find a way to erase the Medieval Warm Period during which warming reached or exceeded current levels. When ‘scientists’ try to improve their conclusions by conspiring to conceal evidence or cancel dissenters it does not inspire confidence. Basically they were trying to win scientific arguments by censoring other opinions rather than presenting evidence and argument that was persuasive.
Too much of climate science is model based and models are not reality.
Oldie but goodie. Musical parody of the “hide the decline” exposed by Climategate emails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc&list=RDWMqc7PCJ-nc&start_radio=1
BTW, in some ways David reminds me of Paul Ehrlich. Ehrich made a career out of predicting dire catastrophes for mankind and the planet. He got himself booked on TV; wrote and sold books; indoctrinated college students; etc. for half a century.
Few, if any, of his most outlandish extreme predictions ever came true.
Yet when the lights finally went out for him permanently, he died believing he was right about everything.
It’s not science. It’s a cult mentality.
Anon– I wish you would adopt a handle so we can watch for your posts. Your reference to Erlich was very apt. I had forgotten about the video of Mann and ‘Hide the Decline’ which was fun to watch again.
Mann was responsible for the now discredited hockey stick. After years in the DC courts he finally got stuck with a big bill if I remember correctly.
I suspect that human activity does have an impact on weather and that it should be studied but once the political clowns and shiploads of money came in the system was corrupted.
In the Seventies I read “Inadvertent Climate Modification” put out by the MIT Press that was pretty good. It was a cautious rather than hysterical presentation that merited study. I based a paper on it in which I argued that if some of the possibilities proved to be correct then the industrialized nations may have to prevent development in the Third World. There is some pressure that way today but it isn’t framed as “we want to keep you dirt poor and live off our scraps.”
Thanks for the response.
Young, the so-called hockey stick is available and well. M.Mann won his court case against some Canadian nutjob.
Instead of hauling out old nonsense, try learning some climatology. I’ve provided the link to plenty to study.
David–
I think Mann technically won but ended up with a huge bill for fees. Calling it a Pyrrhic victory would be too kind.
I hope you would agree that cancelling, censoring and trying to prosecute those who have different interpretations of evidence rather than responding with facts and reasoning is not the way to go.
I thought Galileo’s trial was a warning, not an example to be followed.
David–
Here is the outcome of Mann’s suit.
https://www.inquirer.com/education/michael-mann-defamation-lawsuit-climate-change-20250528.html
“The judge sanctioned Mann and his legal team, determining they intentionally presented erroneous and misleading figures regarding research grant funding during the trial.Because of the misconduct, Mann was ordered to pay over $477,000 in legal fees to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Simberg, as well as an additional $530,000 to the National Review.”
David,
Years ago Macintyre apparenyly showed that Mann’s mathematics produced a hockey stick even if noise was input. Here’s a comment by someone who followed up on that notion.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-email-briffa-replicates-mcintyre-mckitrick-produces-hockey-sticks-out-of-noise
If your process yields the same result no matter what raw material you put in then your process is crap.
Young,
The highest point of all of Martha’s Vineyard is 311ft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha's_Vineyard
Obama’s home is almost on the other side of the island.
Upstate-
Perhaps I am wrong about the location of his home. It was described in the article I linked as “waterfront property” which suggests it is closer than 300 feet above it. And no matter how high the island might be in some parts, it is an island and ‘the other side’ is necessarily going to be in contact with water.
But, I don’t know.
In any event, I referenced Obama and Gore only because they are the charlatans who have been pushing the hysteria. Neither is valid as a source on anything. Obama believed there were 60 states [I’ve been to 57 and have 3 more to go] and seemed to mistake December 7th for the day we bombed Hiroshima.
More grave is Phil Jones appearing to suppress evidence of the Medieval Warming period to polish his own thesis.
Thank you for your observation.
Young, the so-called Mideval Warm Period was a North Atlantic phenomenon, well understood.
David: “Young, the so-called Mideval Warm Period was a North Atlantic phenomenon, well understood.”
It was so well understood that Phil Jones and others conspired to hide it.
Wouldn’t it have been better to recognize it and try to explain it rather than conceal it?
Concealing was their first choice and when that no longer was possible they explained it as a North Atlantic phenomenon. Perhaps that is true, but they lost a lot of credibility by trying to hide the evidence at first.
What would you have done, David? Conceal evidence or explain it?
So David. Why isn’t NY under water? AOC, Gore and others have been making this claim for more than 20 + years.
Dustoff-
Good point! I think there are also a few Pacific islands that were supposed to be underwater by now. They aren’t. But one or two still want money because of rising seas that haven’t risen…at least not enough to be a problem.
The existence of vast amounts of money in climate science likely explains much of the confusion and the willingness of some researchers to cancel and suppress, actually smother, challenges rather than confront them with evidence and reasoning.
Dustoff, be patient.
The failure wasn’t in the prediction of what would happen, it was a failure to predict the pace of human generated pollution.
If I see two cars heading towards each other on a narrow lane I can predict that if they keep that same speed they will collide. If the driver’s of both cars use the brakes and stop, that doesn’t mean the original prediction was wrong. It did include the condition for the collision to happen.
The same has been said of emissions – if they aren’t decreased unwanted changes will happen. Unlike theoretical physics, climatology is very much tied to what people do and what changes they make. This was seen in the restoration of the ozone layer by prohibiting low molecular weight CFCs. The climatologists made that prediction, people changed what they did, and the prediction of what would happen was confirmed.
In many areas those emissions have been decreased; in many others the rate of increase had decreased, so the gains are lower.
Climatologists aren’t getting wealthy.
Tell that to China, they laugh at fools.
They build coal power plants, while many freeze of roast. Because the lack of power.
China must import the superior oil at greater cost now, expect more coal burning from China in the future. They must.
Can I enlighten you to the CURRENT ice age?
Spencer Pratt’s New Commercial Just Won Him The Election
I’m guessing X is heavily invested in the leftist climate change hoax from his relentless crap dropped on this topic.
Yeah not fooling anyone, we are in an ice age X!
it is still early in West Hollywood gayville California. Soon he will run out of crystal meth, go tonight to the WeHo bathhouses, get a booty bump and be the pissy bottom he is known to be to everyone….but away from this blog for a few hours
🤣