What led to an ice age during the late Pliocene era when CO2 levels were high?

Real causes are not known to our science a this time because mathematics and comupter modeling have blinded everyone involved in studying the climate to the reality of what is happening in the climate now (clue: it’s noting to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity).

The process of an ice cycle on our planet begins in the earth’s mantle not in a computer in some tenth rate university that in its quest for revenue has launched a research grant phishing project to come up with the scariest climate change scenario and link it to CO2 emissions from industry, commerce and civilized life.

The Earth’s mantle is a layer approximately 1,800 mile (2,900 km) thick and composed of compressed and heated rock, beginning below the Earth’s crust (lithosphere), which descends from the surface to between 20 and 30 below sea level. Surprisingly the lithosphee tends to be thinner under mountain ranges than under plains or oceans. The mantle makes up 70% of Earth’s volume, in comparison to the Earth’s crust, which makes up less than 1% of the total. In fact, the crust is just a thin layer of frozen rock shielding the mantle from outer space. The two layers are separated by a transition area called the Mohorovičić discontinuity (the “Moho” in geologits jargon) where a certain type of seismic wave quickly speeds up when transiting through.

Below the mantle is the superheated molten core of the planet.

Like the crust, the mantle is composed of many different types of rocks that fall into three main categories: igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary. However, most of those rocks originated as either granite or basalt. This layer differs in its chemical ratios from the crust, however. It is composed of approximately 45% oxygen, 23% magnesium, 22% silicon, 6% iron, 2% aluminum, 2% calcium, with trace amounts of sodium, potassium, and other elements. Like the crust, the mantle can be broadly described as as silicate. Below it the molten core consisting of an outer core and inner core, making up about 29% of the Earth’s volume, and composed primarily of molten (outer core) or solid (inner core which although immensely hot it kept solid by the enormous pressures it is subject to,) iron and nickel.

The upper mantle (aesthenosphere) has a relitavely low density compared to the rest of this layer, and flows fluidly, like a plastic. The layer gets hotter and denser as it goes down, until the rock melts entirely where the lower portion ends and the inner core begins. Convection (hotter material ascending, cooler material falling,)in the upper layer drives continental drift, the natural process that moves tectonic plates around the surface. By this process (described here in very simplistic terms, the entire oceanic crust is recycled every 100 millionish years. By comparison, portions of the continental crust are billions of years old.

As you must know (because we have all seen news video of erupting volcanoes,) the mantle is very hot and some of the heat warms the surface of our planet(this fact is unknown to climate science because were climate scientists to acknowledge it their whole Anthropogenic Global Warming money making scam would fall apart). Sometimes hotsopts in the mantle heat shift from place to place cooling some areas, warming other areas. So, when the warmth is directed away from the poles the planet gains ice and when the heat is directed toward the poles ice retreats. It is well known to geologists and paleo – geographers, though few will now admit it for fear of having their careers trashed by far – left political activists who plan to use climate change scares as a stopping stone to power.

The reason no scientists are publishing research on how these processes in the planet’s crust affect the advance and retreat of the ice caps is because any who attempts to do so will lose funding, be fired by their university, ruled persona non grata by international media and called ‘denier’ across social media. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a wholly owned subsidiary of that wannabe global government The United Nations Organisation, prefer to pretend it never happened, like the little ice age, the medieval warm period or the Roman hot period. These are areas that will cause a scientist to loss funding, be discredited and labeled a denier.

Greta Thunberg Slams Australia for Coal Industry, Expands List of Climate Demands
Little Greta Thunberg, who was elected by nobody apparently now speaks for us all on matters relating to climate change. The Swedish climate change hustler who is making a fortune for her handlers from donations to her campaign, again castigated Australia for continuing to mine and export coal despite her previous complaints, adding a call for an end worldwide to the actibity to her list of climate demands to be delivered at the upcoming World Economic Forum in Davos …

Another Kick In The Bollocks For Warmageddonists And CAGWARTS*
I’ve had many arguments with the Warmageddonists, the people who have been saying that if we did not shut down all coal, oil and gas related activites the earth was going to turn into a giant furnace and we would all burn. When the scaremongering first started, the deadline for frying was “after dinner”. Then it got to “Tomorrow …… or the day after tomorrow perhaps,” then “next year”, “before 2050,” and eventually “soon.”

What if man-made climate change is all in the mind?
If our view of reality is shaped by the mind and our perceptions of information, how successful are attempts to manipulate the perceptions of the whole populations through manipulated data, spin and assertions of authority likely to be. As scientists and politicians moan that the public no longer take sertiously climate change scare stories, we have to conclude, not very.

Meteorologists Begin To Admit To Climate Engineering
The freethinkers and Libertarians of New Media have been questioning the pseudoscientific certainties of the global warming lobby for a long time. During that often acrimonious process (because the Global Warming lobby are ever bit as organised and as driven by blind hatred of those who question them as the Bearded Queens In Bridal Gowns lobby) and most of us have been accused of infanticide, genocide and worse. At last the respectable climate scientists (the ones who didn’t sell their arse for the corporate dollar) are speaking, and the media are listening.

Mad Scientists Now In A Race To Create Human – Animal Hybrids
Scientists all over the world are busy creating extremely bizarre human-animal chimeras. Once again The Daily Stirrer has to say “We told you so”. There is something very creepy and sinister embedded in the typical scientists desire to play God. It is a complete, psychopathic disregard for moral boundaries. If we can do it that …

UK Offshore Windfarms Produce More Rust and CO2 Than Electricity
A private case going through a British court of arbitration at the moment involves two very large supply organisations.
Unfortunately the case is being heard away from the prying eyes and radar like ears of the media. A 1996 Act Of Parliament enabled such things as a way to free up Court time taken up by complex technical disputes…. And, perhaps, to keep embarrassing truths away from …

Doctors may withhold treatment from patients with “green lifestyle issues.”

A few weeks ago an item on the BMA’s website linked to the “Doctors against climate change” group of the doctors’ trade union. This body of medico-environmental socialist – utopians stated …

The Two Faces Of The Politics Of Failure

What a mess the modern way of doing politics based on a politically correct consensus and social engineering has produced. The daily stirrer looks at how the bipolar left – right divide stops things getting better rather than helping get the developed world back on track.

Green Policies Will Not Save The Planet But Are Costing Poor Families The Earth>

Politicians bleat sabout the plight of the poor then press on with their clean, green, sustainable energy policies which include stealth taxes to subsidise expensive and inefficient wind turbine and solar panel power generators. Can they not see it is the green agenda that is driving up inflation …[Environment]

Solar Storm Armageddon: Will This Be What Makes Warmageddonists Shut T F UP

An eruption on the surface of the sun, aka solar storn will send a flood of highly charged particles towards earth. Satellite communications and other technology might suffer sone disruption but the best thing about it is from here in the north of England we will be able to see the Aurora.

The Danish Experience – Problems With Wind Power And The Truth About Turbines
The truth about wind turbines, their real efficiency as opposed to the hyperbolic claims of clean sustainable energy firms and their lobbyists, politically correct politicians and green activists and how wind farm operators have been given a licence to pick the pockets of taxpayers

Statistics, Graphs and Hockey Sticks
A poem about the famous hocvkey stick graph and the science scam it was a frony for. Posted now as a valedictory celebration because US climate monitoring agncies NASA and NOAA have at last admitted the global average temperature has risen only marginally over the past few decades.

Climate Change – The Edge Of The Abyss

Media and government reports still say we are staring into the abyss because carbon emissions are too high. But have they ever though we would have to shut down all economic activity in the developed world to change things.

We Might As Well Ask The CRU climate scientists to forcast the economic trends

As our finance expert John de Roe digests today’s economic statement by Chancellor George Osborne we advise readers to ignore gloomy economic forecasts from supra national bodies with close political ties to the “New World Order”. Both the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) and the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) along with numerous other thinky tanky type thingies published their latest economic forecasts ahead of the Chancellors statement. These forecasts which are invariably gloomy and predict …

The Pain In Spain as Green Energy Policy Fails

You will not find anything in mainstream media, either print or broadcast, about the failure of the green energy initiatives that have left Spain in dire economic strais or Denmark in the dark. Bizarre, as other governments are pressing ahead with plans to make us reliant on these crackpot schemes and intellectual wanks of mad scientists …

Climate Scientists versus Free Speech and Freedom Of Information
This week four groups, whose boards represent a distinctly liberal world view and who oppose scrutiny of taxpayer-funded science by academics, asked the University of Virginia to disregard its agreement before the court with American Tradition Institute to provide the records of former climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, which belong to the public. The groups, led by the far-left Union of ….

Ever Changing Ocean

The scientists warn us climate change will cause massive extinctions, species will be destroyed, nations will die, the oceans will swamp huge areas of land as sea levels rise and lots of scaremongering stuff like that. But life in the seas has survived much worse catastrophes, much more violent changes than anything we puny humand can conjure up. It is a measure of the arrogance of humans in general and scientists in particular to imagine we puny humans could destroy the planet.also availabe HERE

Climate Change and the Population Explosion
In all the debates about climate change and the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on the environment there is one issue that has a huge bearing on humanity’s relationship with our planet that neither politicians nor scientists will discuss. Population growth. So a philosopher has to step up to the mark and ask why people are encouraged to have children when we face so many population related problems?

 

The Real Thunberg Agenda?

By William B. Stoecker – All News Pipeline
The environmental extremists continue to chant their monotonous mantra about the “existential threat” of man-made global warming, or climate change. Indeed, the climate is changing, and it has been changing for nearly four billion years. They recently began using an (apparently autistic) teenager as their spokes-mouth. Like all leftists they talk a good line, assuring us that they care deeply for wildlife, nature, clean air and water, etc. But it has long been obvious that their pretended concern for the environment is merely a cover for their real agenda, which is the impoverishment, enslavement, and eventual extermination of the human race. They are the ultimate “againsters,” people who pretend to be in favor of some noble-sounding cause, but who are really not for anything, only against.

I confess, like many of their rank and file followers, I used to believe their beautiful lie, even joining the Sierra Club until I gradually became disillusioned with them. Even today I have a fondness for mass transit and feel that, as long as we have cities, it would be better if they were more compact; less urban sprawl would mean paving over less farmland. And I think both the US and the world in general would be better off with fewer people. But no one has the right to dictate to others how they should live, and the Earth can sustain the seven billion plus people now crowding onto it, and, in any event, birthrates are dropping.

In fact, in First World countries, birthrates have dropped too far, and are below the replacement rate. The Japanese are a dying race, as are the Russians. After working for many years as a welfare eligibility worker, watching our tax dollars fund the breeding of a class of multi-generational parasites, I can almost see the point of eugenics; I’ve often thought that it might be a good idea to require that people submit to sterilization as a requirement to get welfare benefits. But there is no need, and no one has the right, to forcibly sterilize people or to target certain races.    READ ALL >>>

A Few Harsh Facts About Feminism

from

The Outsider

Incendiary reflections of a politically incorrect Buddhist.

(Had to share this, it will upset a lot of people but gets to the heart of one on the biggest factors driving the current fragmentation and factionalisation of societies in the developed world, the blinkered bigotry of movements that call themselves left wing while in fact displaying the attitudes of far – right authoritarianism. I don’t fully agree with some of what this guy says but he makes a lot of excellent points regarding the irrationality of new wave feminism – Little Nicky)

Women, for their part, are always complaining that we raise them only to be vain and coquettish, that we keep them amused with trifles so that we may more easily remain their masters; they blame us for the faults we attribute to them. What stupidity! And since when is it men who concern themselves with the education of girls? Who is preventing the mothers from raising them as they please? There are no schools for girls—what a tragedy! Would God, there were none for boys! They would be raised more sensibly and more straightforwardly. Is anyone forcing your daughters to waste their time on foolish trifles? Are they forced against their will to spend half their lives on their appearance, following your example? Are you prevented from instructing them, or having them instructed according to your wishes? Is it our fault if they please us when they are beautiful, if their airs and graces seduce us, if the art they learn from you attracts and flatters us, if we like to see them tastefully attired, if we let them display at leisure the weapons with which they subjugate us? Well then, decide to raise them like men; the men will gladly agree; the more women want to resemble them, the less women will govern them, and then men will truly be the masters. —Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Woman cannot be superior except as woman, but from the moment in which she desires to emulate man she is nothing but a monkey. —Julius Evola, quoting Joseph de Maistre

     Feminism has become part of the new western religion, the new paradigm for explaining reality, especially on the political and cultural left. In the modern west we started with Christianity as our official explanation for What’s What, then moved on to science and scientism; and now we appear to be in danger of moving away from empiricism, let alone traditional morality and values, and towards what is essentially ideological neo-Marxism. Feminism, especially in its latest manifestations, has become part of the cultural Marxist and neo-Marxist New World Order, despite the fact that most people are too indoctrinated, ignorant, or block-headedly conformist to notice it. So people in the west, especially leftist people in the west, are more and more seeing doctrines of radical feminism as a simple aspect of reality, and do not see that it is to some degree a fashion trend and also a tool exploited by socialists to gain control of western civilization without having to rely on the working class rising up in a glorious people’s revolution. Thus people on the left especially may be oblivious to some harsh truths about feminism, and about women in general. What follows, with all due respects to femininity, are a few of these harsh truths.

Women have privilege, and get away with bad behavior, because men are instinctively addicted to them and, more specifically, to pussy. As I say again and again, human beings are a species of animal, and we are veritably loaded down with animal instincts, also known as “human nature.” And one of those instincts is that men tend to feel protective towards women in general, and let them pull stunts that they wouldn’t accept coming from other men, largely because men instinctively want to mate with women and therefore want to keep them in good humor. So women in the west are “empowered” largely because men indulgently allow them to be empowered, not because women could simply take their rights and empowerment on their own regardless of how men felt about it all. This is a point to which I’ll return before I’m done.

The primary social power of a woman is her power over men. As just stated above, men are instinctively more indulgent towards females than they are towards fellow males; and it is also true that, on average, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and more assertive than women, thereby giving them greater individual power within society. Women are not completely powerless in these respects of course, and there are unusually big, strong, aggressive, and assertive females; but their main power is their power to get their way with indulgent men. A beautiful woman in particular can have any number of hormone-laden males wrapped around her little finger. I’m reminded of a scene in Dostoevsky’s The Idiot in which a young woman sees a picture of a magnificently gorgeous female (Nastasya Filippovna) and exclaims, “What power!” then, a little later, “Beauty like that is power. With beauty like that one could turn the world upside down!” But even ugly women have some of that power. The power of a man includes a great deal of power over his environment, including women and other men, with that power conditioned and enhanced by testosterone; whereas the primary power of a woman is the power to influence the power of men in her favor.

Men and women are not only physically different, they are also psychologically different. As I’ve already suggested, male animal instincts and female animal instincts are not exactly the same, though there is plenty of overlap; and this difference is emphatically not just cultural conditioning. Probably even most of the psychological differences between men and women are conditioned by sex hormones, including the aforementioned testosterone. And even hormone injections administered to transsexuals in childhood or adulthood cannot undo this difference, since a significant cause of psychological sexual dimorphism in humans results from prenatal hormones, especially a dose of prenatal testosterone received by unborn males throughout the class Mammalia. I’ve written about this plenty elsewhere, so I won’t belabor the point here, but nevertheless this is a crucial point to understand because of course it debunks much of the nonsense promulgated by feminists and neo-Marxists about “victim groups” (including women) being discriminated against as an excuse for their inability to compete with white males in certain respects. Women are less self-confident on average, less aggressive, less inclined to obsess on a career at the expense of all else, less willing to work long hours, less willing to work at dangerous occupations like oil-drilling or crab fishing…and, significantly, less objective and technically oriented on average, which helps to explain why fewer women work as surgeons, engineers, mechanics, and computer programmers. James Damore wrote a very mild, sane, and factual article on this subject back in July of 2017, and he was promptly attacked and expelled by radical feminized leftists. In fact, the very fact that feminism has become as hysterical and intolerant as it has is indicative of another aspect of sexual dimorphism in our species: females are also less rational than men, and more identified with their feelings. Which may as well fall under its own heading.

Men are more inclined to identify with their thoughts, and women are more inclined to identify with their feelings—which is resulting in feminism degenerating into a kind of hysterical cult. I remember being somewhat mystified by Eckhart Tolle’s claim that men identify with their thoughts, whereas women identify with their “pain body.” I’d never heard of a pain body before, so how could half the world’s population identify with it? But seeing the direction the feminized left has taken over the past several years, and the complaint, protest, raging unhappiness, and overall negativity that characterize it, it is more understandable now. The female-dominated political and cultural left have taken identification with feelings to such an extreme that now it’s the left who are rejecting empirical reality in favor of their unrealistic ideological ideals. (Science denial used to be associated primarily with conservative Christians railing against evolution, plus some mercenary conservative capitalists denying the harmful effects of overpopulation, pollution, deforestation, etc., but now it has become a leftist phenomenon also.) The trouble is that any society that flatly rejects empirical reality, especially fundamental aspects of it, is simply not going to survive, especially if it has to compete against people who are actually relatively still sane. A classic example of the feminine mind rejecting objectivity and demanding the reign of feelings is the new idea that maleness and femaleness are arbitrary and interchangeable. It used to be that males and females had different genitalia and different sex chromosomes, but now it’s a matter of, that’s right, feelings. And as I’ve said before, any civilization in which even medical professionals can’t tell the difference between boys and girls is just not going to survive for very long. It just isn’t. Also as I’ve said before, the rise of eunuchs into social prominence is historically a telltale sign that a civilization is in serious decline; though now the eunuchs are called trans. So an emphatically feminine national ideology is doomed, and the question is whether it will be allowed to take western civilization down with it when it falls.

The female psyche is evolved, designed by nature, to raise children, after first attracting and “hooking” a man. Over the course of the existence of the human race, extending way back into the Stone Age, women traditionally have also participated in such behavior as tending the sick, picking berries, catching frogs, and occasional peacemaking between hyperaggressive males; and of course everybody is born with instincts for simple survival—liking good food, seeking comfort, fearing death, etc. But nevertheless, for literally millions of years our ancestors were evolved in such a way that a primary duty of females has been to raise children and rely on adult males to protect the family and tribe, and that is built right into human nature. So it’s no wonder that women are more feelings-oriented than men are, less violent, more fearful, and more compassionate, on average. Also it’s no wonder that women are more attracted to babies and small children, and more concerned with their own sexual attractiveness (skin, hair, fingernails, clothes, etc.), especially when young and single, and also slaves to fashion chronically concerned with what their social peers (and the neighbors) think. Men on the other hand are evolved in large part to be fighters, hunters, and protectors; and to pit nurturing berry-pickers against aggressive hunters is a fight the outcome of which is easy to predict. The primary reason why feminists have progressed as far as they have in their fight against men, and have (I almost said “enjoy”) the privileges they have is, again, the male addiction to female flesh and men’s natural instinctive urge to tolerate or even indulge feminine irrationality, because it’s feminine.

White men created western civilization, and it stands to reason that they would be best at maintaining it and running it. Feminists do not hesitate to blame white men for most of the badness to be found in human society, as though no social evils ever existed independent of western civilization. It is true that the civilization invented by European men is not perfect, and has its shortcomings—just as every other civilization is imperfect, because every civilization is composed of imperfect people—but the opposite side of the same coin is that white men are responsible also for practically all of the good stuff too. Just look around you, and unless you’re in a wilderness or maybe in a rural non-western bamboo hut, pretty much everything you see around you has been invented by western men, aside from potted plants and other people. Hell, even the domesticated animals look the way they do because of white men selectively breeding them. Women (and brown people) are less competent to keep this invention of white males going, and are very likely to run it into the ground, as they’ve already managed to do in parts of Europe on the part of women, and in any number of third world former colonies on the part of brown men. One peculiar aspect of women is that for most of human existence they have been required to live up to a higher moral standard than men, especially with regard to sensual indulgence; and one upshot of that is that women have a less “robust” conscience, and less skill at navigating moral freedom. To some degree women with socially acceptable immorality or “empowerment” are like native Americans with tuberculosis or alcoholism—they have little evolved tolerance, and thus we see women going full-blast slutty in mainstream western culture and doing much to destroy the moral fiber of society. Hell, feminized leftists have even had to redefine morality so that debauchery and sexual irresponsibility are dissociated from the very idea of morals. The result is that “empowered” women are less happy, on average, than their grandmothers were (because, as Buddhism asserts, morality is directly related to happiness), and feminist-run societies like Sweden are degenerating into the ironic predicament of women being afraid to go outdoors for fear of being raped or murdered by the nice migrants who are viewed as morally superior to liberal, indulgent, relatively nonviolent European men. Sweden, the first feminist nation in modern times, is now the rape capital of the western world…with silly feminists trying to conceal the fact that brown men are perpetrating most of the rapes, because that goes against the feminist dogma of White Man Bad.

Males have a wider statistical distribution with regard to physical and mental traits, which results in most or even all super geniuses in the world being male. The wider variability of males over females is common throughout much of the animal kingdom, and it is related to evolutionary biology and our species’ primordial mating strategy of males competing for females (though females often do compete for males also). In species in which males may be polygamous, which has been common in non-western societies, the very best males get to mate more, whereas most females will find a mate even if they are part of a harem. So it is advantageous to a species that males who are outstanding in some way get to propagate their genes more efficiently, with less competitive “incels” or members of bachelor herds not mating at all, or very little. Thus the wider spread of the curve for males. Anyway, the result of this documented greater variability is that the most outstanding leaders of society—politicians, scientists, inventors, artists, writers, generals, whatever—are going to be mostly or entirely male. The fact that feminists can easily and smugly accept the flip side of this variability, i.e. the idea that most dysfunctional street people and imbeciles are male, while suddenly getting upset when the other end of the bell-shaped curve is mentioned, is simply another morsel of evidence that women are also less rationally inclined than their male peers, on average.

Women lack the power, physical and emotional, to take their rights and equalities against the will of masculine men. The only way women will gain social equality, assuming that they don’t have it already and then some, is if 1) men voluntarily let them have it, or 2) men are caused, or allowed, to degenerate into effete social eunuchs; and in this latter case, which obviously is happening to some extent, such a civilization is simply screwed. A feminized society in which masculinity is vilified and essentially abolished, is a doomed society, if only because some non-emasculated patriarchal society nearby will overpower and conquer it, socially and economically if not militarily. For various reasons, a feminist society will not be as strong as a more traditional one that accepts masculinity and femininity, regardless of all the hysterical propaganda and indoctrination generated by feminist activists and cultural Marxists. In fact the new feminists seem intent upon abolishing actual femininity also, producing a race of androgynous shemales, largely because they are too simple-minded to acknowledge that equality does not necessitate uniformity—though maybe deep down they realize that women can’t really compete against uncastrated males in many if not most fields of endeavor. So what will likely happen to a feminized society, if history is any indicator, is that the feminists, after vilifying and culturally castrating their own men, will willingly flop onto their back and spread their legs for the first wave of aggressive alpha males who decide to take over the civilization. Deep down, women, and even most feminists, have an intuitive, instinctive respect for men who have not renounced their own testicles and spine.

If women aren’t equal now, they never will be. Feminists and neo-Marxists in general may be able to engineer society enough that men are emasculated enough that women can actually compete with them in traditionally male fields of endeavor, but as I’ve said, this destruction of the natural balance will destabilize and wreck the civilization before long. The fact is, though, that women have always been the equals of men, though not following the same societal niches as men. True, men traditionally have had most of the political power, but they used that power largely for the sake of protecting the women. It has been men who have worked, fought, and died so that women and children could live safely and in relative prosperity. Feminists, going with the empirically false dogma that women and men are essentially identical in every way, mentally if not physically, may be able to bring about absolute equality of outcome, in accordance with socialist utopianism and social engineering, but doing so would require repressing men, or else indulging in such foolishness as requiring 50% of firefighters, police officers, and soldiers, for example, to be female—despite the plain fact that they aren’t as strong as, or run as fast as, or fight as well as males. If the most qualified person were always to get the job, or the position in school, then women simply won’t wind up exactly the same as men, nor will non-whites wind up the same as whites. There are inherent, genetically conditioned differences. But the point is that men and women have had a symbiosis going from the beginning, and both genders have their strengths and weaknesses, and their natural place in the family and in society. Women, for instance, have had the duty of raising the children, especially when they are small, helpless, and in their formative years. So women have had the huge responsibility of producing the next generation of people, and being their first and perhaps most important role models, and that is extremely important—certainly more important than rejecting family life for the sake of imitating men. Thus men and women have always had a natural balance, in accordance with male and female nature, and both are necessary for human existence. But if women want equality by becoming identical to men, then they will fail miserably, because they aren’t identical. And if they can’t be equal unless men allow them to be, then of course they will never be really equal because men are stronger and still in control, if only potentially. But I say women are already equal and always have been, especially in egalitarian societies like the western world. If feminists want to complain, they should perhaps complain about traditional Islamic culture—but of course they generally don’t because they’ve established the least misogynistic race of males on the planet to be the primary enemy.

     There are plenty more points I could make, but this is enough for now, if not more than enough. If any women read this and are offended by it, I would simply observe, again, that women really are equal to men, in my opinion, despite the plain fact that they are not the same as men, and not as good at all the same things, though better at some. Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses, which is why the primordial male/female symbiosis has worked out as well as it has. Nature has designed our species in such a way that males and females are built differently and perceive the world somewhat differently, with males being the aggressive protectors and providers, and females being the nurturing emotional center of the family unit. There will always be individual variations, which is fine; but the traditional way is pretty much the natural way, and deviations from that are bound to be inferior as well as unnatural. Nature designed males and females to be different, and we reject that at our peril.

     To pervert the perennial male/female difference in temperament into a war in which men are viewed as an enemy to be defeated, which is what neo-Marxist radical feminism has degenerated into, is freakishly, grotesquely stupid, as well as an attempt at civilizational suicide. There should always be a symbiotic balance between masculine and feminine, just as ideally there should always be a symbiotic balance in society between conservatives and liberals. One side trying to defeat or destroy the other i

s insane. But then again, rational objectivity is a tool of white patriarchal oppression.

the most dangerous females aren’t “butch”

RELATED POSTS:

B***h, please! Banning ‘sexist’ language won’t make sexism disappear, any more than banning racial slurs killed racism

Trannies and Feminists fall out over changes to UK’s Gender Recognition Act

In the previous post I featured my own complaint about the way supporters of the highly political climate change launch witch hunts against environmental and atmospheric academics who challenge the globalist WARMAGEDDON scaremongering, and dismiss the objections of non – scientific sceptics like myself, who – writing from an economic and sociological perspective – point out the sheer lunacy of committing the worlds few developed nations to a course of spending vast sums of money and committing infinte resources to  mitigating the deleterious effects of Carbon Dioxide emitted at a reasult of human activity on the planet’s ecosphere. That was backed up by an article poisted on Quora by a research physicist detailing some of the scientific theory of Anthopogenic Global Warming.

In this post, on these not for profit pages, I reproduce a long reply from another non – scientists, writing from a business perspective, about how from being a climate change believer he quickly became a sceptic after embarking on his own research project.

Why did you change your views on climate change?Query  posted on Quora

Response from

Chris Boyd

Updated 10h ago · Upvoted by Jan Lindström, Environmental Science background. Climate interest since the 80´s. Physicist.

I was an anti-corporation, anti-oil, politically left person who was also regularly depressed and thoroughly freaked out about climate change since first reading about it in 1998.

So I jumped at the chance in 2015 to put my advertising creative skills to work on a voluntary project where I created a viral campaign concept to promote climate change and renewable energy. I spent almost a year developing the concept, using my spare time and money and doing vastly more reading on the subject than I had before, including many things about CO2.

Here are some of the conclusions I personally came to, slowly at first, then eventually all at once in the following few years after the project, and some salient points I read along the way:

• There is an element of ‘predatory green capitalism’ to the movement that makes money out of scaring the public and politicians and who keep the scare going, despite none of their apocalyptic predictions coming true for the last 30 years.
• Whilst it is unlikely scientists are getting rich out of researching CO2–caused catastrophic climate change – many jobs, university departments, tenured professorships, mortgages and college funds now depend on the money governments give to it continuing to flow.
• An atmospheric physicist or meteorologist who now comes out against the theory of human caused ‘climate emergency’ (as it is now called) will have their careers, livelihoods and reputations destroyed, rather than having their science objectively considered.
• Much of the public’s belief or disbelief of the theory is more about their political ideology and continuous microdosing of the message in the media than any significant research into the subject, and I would have included myself in this categorisation a few years ago.
• There is still no directly observed evidence that CO2 causes catastrophic climate change, only correlations and extrapolations. Any graph or chart you see about temperature trends or sea level rise is often fraudulently presented, still has no demonstrable link to CO2 and may be entirely due to natural cycles. The location of New York city used to be under roughly one mile of ice only 20,000 years ago, after all.
• We still don’t know enough about how all of the terrestrial and extraterrestrial factors from clouds, multi-decadal ocean current oscillations, cosmic rays, sun activity, water vapour, forests, urban heat island effect, Milankovitch Cycles, undersea geothermal activity, the strength of earth’s magnetic field and natural CO2 variability to name just a few, interact with each other in a myriad of ways to be able to make any claims about climate trends, and there is no computer model powerful enough to calculate it, even if we understood all of the interactions.
• Atmospheric physicists who have been in the field for decades, long before the theory of CO2–caused catastrophic climate change became widespread, used to study around 22 drivers of climate (a few of which are mentioned above), the least of which was CO2 as it was known to have a very weak influence.
• The UN’s IPCC predictions are all based on computer models, which contain large errors or omit major influencing factors.
• There are enough highly qualified and credible scientists who don’t believe that CO2 can cause catastrophic climate change to be able to confidently question the hypothesis.
• “A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately with the currently available observational devices, in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide…” Dr. Mototaka Nakamura.
• Of the 0.9 degrees C warming that has occurred since the turn of the last century, half could be attributed to human activity. Of that half, 0.225 degrees C could be caused by the urban heat island effect. The remaining 0.225 degrees C of warming is theoretically possible to have been caused by our additional CO2.
• The 0.6C of warming that occurred from 1910 to 1945 took place when when the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity is estimated to have been just 18 parts per million (going from 280ppm pre-industrial to 298ppm) – acknowledged as being far too small to have had any impact in any way. Therefore what caused early 20th century warming had to have been caused by something else, and could still be causing warming, if any, today.
• Wind and solar are not capable of providing the energy and resources we require to live a modern life. They also create immense problems and inefficiencies for power grids with their constant peaks and troughs in output. Only because we keep traditional forms of power generation in ‘spinning reserve’ can we absorb or balance out the problems of intermittency with renewables, and only when used on a small scale – from Obama’s own former renewable energy guru.
• A battery or batteries big enough to store electricity to power northern hemisphere populations through winter even for just one full day, would be so huge, so expensive and so resource–intensive to manufacture, that they’re practically in the realm of fairytales.
• Coal and oil are single-handedly responsible for lifting humanity out of a brutal, hard manual labour, 18th century agrarian lifestyle where 85% of the population were required to farm, with little or no leisure time, no access to cheap affordable medical care and where most of us were dead by 40. They are both still responsible for maintaining our long, healthy, comfortable lives.
• No matter how ‘green’ you try and live, everything you touch, hold, wear, eat, drink, every activity, every holiday, every minute of leisure time, everything you ride in, sit on, every place you live in or work in, every medicine and medical procedure still has oil and coal at the heart of its lifecycle — by powering your activity directly, by providing the energy to be manufactured and delivered cheaply to your door from across the world or your country, and in the case of oil, is directly made from it.
• Whilst they do have environmental issues we should continue trying to resolve, rapidly removing oil and coal from our energy and raw materials mix as some advocate will result in an immediate and painful deindustrialisation and depopulation of the planet – which people often piously say is a good thing, until they realise it will likely include themselves, their children, friends, family and just about everyone they know and love.
• A subset of extreme environmentalists who are also driving the ‘climate emergency’ narrative know that the above point is the case, but actually think there should be no more than around 500 million people on the planet living a lifestyle similar in terms of technology to that of the Amish community. However, a sudden move away from coal and oil use will not result in a nice smooth transition to some idyllic pastoral existence, as some might imagine.
• Wind turbines, solar arrays and electric cars are far from ‘green’ to manufacture – with the mining and refining for renewables of the truly gargantuan quantities of rare earth elements, steel, concrete, copper cabling, fibreglass (and also land use and wildlife destruction) required to build enough of them, to even attempt to replace our current global energy production capacity, creating a very real and tangible environmental catastrophe in its own right.
• Naturally occurring water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, is more powerful at trapping heat than CO2 and is often 25 times more prevalent than CO2 in certain times and places.
• CO2 has been widely measured since the early 1800’s as a result of the mining industry and factory worker safety laws. Measurements of CO2 levels taken around the countryside in the UK and Europe during this period regularly returned samples as high as 380ppm, even 540ppm, and in Greenland as high as 700ppm. This means that the commonly promoted pre industrial levels of 280ppm is just an arbitrarily low number chosen by climate change alarmists. But it also means that natural variation in CO2 levels may be much bigger that currently acknowledged, and by comparison, human contribution may be nothing more than marginal.
• CO2 has regularly been many multiple times higher in earth’s history and did not lead to an uninhabitable planet. For example, during the Devonian period between 400 and 360 million years ago when CO2 was around eight times higher at an estimated 4000 parts per million, modern C3 and C4 vascular plants species first began to evolve and thrive. Far from being an extinction event, it appears life flourished during this time.
• Plants struggle to survive or reproduce when CO2 is at or below 150 parts per million – which is why outspoken environmentalist, scientist and former harsh critic of humanity James Lovelock changed his view, from seeing us as a kind of parasite on earth to its potential unwitting saviours by unlocking much needed CO2 for plants – which in earth’s geological time frame is currently extremely low.
• CO2 only absorbs 15% of the infrared spectrum (heat) and quickly becomes saturated with infrared energy – radiating some of it back down to earth, but of course much of it also passing back into the cold vacuum of space.
• Each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by over 2400 molecules of non-heat trapping nitrogen, oxygen and argon, making it impossible to form a ‘blanket’ as we were once told – especially at high altitudes where wind speeds can reach 200 mph.
• Research indicates that CO2’s warming effect is ‘diminutive’. Meaning that doubling its quantity in the atmosphere does not double its warming effect.
• The additional amount of CO2 we have added as a percentage of total atmospheric gases could be somewhere between 0.008 and 0.012 of a percent. The lesser amount when said as words is ‘eight thousandths of one percent’. Do we really think this will cause catastrophe on earth when CO2 has been many times greater naturally?

My advice is to continue to recycle, buy less junk, give money to charities who try and prevent deforestation and remove plastic from the oceans, support initiatives to create more fishing–free zones around the world, support initiatives to educate and bring energy to developing nations, support public transport, support new forms of nuclear energy, buy an electric car if you want, or don’t – but above all enjoy your life and stop worrying about human caused catastrophic climate change.

We may just be scaring ourselves to death due to a lot of BS, a misunderstanding, an insidious conspiracy, political ideology, greed and egos, by humanity’s predisposition to a cataclysmic mindset, or all of the above.

“What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled“

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

 

As A Climate Science Sceptic I’ve Often Been Asked Why We Sceptics Do Not Present Our Findings For Peer Review?

It might seem like a reasonable question until you see that the climate science academy bears a strong resemblence to a religious cult. Challenge the warming narrative and hooded figures bearing burning crosses will crawl out from under stones and logs, pointing bony fingers at you and shouting, “Heretic, burn him!”

And that’s just how established figures in the climate research community are treated. Lay people like me, who challenge the narrative on Warmageddon, In my case on the lunacy of environmentalist economics, others on the areas in which they have expertise, are simply ignored. Like fundamentalist Christians, Warmageddonists hold a literal faith in the words of the Phophet Mann to whom the wisdom of The Great Hockey Stich was handed down on a tablet computer. Trouble is The Great Hockey Stick and its now discredited prophet Michael Mann are about as reliable as the ancient scriptures of a God invented by a middle eastern Bronze Age tribe of nomadic, semi – literate goat shaggers.

Here’s a real scientist giving is views on climate science in response to a question on Quora. My qualifications, in Sociology and Economics, are valid enough in their field but are pseudo – sciences.

Why don’t skeptics present their evidence to climate scientists?

Paul Noel, former Research Scientist 6 Level 2 UAH Huntsville Al. (2009-2014)

Answered 10h ago

Well here is an example: If I present to you the simple facts that a greenhouse does 2 jobs, it blocks the movement of air by convection and wind and it provides a selective frequency mirror for IR. Then if I present proof which is plain up simple that no gas on this earth does either job therefore there is NO SUCH THING as a GREENHOUSE GAS, which is prima facie true and that means 100% of the claims for Carbon Dioxide retaining heat on this earth as a “greenhouse gas” are fake on the face of them, you would see all the “Climate Scientists” deny my statement but it is very much true.

Then if I pulled out any number of IR Photos which clearly illuminate images through many miles of atmosphere like across the Los Angeles Basin which would be impossible if CO2 actually blocked or absorbed IR like is proposed they would still deny my statement.

Yet here is such a photograph showing methane absorbing but the background through CO2 5 to 20 times the vertical amount in the atmosphere due to distance still resolves. Then if I bring out a scientific paper that shows that Industry Experts: CO2 Worse Than Useless in Trapping Heat/Delaying Cooling | PSI Intl . Do I get recognized? NO!

What’s the matter here. The “Climate Scientists” are clearly liars as this picture with the EDF logo is impossible if CO2 is a problem.

Look at reality. You don’t need a “scientist” to tell you what you clearly see here. There is no greenhouse gas even in Methane as it is not reflecting IR, it is absorbing IR. (Black in the picture) and no IR absorption by the CO2 in 25 miles of air. I know how far the LA basin is across and in places it is 80 miles! This picture is about 25 miles across. I have flown into this area in a small plane.

Simple reality is no gas on this earth does any function of a greenhouse and the alleged greenhouse gases are in fact counter productive in function that they are claimed to do. “What was discovered was that under stringent lab conditions it can be shown that regular air delays/traps heat better than greenhouse gases such as CO2!” – article cited above. Maybe you need to see the facts and quit looking to experts.

MORE from Greenteeth Digital Publishing on Climate Change

 

Ruling Elites support Extinction Rebellion plan for Marxist world to ‘fight climate change’

There is No Climate Emergency Say 500 Climate Scientists

Why are Britons becoming less tolerant of gay sex? Hint: it’s not due to Christians like Rees-Mogg

Little Nicky loves a bit of irony and this is classic.

Published in RT, 11 Jul, 2019

Gay pride in London and Muslim worshippers in Baitul Futuh mosque in the same city. ©  REUTERS/HENRY NICHOLLS;  REUTERS/Peter Nicholls

Follow RT on

Acceptance of gay sex and pre-marital relationships has fallen for the first time in decades in the UK, but the media is insistent on blaming the wrong people for intolerance.

The annual British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey has found that 74 percent believe that sex before marriage is “not wrong at all,” a percentage point less than last year, and 66 percent of adults say the same about same-sex relationships. While the declines are marginal and the numbers remain near historic peaks, the last time Britain grew less tolerant of homosexuals was during the AIDS panic of the late 1980s, and researchers state that openness has “plateaued” after years of rapid growth.

If in doubt, blame Brexit

The left-of-center media took no time to identify the reasons: the Guardian’s article on the subject features “Ukip, the Brexit party and the European Research Group (ERG) of Conservative MPs,” Arlene Foster of Northern Ireland’s DUP, “senior Conservative politicians including Andrea Leadsom and Esther McVey” and singles out Jacob Rees-Mogg, even though he doesn’t actually oppose same-sex relationships. In any case, one is left wondering why millions of Britons are suddenly taking their social cues from a Catholic father-of-six raised in a stately home by his devoted nanny. The Independent goes through much of the same list, throwing Theresa May and Boris Johnson into the mix, while on Sky News an LGBT activist said that Brexit had “emboldened” social conservatives.

©  BSA Survey

A more sophisticated thesis claims there is a backlash against the rapid progress of LGBT rights and other liberal causes that have become visible everywhere from shop fronts to street parades to politicians’ lapels, and sites that have left comments on are full of opinions from those claiming to be sick of alternative lifestyles “rammed down their throats.” As recently as 2012, fewer than half of Britons told the same survey that there was nothing wrong with homosexual relationships, so perhaps some of the defections to the rainbow flag may have been fleeting.

‘Non-Christians’

But the more obvious answer appears to be hiding in plain sight, in black and white, in the survey itself.

For example, fewer Catholics (82 percent) believe that premarital sex is “rarely wrong” or “not wrong at all” compared to those who do not follow any religion (93 percent). But the real social conservatives are not the old or the Christians, but a grouping of “Non-Christians” only 35 percent of whom believe that sex before marriage is acceptable.

©  BSA Survey

The picture is likely the same for same-sex relationships, though for reasons unknown the survey withholds a detailed breakdown of who exactly is against gay sex. But using the figures of 2016, which are available, only 30 percent of those non-Christians make allowances for LGBT couples – with acceptance rates 20 to 30 percent lower than Christian denominations, and even further behind atheists. Even if that number has improved against the overall trend, the group likely remains laggards. When LGBT advocates talk of a hardened rump that won’t fall in with other social trends, this is who they should mean.

So, who are these statistically interesting outliers? In the majority of cases, Muslims, with significantly smaller Hindu, Sikh and Jewish groups.

Using data from the BSA survey itself, the proportion of Muslims has doubled in the past decade alone from 3 to 6 percent. Government statistics estimate that there are over 3.3 million Muslims in the UK, more than twice as many as in 2001, with the real number thought to be higher as many migrants are not counted in such figures.

It might not seem like a lot, but if this group is radically different in its social attitudes it is enough to put a dent in the steady line of progress for tolerance, as it grows proportionally bigger.

Growing concerns

Other than the specific example of parents in Birmingham schools protesting against a new pro-LGBT curriculum, there is no acknowledgement of the impact of Muslims as such, or of their changing demographics on overall British attitudes in any of the reports. Similarly, the Independent writer talks about “an atmosphere of hostility creeping into our lives” and complains that he has “been subjected to a huge number of homophobic comments recently and several friends of mine have been assaulted or attacked” but doesn’t reveal who is behind these aggressive acts in London, a city with the highest “non-Christian” population.

Lefties love to shout their support for Gay BLTs from the rooftops. Likewise their love for Muslims and all things related to Islam (except the bits of Islam they are in denial about of course.) They’ve been so keen in both Gay / Lesbian / Trans rights and the acceptance of Islam, including Sharia Law, in British society that they have campaigned for both simultaneously just as they have campaigned for tolerance of perverts, druggies, criminals, gangstas, and members of the Jew – hating Labour Party.

Ironically homosexuality, sex outside marriage and any kind of drug use are crimes in Sharia Law, the first two so serious they are punishable by death.

Little Nicky and his friends over at Boggart Blog have often wondered how the lefties would react when the muslims they campaigned to introduce into British society started to turn on the Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transexuals and Qs, whatever they are. Because ‘tolerance is a word that does not figure largely in The Koran.

Original Boggart Blog

 

 

 

The Mainstream Left Are Turning Against SJWs

first posted on Quora by

Richard Johnson

Leftist Identity politics operate on the idea that everyone belongs to an identity group, and all of those groups are brutally oppressed by “The White Patriarchy.”

The idea is that since they are oppressed, they deserve extra rights and privileges in order to “defend themselves.”

The problem is that they ran out of things to be oppressed by, so they had to invent “micro-aggressions.”

Micro-aggression are tiny little insults that are CRUSHING the “marginalized people” like a Nazi steamroller (!!!)

THE LIST OF MICRO-AGGRESSION GOT RIDICULOUS A LONG TIME AGO.

10 Most Absurd Things Banned On Politically Correct College Campuses

I saw an article by an SJW in the Harvard newspaper where the writer complains bitterly that he is oppressed by the mere presence of white people.

(You’d think that getting a $350,000 college degree would take the sting out having to be around white people, but nope.)

I just got done listening to a debate where two college professors said that they should have the right to censor free speech, because free speech is largely a tool of white men and that they literally are fighting for their very lives (!!!) each day at their incredibly liberal colleges.

It all amounts to a cynical power grab by poisonously hateful, tribal people.

The other problem that SJW face is that they love PURITY TESTING.

No matter how liberal you are, you’ll never be pure enough for them.

There was a lefty-ish college professor at Evergreen College who taught evolutionary biology.

Evergreen is an off-the-charts progressive Taliban zoo of a college and the college president is like a self-parody of a self-loathing white leftist.

Evergreen decided that all white people should be disinvited to campus for a day, so the minorities could enjoy a day of not being oppressed by their toxic, oppressive presence.

The biology teacher, Brett Weinstein, wrote an email saying that he thought it was a bad idea and that he was uncomfortable with the concept.

The SJW Army went completely berzerk and tore the campus apart, the guy and his wife had to flee the campus for their physical safety.

The chief of campus police resigned because the Marxist college president would not allow the police on campus to protect the safety of the faculty and students from the mob of SJWs.

The college president allowed himself to be held captive by the mob and meekly asked them if he could use the bathroom.

THE SJWS LITERALLY WANTED TO HOSPITALIZE THE PROFESSOR AND HIS WIFE BECAUSE HE WASN’T MARXIST ENOUGH AND SELF-LOATHING ENOUGH TO SUIT THEM.

Unfortunately for the SJW thugs, the professor turned out to be a courageous and extremely well-spoken guy and he made their thuggery famous.

bret weinstein evergreen – Google Search

You’ll never be pure enough for the SJWs until you have green hair and 14 cats and you parrot their new-speak down to the very last syllable.

Are you a white left-leaning feminist who voted for Hillary? Not good enough. Sooner or later you’ll be fed into the Purity Wood Chipper.

When Feminism Is White Supremacy in Heels

MORE SJW CRIMES
War On Free Speech Reaches Denmark