Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Darwin and Galileo fail: they were CWMs

If you're wondering what's happening in the "mainstream" alarmist climate science, aside from "real climate" scientists' attempts to invent increasingly contradictory talking points to downplay Spencer's and Braswell's new paper (that has demonstrated totally invalid predictions of the IPCC climate models when it comes to various energy flows), then notice that the most important development is that CO2 is no longer the primary culprit of all the evil in the world. Instead, the genuine primary culprits are the CWMs. :-)

It's been proved in the peer-reviewed literature and reported in the popular media:
Article in Science Direct (if you're a really cool dude, it's yours for $31.50)

The Guardian, Tree Hugger, Big Think, Chris Mooney (The Intersection), Chris Mooney (DeSmogBlog), Susan Wilson (Tech/Green Blorge), Paul Douglas (Minneapolis Star Tribune blogs), David Roberts (Grist), Bonnie (Who Has a Tough Time to Survive)
The source of all the evil in the world used to be called "global warming". Because there was no warming for a decade, it was renamed as "climate change". Some czars have unsuccessfully tried to coin a new term, "climate disruption". Finally, the consensus has found the new, so far most accurate description of the source: it's called the "CWMs".

Oh, I forgot to tell you what CWM stands for. It's the conservative white males, no kidding. They are shown to be 2 times more likely to reject the climate panic than other groups. They are also 20 times more likely to dramatically contribute to the civilization, but civilization is another manifestation of the evil. ;-)

Polish cult comedy, Sexmission - I recommend you to watch it (it was partly meant as satire against communism). The trial against the last two CWMs starts at 3:20. "And Einstein was also a woman." :-) This 1984 movie, much better than e.g. The Matrix, is also a great parody of global warming alarmism. See e.g. how they discovered that the whole radioactivity threat, forcing all the women to live under the ground, was just propaganda. And the woman who invented this alarm... well, she was... :-)

I don't claim that everything important in the world has been done by conservative white men: just a disproportionately large part of everything. At any rate, I am surprised by the idea that the ideologues such as the list above would want to admit this correlation between the opinions about climate change and membership in the most important racial/gender subgroup of the human history as of today.

If it shows something, it shows that the people who are more likely to have organized, important, or influential ideas about the real world are also more likely to realize that the climate panic is an irrational movement. I am convinced that intelligent CWMs, CWFs, CBMs, CBFs, CYMs, CYFs, and maybe even some LWMs, LWFs etc. and other groups are able to figure this out, too. But a main assumption of the ideologues who write the articles above is that their readers have already abandoned the last traces of rational reasoning and replaced it with politically correct clichés. They're no longer allowed to realize that this world has largely been built by CWMs.

In the Sunday Times, a CWM named Andrew Turnbull has criticized the degenerated ways of many people in the BBC (and only in the BBC) how to think about the notion of truth in sciences (and not only sciences):
Andrew Turnbull: Even Darwin And Galileo Would Fail The BBC’s Latest Science Test
He tries to explain a trivial point that all reasonable people have known for years or decades while the very unreasonable people will never get it: namely that science isn't and can't ever be a popularity contest and many (if not most) of the most important advances in science, such as those linked to the names of CWMs Galileo and Darwin, occurred despite the opposition of a majority of the society whose "teachings" were suddenly threatened or replaced.

The realization that it is really the CWMs, and not CO2, which is what the climate alarmists are really after is being increasingly candidly admitted by the extremist writers. For example, an AFB has attacked Andrew Turnbull and other CWMs in the Guardian:
Britain must resist Tea Party thinking
She has obviously no respect to Galileo or Darwin so she didn't need to hesitate which side she would join:
Lord Turnbull, writing in the Sunday Times, challenged Jones using every weary denier's argument: didn't Galileo and Darwin oppose the science of their day? I won't rehearse the paranoia of the deniers who think the world is against them: yes, it is.
Is the world really against CWMs - and all sensible people? Ms Polly Toynbee is remarkably inconsistent about this point. In the quote above, she says that the answer is Yes. Elsewhere in the article, she says that the CWMs de facto regained the control of the United States. That's a pretty large country, you know, so which way does it go? You can't have it both ways.

Oh, I forgot to tell you what an AFB is. It is an arrogant fascist bitch. The British society must be kind of decomposing if such AFBs are writing essays for major newspapers. In our country, such AFBs would at least be encouraged by the society - and not only the CWMs in it - and the readers to walk through the sewerage system instead of writing or saying anything.

Of course, Ms Toynbee isn't the only AFB who viscerally hates any rational reasoning and who prefers synchronized screams with the rest of poultry: "cluck cluck" (or, as some TRF readers will learn to say, "kokodák"). For example, the first reaction comes from a fan of Ms Toynbee named Natisha. She writes:
Brilliant article polly.
as soon as i get the kids to bed i shell read it.
The right word is "shall", not "Shell" - the latter is another company run by the CWMs. More importantly, you see a basic difference between the brain functions of CWMs and AFBs. A CWM will first read an article, and then say whether it's good or not. An AFB will first judge the article and then she will read it.

Ms Toynbee's article also shows a remarkable degree of ignorance about the very purpose of the Tea Party: it's a fiscally conservative wing of the G.O.P. She de facto incorrectly claims that it's social conservatism that unites them. At any rate, Ms Toynbee tells you that you can't be a CWM. You must either get castrated to become a CWF or you must castrate your thinking and become an LWM. Or you must paint your face with a lot of makeup, to become a CMM. :-)

I (and especially Czech President Václav Klaus) have been among those who have emphasized that the climate has only become a hostage taken by those whose real goal has nothing to do with Nature or the climate - their real goal is to transform the human society.

For many years, it has been beneficial for those people to hide their intents behind the climate - which enjoyed a "better protection". But it gradually became much clearer to a much larger number of people - and not only CWMs - that the alarmist climatology is a politically driven pseudoscience. So those who are struggling to deconstruct democracy, prosperity, and capitalism no longer find it too useful to mask their actual goals by the fog of climatology.

Suddenly, they decided to be open and candid about the key fact that the real thing that drives them up the wall are not 2 extra ppm's of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. What they really want to reduce isn't CO2: it's the CWMs. I find this transformation in the political extremists' discourse refreshing.

No comments:

Post a Comment