57 responses

  1. Those are two extremely interesting video pieces, short and to the point.

    I really do wonder, however, what is the point of claiming all this stuff about the climate and global warming if it’s not true? I can bet there’s money involved for the scientists, but who else would gain from such a whopping lie?

    [And] I don’t know the different advantages for a scientist working in the private or public sector, so can say whether I think she did the right thing by quitting the university. She makes it easer, I think, for the pro-lobby to brainwash students, if that’s a reason she maybe should have stayed put, I don’t know.

  2. Great videos. The hoax is dying a death, though, as this article from Obama’s time in office, show.
    http://www.freedom.news/2015-12-07-yes-global-warming-is-a-hoax-and-heres-the-proof.html

    As for the reason, yes, money underlies it but also population control. If we are to save the planet, there needs to be fewer people on it, less of us to travel on planes etc. A load of hooey, but as long as it’s coming from a scientist, it’s bound to be true, LOL!

  3. Just seen your Email there Ed and I did watch both videos. I nearly missed your Message as I have been Watching The Royal Waddin All Day.
    That reminds me of a clean Joke but better not deviate. As ones who at least try and think for ourselves we know that the Pressures on all of us to conform to Big Brother to me is the key here. You remember as I do Tomorrow’s World. One program was taken up about the car Engine that would basically replace the Piston Petrol Engine. This car was fitted with this clean New Engine and test driven around a Racetrack. Great reviews were told of it and this was around about 1970 the Engine was never seen again. Imagine if you or I walked into BP Shell Office and said ” I have just designed a car that completely needs no Oil”
    do you think that we would be allowed to put that on the Market. Remember Hitler ran his Panzer Tanks on fuel removed from coal and that was in 1940. Just think the Material Steps Man has taken since the 1940s. Yes there’s Global Warming but as this brave Woman states to what effect is it man made or to what extent is it Natural.
    If you ever get a free hour their is a great video on YouTube done by a Scientist who was employed by NASA. He entered NASA as an environmentalist Evolution Atheist and left as a Creationist Christian because of all the evidence of a Young Universe and the Garbage spoken by fellow scientists. If I get the link al try and send it to you . God Bless.

  4. You really are joking, surely? That climate change is caused by humans is settled science. The propaganda is not from the scientists but from the deniers. Waken up, folks!

    • Raymo,

      I have long been under the impression that there is really no such thing as “settled science”, that scientists continually examine and re-examine data and change their theories as the evidence presents itself.

      Once you waken up to that basic fact, you might be less ready and willing to drink in the climate change propaganda.

      • Certain things are settled – nobody challenges the theory of relativity or gravity, do they? In the same way, the majority of scientists agree on climate change. I will admit to being unsettled myself about the treatment of some deniers – they shouldn’t be ostracised, I’ll admit that, but made to provide their evidence.

        • Raymo

          Theories by definition are unproven hypothesis, generally healthy and harmless ideas based on certain collected data, which, in the absence of opposing data, are held to be probable. One such case is the theory of gravity, “what goes up must come down”. I don’t have a problem with that theory because it makes sense, is in line with established scientific fundamentals and is not opposed by any reasonable alternative. So that’s a good and wholesome scientific theory.

          Now we move into the twighlight zone with modern scientists pushing the theories of the big bang, evolution and climate change and imposing them, with the help of the media, as infallible dogma. The first two were first pushed by the Soviets many decades ago during the Cold War and I believe Russia and China are at the forefront in pushing the third today. This is a telling development for the once-Christian West in that for the first time our scientists are rejecting the combined evidence of Sacred Scripture and historical account, even opposing the established principles of science itself, to push ahteistic ideas that equate effectively to a thrice denial of God as Creator and sustainer of the world (big bang, evolution, climate change).

          So here is the trinity of atheistic doctrines now universally imposed:

          1. The big bang created the order and beauty of the universe by a series of accidents over many billions of years. There is no God!

          2. Evolution gave rise to spontaneous life from non-life. There is no God!

          3. Man, contrary to Revelation, is in control of the planet, not God. There is no God!

          Of course there is the added advantage of massive taxation associated with the climate change myth, the greatest cash cow (from the pockets of the people) ever known to man. So permit me to re-publish below a partial commentary from a film that was made in 2012 completely debunking climate change. The commentary can be read on the originating website as follows, though the video link to the actual film has been taken down by Google. I wonder why? I also wonder why the East Anglia “climategate” scandal that caused the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit to collpase was silenced so effectively?

          http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291?page=5

          Surprise, surprise.

          You can watch the entire thing now – for free – already on Google Video.
          Watch it while you can, here is the link below.

          The Great Global Warming Swindle

          The Great Global Warming Swindle.

          This astounding documentary was aired last Thursday night (8th of March) in the UK.
          What it illustrates both clearly and definitively is that global warming through human activity is the most contrived pseudo-science of the last 30 years. The scale of the swindle is both frightening. As the film narrator boldly states:

          “Everywhere you are told that man-made climate change is proved beyond doubt, but you are being told lies. Each day the news reports grow more fantastically apocalyptic. Politicians no longer dare to express any doubt about climate change.
          This is the story of how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology.
          It is the story of the distortion of a whole area of science. It is the story of how a political campaign turned into a bureaucratic band-wagon. This is a story of censorship and intimidation. It is a story about westerners invoking the threat of climatic disaster to hinder vital industrial progress in the developing world. The global warming story is a cautionary tale of how a media scare became the defining idea of a generation.”

          This film proceeds to completely strip away the emperor clothes of the theory of global warming caused by man-made CO2. It’s main points against the theory are that:

          1) “We are told that the earth’s climate is changing, but the earth’s climate is always changing. In earth’s history there have been countless periods when it was much warmer and much cooler that it is today. When much of the world was covered by tropical forests or else vast ice sheets. The climate has always changed, and changed without any help from us humans.”

          “The polar bears obviously survived that period, they are with us today, they are very adaptable and these warm periods in the past posed no problem for them.” Says Professor John Clark – Dept of Earth Sciences – University of Ottawa.

          2) If you take the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere of all gases, it is 0.054%. The proportions that human are adding is even smaller, the main source in fact coming from the world’s oceans. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. The geological records show that in fact CO2 does not precede warming, but lags behind it by some 300 years. So as Gore rightly says in his film “An Inconvenient Truth” that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. However it is not a positive one, but a negative one, in fact often an inverse correlation.

          3) The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases and a small percentage of them are the greenhouse gases. And of that small percentage, 95% of it is water vapour, and that is by far the most important greenhouse gas often in the form of clouds. Further, solar activity is the most accurate way of predicting climate changes on earth. The interplay between water vapour and solar activity being the main determinants of earth’s climate and human beings have almost no influence upon.

          4) If greenhouse warming were presently occurring you would get more warming in the troposphere, because greenhouse gases trap heat from escaping the atmosphere in the troposphere. However, that is just not the case. The data collected from satellites and weather balloons show that the earth is in fact warmer than the atmosphere. This evidence damns the theory of greenhouse effect upon climate through CO2.

          Surprising is the origins of this political scandal. Apparently it originated from a desire of Margaret Thatcher in the eighties to discredit fossil fuels in favour of nuclear power.

          Even more shocking is that the entire present global warming lobby, hijacked from Thatcher by neo-Marxists and Environmentalists, has become in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats an evil “gravy train” of the millions of tax dollars pocketed in this disgusting “global warming” industry which is based upon a lie.

          “Fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on Global Warming right now. It’s a big business.” Says Professor Patrick Michaels – Dept of Environmental Sciences – University of Virginia.

          “Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.” Says Dr Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader – NASA.

          As the film spells out for us:

          Man-made global warming is no ordinary theory. It is presented in the media as having the stamp of authority of an impressive international organisation. The UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change or IPCC.

          “The IPCC like any UN body is political. The final conclusions are politically driven. It’s become a great industry in itself and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there would an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.” Says Professor Philip Scott – Dept of Biogeography – University of London.

          “This claim that the IPCC is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists: you look at the bibliographies of the people and it is simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists. Those people that are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there are a number of them I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this “2500 of the worlds top scientists”. We have a vested interest in causing panic, because then, money will flow to climate science.” Says Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC and Pasteur Institute of Paris.

          “And to build up the number to 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and Government people and so on, anyone who has been close to them. And none of these people are asked if they agree, many of them disagree. People have decided that you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees – you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science you know that it is pure propaganda.” Says Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC and M.I.T.

          Unfortunately as the Times notes, the whole Global Warming bandwagon has evolved into “less an issue and more a doom-laden religion demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil fuel-driven ways.”

          “There is such intolerance. This is most politically incorrect thing possible to doubt this climate change orthodoxy.” Says Lord Lawson of Blaby (In 2005 a House of Lords enquiry was set up to examine the scientific evidence of man-made cause of Global Warming and Lord Lawson was a member of it.) He goes on to comment – “We had a very thorough enquiry and took evidence from a whole lot of people expert in this area and we produced a report. What surprised me was to discover how weak and uncertain the science was. In fact there are more and more thoughtful people, some of them a little bit frightened to come out in the open. But who quietly privately and some of them publicly are saying ‘hang on, wait a moment, this simply just does not add up’.”

          “I often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true.” Says Professor John Christy – Lead Author IPCC

          And finally the definitive comment of the documentary must belong to Nigel Calder – the Former Editor of the New Scientist.

          “I have seen and heard their spitting fury at anybody that might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way. The whole global warming business has become like a religion and people who disagree are called heretics. I am a heretic. The makers of this programme are all heretics.”

          After this documentary and more publicity, hopefully not heretics for much longer!!!

          In conclusion, only atheists, hippies and shysters believe in and push climate change. The majority of objective people know they’re being had, even if they are constrained to shut up and pay up! As G. K. Chesterton once remarked: “only dead fish flow with the current”. Never a truer word!

    • You have already demonstrated two characteristics of an ideologue:

      1. Your claim that climate change is “settled science” is ridiculous. For example: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/surprise-surprise-many-scientists-disagree-on-global-warming

      (“There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty. Thus, there is hardly the unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind’s role in producing it. But even for the sake of argument, assuming that there is significant man-made global warming, many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people’s health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.”)

      2. Your attempt to whitewash the attacks on Dr. Curry as “criticism” rather than the specific word she used: “vilify.”

      Anything else you’d like to post to further confirm that you are one of the brainwashed? Perhaps that you’re on a “research” grant payroll from the UN?

      • All I would say to that is that numbers don’t decide the truth of climate change. There are loads of holocaust deniers, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

        I am not an ideologue. I did read your Fox News article with interest and believe it or not I am trying to take on board new information. I find it difficult with floods and hurricanes coming one after another, not to believe the scientists who blame humans for this new climate. That’s really all I’m saying.

        • Perhaps a hundred or two objectors to climate change “truth” would tend to confirm your comment, but 30,000? And since when are computer-generated models “truth”?

          Consider also the reaction of those riding the climate science gravy train (and that’s exactly what it is) to these objectors. Denunciations, ad hominem smears, calls for sanctions. They must be intimidated! Silenced! Punished! Does that strike you as appropriate behavior for legitimate scientists? If you have a nose, you should be smelling a rat.

          As for the frequency of floods and hurricanes, you seem to think this is a new phenomenon. I suggest you do some more Googling….but use another search engine, since Google is now part of the problem of the suppression of truth.

          • RCA Victor,

            Reading over Raymo’s most recent posts, he/she seems to be genuinely trying to get to the truth, so go easy on the lad/lassie… You really CAN be a hard man, our RCA Victor… In fact, when I read your response to dear old/young Raymo, I thought of this…

            • Editor,

              FYI, I never have to slice onions. I simply give them a hard look and they fall to pieces (diced).

              Tell you what: let’s ask Raymo, who entered this discussion with the attitude that we were a bunch of rubes for denying “settled science.”

              Raymo, have I been too hard on you?

              • LOL! No, I wouldn’t say you’ve been too hard on me. I came on here with an attitude, so I can’t complain, LOL!

                I’m reading and re-reading the stuff here, because it’s so hard to know what’s what in this debate. Good points have been made, though, and very good links. I listened again to Prof Curry and I do think it’s wrong to dismiss people like her.

                • Raymo

                  I have just posted a lengthy response to you further up the page. I hope it makes you change your mind about climate change.

                • Raymo,

                  Glad to hear it. If I may add one bit of advice to what Athanasius has already posted: watch out for politicized science. It’s not science at all, just orchestrated propaganda with an agenda.

              • RCA Victor,

                Every day brings a new reason to encourage you to move to Scotland (and add +1 to the current population of Glasgow 😀 ) That I hate peeling onions is to understate an understatement, so you can imagine the reaction of the inmates currently dwelling in my vegetable container to the possibility of being diced by an expert…

                • Editor,

                  Just to enhance my usefulness to your larder – and perhaps to all of Scotland – my hard looks also apply to fruits….

    • Raymo one of the greatest things in The Globalist Warming Debate is how much these great people love to conserve energy. From our most Humble Pope Francis who has covered as many Air Miles as the Boss of flight himself Air Miles Andy ( at least the Royal Waddin grounded him for a few days ) to Mr ( I Only Own Ten Homes ) Cluney. Then you have Mr Global Warming himself Al Gore who has made countless $Millions off of this to the great Saviour of The Western World ( no not Francis ) Mr Bono himself. Who on just getting his Breakfast ready probably uses more fuel than little ole me will use in a year. Yet these are the ones who want to stop ME from driving in my 1Litre Gas Guzzling Car of which I use probably 3 times a week. Ufortunately I cannot say on here what I think of Mr Bono Mr Cluney Mr Gore and Uncle Tom Cobly and all the Hypocrites who fly around in their Private Jets . Sail the Oceans in their Private Yachts yet ( pardon the pun ) want to Pontificate to the rest of us not to put our Heating on above 15degrees Celsius. Gies a break.

      • LOL! I do agree about the double standards, but then again, I suppose they are not saying never fly a plane, just be more circumspect and use less often.

  5. I think she was right to leave her University post. American universities are no longer – have not been for some time – institutions of intellectual and scientific inquiry and discovery. They are not even institutions of rational thought. They have been taken over by ideologues and demagogues whose goal is to silence, humiliate, vilify and punish anyone who disagrees with and/or deviates from the party line. In other words, they are means of indoctrination, not of education. (Witness the recent fate of CFN Editor-in-Chief Dr. Brian McCall.)

    Party line – you know, as in Communist party line. Communism, by the way, was, during its initial spread during the early 20th century, recognized in America as “internationalism” – and rejected on that basis. So the modern term “globalist” – the camp that promotes the climate change hoax – is nothing more than a euphemism for “Communist.”

    This is not to suggest that Dr. Curry will be immune from vilification outside the university. I’m sure she has been assigned at least one leftist hit man to shadow her every move and to cause her trouble, including financial trouble if possible.

    • RCA Victor,

      What you say of American universities no long being “institutions of intellectual and scientific inquiry and discovery”, if true, I believe, of universities in general. Only those with PC opinions and theories are being permitted to address students, even on a visiting lecture capacity, which speaks volumes about the calibre of contemporary students Apparently, they are not clever enough to discern which views/theories to accept and which to reject or at least further explore.

      For that reason, I regret Dr Curry’s resignation. She would have been a voice crying n the wilderness, no doubt, but at least the students, or some of them, would have heard that voice. Now, they’ll be taught that anyone who deviates from the party line, is a heretic (she reported having actually been called a “heretic”, during a Senate committee meeting – I watched the questioning on YouTube but couldn’t find it when I searched again to post here.)

      Anyway, I think you are right that even in the private sector she will suffer for daring to go against the alleged “settled science” – i.e. the propaganda of the moment.

      • Funny not Ha Ha though why you couldn’t find the You Tube video or post. It’s funny how these posts that don’t suit the Marxist agenda seem to vanish into thin air. A bit like Tucker Carlsons followers on Twitter Etc.

  6. So, Hurricane Michael in Florida, USA, is just a coincidence coming after I forget how many previous hurricanes and storms.?

    Dr Curry being questioned on her ideology, isn’t the same as being “vilified” – if she doesn’t want her theories to be questioned, she’s much better working somewhere else, because universities are places of rigorous academic testing of ideas.

    • Raymo,

      I suggest you actually watch the two introductory videos – Dr Curry is very clear in her statement; it’s not she who objects to objective data being challenged. It’s the majority of the scientific community who refuse to allow THEIR data to be challenged.

      And trust me – I’m no scientist but even my pea-brain has worked out the fact that a few plastic bags didn’t cause Hurricane Michael or any other hurricane. Gerragrip.

      • Editor,

        Raymo has already proven that he/she/it is not interested in objective data…only phony computer models which are then described as “settled science.” Right. Like the theory of evolution is also “settled science.”

        • RCA Victor,

          Exactly. I think most of us would presume that Raymo is short for Raymond, but I’ve discovered that there is a well known scientist named Maureen Raymo, so – if my informed guess is correct – “Raymondo” is in it for the long haul. Leave him/her/them to it!

          • Editor,

            Maureen Raymo works at Columbia University: “Maureen E. Raymo is an American paleoclimatologist and marine geologist. She is the Bruce C. Heezen/Lamont Research Professor and the Director of the Lamont-Doherty Core Repository at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.”

            In other words, she is part of the globalist establishment.

              • LOL! I am not actually that knowledgeable about science, I’m just trying to work out how whole governments would go along with the climate change science if it was not good science. I’m not into conspiracy theories. There has to be something in it, surely.

    • As someone who just had a mere Secondary School Education I have to come in and ask Why are you bothered about Global Warming or a Thermostatic controlled Planet when you seem to be on another one than us . Universities are ( Rigorous Acedemic Testing of Ideas ) yes as long as their Marxist Ideas . When Students wreck their own places of learning because someone has a different idea than them that’s the reality now. Maybe on Mars it’s different but not here on Earth.

    • Raymo

      Universities today are largely breeding grounds for the Marxist cultural revolution. It would be really beneficial if staff and students at all universities took a crash course in history every year before commencement of studies, just to remind them that their ideas are not so much revolutionary as regressive. Personally, I wouldn’t walk my dog near a modern university for fear it would be intellectually robbed of its innocence.

      Best stick with the tried and tested if you want to be the best for yourself and your students. That means acceptance of the fact that God is in charge of the world He created and He keeps it orderly. If you spend more time worshipping He who is eternal, instead of “mother earth” which is temporal and fleeting, you’ll gain a whole new outlook on life from the wisdom you’ll receive. The world right now needs more Christians, not more tree huggers!

      And by the way, great storms and natural disasters have always occurred. The only reason they’re being noticed more today is that we are so much more technically advanced to note them, nothing more.

      Natural disasters have occurred on earth since its creation. Consider, for example, the first natural disaster, the universal flood recorded in Sacred Scripture and evidenced by scientific study. Never before or after has there been a global storm like that one and it had nothing to do with climate change. There’s your answer to the sudden disappearance of the dinosaurs, if you choose to accept what the facts dictate. But, alas, that means belief in God and a change in the way one lives one’s life. Hence the modern fixation with non-demonstrable scientific theories imposed with impunity as the new Gospel of the New World Order. Simply put, when the “Light of the world” (Christ) is rejected blindness follows.

  7. For many years we’ve had ‘Climate Change’ propaganda rammed down our throats. I am reminded of a very shrewd observation by one Joseph Goebbels…

    ….“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State…..”

    Thank God there are still a few discerning people like Prof. Curry about. As I recall, Dr. David Bellamy is another one who was was ostracised for daring to declare his scepticism.

  8. This is something I often wondered about. Where I am sitting now was under hundreds of feet of ice 10,000 years ago. It melted. Ergo the climate warmed. We humans did not warm it, as there were not enough of us around then. Just a thought.

  9. I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories but I met a former military person once, very level headed and ordinary guy, who said quite clearly that he had been involved in the installation of equipment that can alter the weather patterns. He spoke about it as if it was common knowledge. Another thing that came to my attention much later was that enormously large dish that sits in a similarly huge crator in China. It’s way too large for commincations purposes and is said to be a climate altering device. Apart from a tool to further cement the New World Order to impose a one-world Communist government while raising billions in the process through so-called “green taxes”, there would be no other reason for such projects.

    One thing I do know is that climate change is a complete and utter myth that only the godless, by their lack of wisdom, believe. But even if climate change were true, why doesn’t anyone ask about the damage done by inter-governmental nuclear testing over many decades? No amount of deoderant sprays and discarded plastic bags could ever match the environmental damage these tests have caused.

    And why are we only finding out now the real damage caused by Chernobyl in the 1980s? Apparently, Britain has been glowing in the dark with the radioactive fallout from that nuclear accident for 30 years and we were never told. This could well explain the rise in cancers over the same period, as could the truth about mobile phone masts. But they don’t talk about such things, they just push the old myth and the sheep (the majority) believe it without question.

    Thank God Trump doesn’t believe it and is re-energising the U.S. coal industry. When they took the coal and other fossil fuel heating methods from us (under thepretext of climate change) we suddenly found ourselves being switched from the freedom of using cheap energy resources, coal, wood, etc., to the slavery of a handful of exorbitantly-priced controlling electric/gas suppliers. Yes, climate change has been very useful to our godless governments!!

    • I really have to reply to you again on such a great Post and I mean that . I never gave such thought to that Enormous Dish in China but I do now . Could it affect the Climate am certainly no scientist but am with you on us all being fooled at some time or another. As far as the Globalists are concerned they most certainly want to keep us on our toes. I also remember just about 15 years back that some Scientist’s said that we ( as in Britain ) would never have Severe Winter’s again. I along with many wish that would have been true as we would have saved money on Heating Bills which most of Pensioners cannot afford. I still cannot get the comment of that Super Dish out of my mind . One things for sure when I watched the Program of its Installation I wondered why Communist China would spend so much money and effort on trying to contact Illegal Aliens. So to speak.

  10. RCA Victor

    Well spotted! So there’s the evidence, straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Climate change doctrine is essential in the work of establishing a global government and for raising billions in taxes from the gullible public. It never ceases to amaze me how many apparently intelligent people believe in this rubbish and campaign on behalf of their hidden puppet masters. Good God, we even have a Pope pushing this godless agenda now.

    • Athanasius, I don’t get why “Climate change doctrine is essential in the work of establishing a global government” Can you elaborate a bit? Thanks.

      • Helen

        being overseen by all governments in collusion it becomes a global governmental effort, what we call “One World Government”. Sorry for the delay in responding.

  11. Madame Editor,

    I think it is true to say that the surface temperatures of Mars and Venus are rising, according to sensors placed there by exploratory probes. There are no man made activities taking place on either planet. The rise in earth’s mean temperature is a function of the cyclical behaviour of our sun, therefore restraining our polluting habits will make diddly squat of difference.
    The whole global warming issue is a scam, claimed a leading leprechaun, aimed at screwing more tax out of us to fund the progress of the New World Order juggernaut.
    More strength to the elbows of those brave scentists who speak the truth for they shall have an earth to inherit.

    • Leprechaun,

      Well said. It’s one of my favourite lines at the supermarket check-out when the cashier asks if I want to buy a bag or ten, and I make the point that I’ve never bought one since this scam started, that I bring my own bag but, for the record, there are no plastic bags on Mars so how to explain the warming there? Usually, a shrug in response. Then, I add that, anyway, I’ve no intention of paying to advertise any supermarket, so unless the bags on offer are blank; that, from time to time, brings forth the surprised response – “I didn’t think of it that way.”

      I only express concern when the cashier is a university student 😀

        • Hans,

          I think the disdain is for bad science.

          I read the article on the SCO link you put and I don’t see anything there that justifies the fanatical environmentalism we are living through. Also, I don’t find anything said by socialists like Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day convincing.

          BTW, what did you think of the Dr Curry video?

          • Don’t think the video has any real relevance to the wider reality of carbon reduction, pollution or man made global warming.

            Oh and Maurin absolutely wasn’t a Socialist. Very hostile to Socialism, you must be thinking of someone else.

            • Hans,

              If you don’t see the relevance of the video to man made global warming etc. then it’s no wonder that you can’t detect Maurin’s socialist leanings. I’ve never heard his name mentioned in relation to any dogma of the Church, nothing except his connection to Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement. The mention to Chartres cathedral is completely irrelevant in a discussion about climate change.

            • Hans,

              You’re quite wrong about Maurin. He was as Socialist as they come, as was his great friend Dorothy Day.

              • You are very much mistaken, Peter Maurin devoted his entire life to the theory of French personalism combined with Catholic agrarianism alongside a form of Distributism, Christian anarchism or mutualism if you like.

                Peter Maurin, was himself a product of the French Catholic Revival, associated with Charles Péguy, Jacques Maritain. He didn’t even want the word ‘Worker’ to be used by Catholic Worker.

                Almost everything he done was as an alternative to Socialism, as pacifist he would have absolutely no ability to impose any economic system on anyone.

                Maurin was consistently hostile to Marxism, Statism, Welfarism and Communism. If Maurin is a socialist then so is Rod Dreher’s entire Benedict Option and so are the Dominicans and Benedictines, as are both Chesterton and Belloc.

                Can you substantiate this claim of Maurin being a Socialist?

        • Hans

          It’s a strange irony that this age of fanatical environmentalism has seen an explosion of cars and trucks on the road, more than at any other time. Our steel is imported from China and is of inferior quality, thanks to green taxes that have put most of our own steel works out of business. Technology has led to an explosion of ugly wind turbines blotting the land and costing a fortune that cannot be recovered.

          As far as I can tell no one here has advocated more shops, factories, cities or technology as consistent with Catholic teaching. I know the Traditional Catholic view is that the country is better than the city for living and I’m sure we are all agreed that technology, in its present state is not proving good for humanity.

          • Athanasius,

            Perhaps the explosion of cars and trucks (and planes) has figuratively assisted the massive flight from truth in the public square, accompanied by the regressive retreat into leftist, globalist fantasy propaganda that now dominates the public square.

  12. RCA Victor

    Absolutely! And they have used “social” media for the same purpose. They’ve made their virtual reality world without God and it’s not pretty.

%d bloggers like this: