JOIN BREITBART. Takes 2 seconds.

World View: Scientists Worldwide Hold an International March for Money on ‘Earth Day’

The Associated Press
Martial Trezzini/Keystone via AP

This morning’s key headlines from

  • Scientists worldwide hold an international March for Money on ‘Earth Day’
  • Climate change — a self-correcting problem
  • Climate change predictions
  • Rural America and Working Class America

Scientists worldwide hold an international March for Money on ‘Earth Day’

Thanks to fracking, the US carbon emission problem is taking care of itself, with energy carbon emissions down by 25% since 2007. (AEI)
Thanks to fracking, the US carbon emission problem is taking care of itself, with energy carbon emissions down by 25% since 2007. (AEI)

Hundreds of thousands of scientists in 600 cities around the world held “March for Science” marches to make largely incoherent demands for more money for pretty much anything. The universal complaint was Donald Trump and climate change, but Obamacare and various science projects were also mentioned.

In other countries, there were other complaints. In Canada, scientists marched to complain to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau for cutting back on funding for science projects. According to Lori Burrows, professor and senior scientist, McMaster University:

Despite the [Justin] Trudeau government’s promise of sunnier ways for science, we are still waiting for those rays to break through the storm clouds.

So I gather from professor Burrows that Justin Trudeau must be as bad as Donald Trump. Tsk, tsk.

Media coverage was as ridiculous as ever. Here’s what I heard from Robert Young, professor of coastal geology at Western Carolina University (my transcription):

I don’t think the people who need to meet a scientist will be at this march nor will those people be experiencing the media coverage of the march. The problem that we have, at least in the United States, is that we all get our information and our news from different sources these days. So the folks living in rural America and working class America, that we would be like to reach in a march for science, and the folks we would like to explain how important science is, they’re not gonna be watching the news outlets that will be covering the march in a favorable way. They’re not gonna watch National Public Radio, or the BBC, or read the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Guardian.

They’re going to get their information and their coverage from Fox News and from conservative blogosphere. And those outlets will cover the march in a completely different way in a negative connotation.

Really? The problem is that “rural America and working class America” do not listen to left-wing media sources – NPR, BBC, NYT, WaPost and the Guardian?? That is why these people are marching? This is so idiotic that it is hard to stop laughing. If there are any students at Western Carolina University reading this, please inform Prof. Robert Young that father does not always know best and that he sounds like an idiot.

The real problem is people in the mainstream media and in colleges believe every bit of nonsense that they hear on NPR, etc., and think that everything else is “fake news.” So let’s talk about climate change, and talk about some “facts.” CBS and Canadian Broadcasting and Deutsche Welle

Related Articles

Climate change — a self-correcting problem

The climate scientists don’t like to talk about this, but climate change has been self-correcting.

Since 2007, the US has reduced CO2 emissions by about 25%, mainly due to fracking, according to data released by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). That’s how technological innovation always works. When a problem occurs, somebody figures out a way to make money out of solving it, and the problem gets solved. This needs no help from the government, as shown by the Solyndra disaster.

Everyone is criticizing President Trump for backing out of the Paris climate change agreement. Why? If we’re already dramatically reducing carbon emissions, why should America even care about the Paris agreement? The answer, of course, is about money. No one seriously believes that any of the huge climate change proposals will actually do anything to reduce carbon emissions. The climate scientists want America to pay ever more money into their projects. Like Saturday’s “March for Science,” everything is about political power and money.

Fracking has not yet brought about down emissions in other countries, but we can feel certain that new technologies will come along that will solve the problem in every country, as it has in the United States, and that government will have nothing to do with it. AEI and Energy Information Administration

Climate change predictions

So-called scientists talk endlessly that “climate change is caused by human activity.” OK, so let’s grant that. Climate change is caused by human activity. Those are the “facts” that scientists claim have been proven.

Next we hear that the earth’s temperature will rise 2 degrees by 2100. That is not a “proven scientific fact.” That is an unproven prediction, and it’s a political prediction at that. There is no science that proves this figure. The figure is based on straight-line extrapolations of recent trends, which cannot be proven or even justified.

As a developer of Generational Dynamics, one could say that I’m in the “prediction business.” My web site has almost 4,000 articles since 2003, containing hundreds of Generational Dynamics predictions, all of which are coming true or are trending true. None has been shown to be wrong. All these articles and predictions are still available on my web site to anyone wanting to prove me wrong — and several people have tried and failed. So I’m one of the best experts around on predictions.

That’s not true for climate change and environment predictions. History is flooded with hundreds of them from “respected” scientists, many of which have turned out wrong and even spectacularly wrong.

My favorite was the prediction that I read in far left-wing magazine Ramparts Magazine in 1970. The prediction was that the oceans were becoming so polluted that by 1980 the world’s oceans would be covered by a layer of algae. It didn’t happen.

One of the most respected, endorsed by as many scientists in 1972 as endorse climate change today, was the “Limits to Growth” by the Club of Rome. The report said that the world would grind to a halt because of pollution within a few decades. Some time later, it turned out that their predictions had a flaw based on their computer program written in Fortran. Anyway, their predictions haven’t come true.

And, of course, in the 1970s, the problem was going to be “global cooling.” Within twenty years, it had turned into “global warming.”

There are hundreds of documented environmental and climate change predictions by respected scientists that have turned out to be wrong. How stupid do you have to be to believe more climate change predictions when so many in the past have been spectacularly wrong?

So yes, climate change really is a hoax, even if you assume that all the science that proves that human activity caused it is true. All the predictions that come after that are not science – they are guesses, based on unjustifiable extrapolations.

As I said, I’m an expert on making predictions, so I can tell you some places where the climate change scientists are making faulty assumptions.

First, they are assuming that there will be no world wars. There have been world wars every century for millennia, and this century will be no different. As I’ve written in the past, I expect a world war in the next ten years or so. Nuclear weapons will be used. Lots of factories and power infrastructure will be destroyed.

How will that affect climate change? The climate scientists are afraid to talk about that subject, so I’ll take a guess. If a lot of infrastructure is destroyed, then I would guess that carbon emissions will fall dramatically. Of course, climate scientists don’t want to talk about that.

Second, climate scientists are completely ignoring technological developments. We already discussed how fracking has reduced US carbon emissions by 25%, something the climate scientists would rather eat mud than ever talk about.

Well, we can see all kinds of technological developments on the horizon that may well have application to carbon emissions and climate change. For example, biotechnology might produce an organism that eats carbon dioxide the way a tree does. Or we may develop space capsules that can deliver millions of tons of carbon dioxide into space. Or computerized robots may be able to clean things up that humans can’t.

How will these technological developments affect that 2-degree temperature prediction? Well climate scientists don’t know, and I don’t know, but history has shown that some solution will emerge.

There is an almost exact historical parallel to the climate change problem that climate scientists hate to even think about. Think of all the cars in New York City, and imagine if those cars were all horses. That’s the problem that all big cities had in the 1890s. A horse produces between 7 and 15 kilos of manure daily. In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced nearly 1,200 metric tons of horse manure per day, which all had to be swept up and disposed of. In addition, each horse produces nearly a liter of urine per day, which also ended up on the streets. Also, many horses died each day, and their corpses had to be removed.

There was a big international urban planning conference in New York City in 1898. The major topic that dominated the conference was not housing, land use, economic development or infrastructure. It was horse manure. The participants left in disgust.

The crisis was resolved quickly with new technology: the automobile. By 1912 there were more cars than horses on the road in New York City. By 1920, the problem had all but disappeared, with no government intervention.

The same thing will happen with the climate change problem. The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894

Related Articles

Rural America and Working Class America

Let’s circle back to the real problem in America today, that people like Prof. Robert Young of Western Carolina University are totally contemptuous of “rural America and working class America.” People like Young, and there are plenty of them, are completely delusional.

The funny thing is that the working class people can sense what is going on because they have to do real work for a living. When you have climate scientists marching through Washington DC demanding money and claiming that they know what they earth’s temperature will be in 2100, when they can’t accurately predict the temperature two weeks from now, these working class people know intuitively that they’re being mocked.

Even after all these months, people like Young, and there are plenty of them, don’t have the vaguest clue how Donald Trump was elected president. It’s really quite amazing that Young could say anything as stupid as what’s quoted above, but that’s how people at NPR, BBC, NYT, WaPost and the Guardian, and that’s also how most college professors think these days.

The funny thing is, as I reported above, scientists in Canada are just as angry at the ultra-liberal Justin Trudeau as American scientists are at Donald Trump. If Justin Trudeau doesn’t think Canada should spend money on climate change, then why should Donald Trump think that America should do so? In the end, climate scientists don’t really care about climate change at all. All they care about is how much money they can get from taxpayers. And since it’s the “working class” people who supply all that tax money, they should be more respectful of these people, and far less contemptuous.

Related Articles

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Earth Day, March for Science, Canada, Justin Trudeau, Lori Burrows, McMaster University, Western Carolina University, Robert Young, Energy Information Administration, EIA, Club of Rome, Limits to Growth
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.