h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Mann beclowning himself promoting absurd studies – but I guess that is nothing new.
The study abstract;
Misogyny, authoritarianism, and climate change
Nitasha Kaul, Tom Buchanan
First published: 18 May 2023Abstract
Globally, democratic politics are under attack from Electorally Legitimated Misogynist Authoritarian (ELMA) leaders who successfully use misogyny as a political strategy and present environmental concern in feminine and inferior terms. The ascendancy of such projects raise questions involving socioeconomic structures, political communication, and the psychological underpinnings of people’s attitudes. We offer misogyny, conceptualized in a specific way – not simply as hatred or disgust for women, but as a way of accessing a gendered hierarchy whereby that which is labeled “feminine” is perceived as inferior, devalued, and amenable to be attacked – as a relevant transmission mechanism in how ELMAs like Trump may connect with public opinion by systematically investigating the interplay between misogyny, authoritarianism, and climate change in the context of the United States. Using a survey methodology (N = 314) and up-to-date questionnaires, we provide a concrete empirical underpinning for recent analytical and theoretical work on the complexity of misogyny. We analyze how misogynist and authoritarian attitudes correlate with climate change, adding to the literature on opposition to climate change policy. An additional exploratory aspect of our study concerning US voter preferences clearly indicates that Trump supporters are more misogynist, more authoritarian, and less concerned with the environment.
And so, it is 100% clear that there is this toxic package or bundle of right-wing ideology, nationalism, exceptionalism, racism, sexism, anti-immigrantism, and anti-climate-change that goes with it. That is what drives many of them.
[Katharine Hayhoe, interviewed by Bjork-James & Barla, 2021, p. 389]
Gender is a game-changer, like the Archimedean fulcrum, with the potential to shift economic logics from profit-exploiting systems of injustice to functional praxes of life-affirming care for ecosystems, human others, and planetary co-habitants.
[Glazebrook, 2015, p. 126]
Sustainability is considered to be a ‘feminine’ project.
Read more: https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/asap.12347Climate change is a man-made problem and must have a feminist solution.
[Mary Robinson, in Allen et al., 2019]
The study authors have a problem with climate skeptics “targeting” female leaders like AOC and Greta, arguing the motivation is misogyny.
… The most upfront manifestation of this is the ways in which outspoken female advocates of addressing climate change in substantive ways are targeted. Gelin (2019) referred to the “gender reactionaries to climate-denialism” with reference to the attack on figures such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg. …
Read more: same link as above
The study is based on a sample of 400 people, whom after deleting a bunch of answers was whittled down to 314. They claim most of the discarded answers had zero variation on answers – but given the in my opinion poor quality questions, the lack of variation could have been an artefact of the survey rather than a conspiracy to rig the result.
The study authors draw inferences based on their misogyny theory, like blaming Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 on sexism amplified by climate denial.
The authors redefine “misogyny” as being something other than hatred and / or disdain for women – crypto misogyny? – which makes you wonder why they tried to shoehorn everything into the label “misogyny”, instead of using a different word. “… We depart from the typical understanding of misogyny as hatred and disgust toward women by men, it is far from straightforward in how it functions as part of psycho-political processes. …“.
My favourite paragraph though is this one;
… In a similar vein, Stanley et al. (2019), in their 5-year cross-lagged analysis of the influence of SDO and RWA on environmentalism conclude that, “the relationship between ideology and environmentalism across time could be explained by a third variable. Specifically, it is possible that something related both to ideological and environmental attitudes could drive changes in each variable independently, hence explaining the apparent causal relations” (p. 7). They invite future research to explore the potentially causal nature of the ideology-environmentalism association. We surmise that misogyny could be that third variable. …
Read more: same link as above
If there is such a hidden third variable, why do the authors automatically assume the hidden variable is affecting the judgement of climate skeptics? Why are they so sure they are the objective party?
Because there is a much more obvious candidate for a hidden variable which biases belief in climate change: enthusiastic political support for socialism.
Is it a coincidence that most climate activists (though not all) also seem to have very left wing political views?
Why is climate activism be so attractive to socialists?
A fervent communist who used to be a friend once explained to me it doesn’t matter if climate science is wrong, because restraining capitalism with more regulation is socially desirable, even if the climate science rationale for advancing green restraints on capitalism turns out to be wrong.
I don’t think my former friend was deliberately lying about his climate beliefs, but in my opinion my former friend pretty much admitted he had no incentive to rigorously review the supporting evidence for his climate alarmism.
Left wing biases clouding the judgement of climate alarmists might also explain why most greens reject nuclear energy. Nuclear energy should be the obvious zero carbon compromise – a scalable zero carbon energy solution which the Right would accept.
We have unequivocal proof nuclear is affordable and safe, once you cut the red tape – France decarbonised most of their electricity generation with affordable nuclear power in the 1970s. Yet greens consistently choose endless political conflict instead of accepting a viable nuclear powered path to reducing CO2 emissions. They choose endless energy stalemate instead of embracing a solution to their alleged climate crisis which would leave Capitalism intact.
Michael Mann seems like more of an activist these days.
The Mann suffers from a psychosis … Perpetual Psychological Projection
He’s always been an activist.
Now it’s just becoming clearer just what his “Cause” is.
as opposed to those days?
The Mann has utterly lost the plot. Or he’s seriously panicking seeing that Europe is now in so much economic trouble that the public is now turning to ‘the-far right’ AKA Conservatives to solve the utter mess the left gets any nation into with their neocon, Globalist ambitions.
The US, far-left, Biden government is in a dreadful state with Ukraine, Israel and it’s desperation to tangle with China over Taiwan. Trump shrugs off court cases like Teflon Tim and RFK Jr. is coming up fast on the rails as an independent.
The European ‘far-right’ Tsunami looks like it will hit US shores right about election campaign time, that’s why the US, far-left, climate mob are sh!tting bricks.
I don’t know if a coalition government is possible in the US, but if it were, and somehow the Democrats pulled another stunt like the 2020 election, could Trump and RFK Jr. form one?
Exactly HotScot I’ve been saying this for a long time. This summer was an absolute fear porn parade for climate change. From my and our point of view, it’s a cry for desperation. I think people are beginning to realize what’s really going on.
Regarding next year’s election in the United States, I would not rule out any crazy stunts they’ll try to pull. Trump just has to win, because no other Republican candidate has the balls to say what this really is. I’m a little worried that China might try to exploit the situation in Ukraine and now Israel to invade Taiwan. U.S. aid is stretched thin.
It’s not just US aid, the entire NATO coalition is backing away from Ukraine because they are going bust and have given the country all the military equipment it can scrounge up.
Israel handed over it’s excess stocks of 155mm artillery rounds and now want’s it back.
Half the military equipment given to Ukraine is now in Gaza and they have a back up of $80Bn worth in Afghanistan thanks to Biden.
I suspect Taiwan is rapidly disappearing in the rear view mirror.
Hot Scot with his usual pro-Kremlin loony conspiracy theories.
Nato according to him is going bust – haha in your pro-Putin dreams!
Let’s instead put your little island in there instead of Nato>
ie. UK is going bust, it’s government has always been a lying anti democratic mess and your much admired corrupt racist plods have been turning it into a miserable dystopia.
That’s not what I said – haha 🙄
I said NATO “countries” are going bust. The US is $33Tn in debt, the UK $3Tn in debt, Germany being de-industrialised, unemployment and inflation across the western world, much of it to do with NetZero.
LOL. Nixon, Clinton (‘I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman’), Bush (WMD’s), Biden – absolutely everything!
Remind me again? Who killed George Floyd?
Floyd died of a drug over dose, he killed himself.
WMDs were found
And who, any longer, give a flying eff what Michael Mann thinks?
Whenever certain public figures say “far right”, I want to measure how long their arms are. Is anything “near right”? Never heard of it.
The msm never use the term far left. Wonder why?
The far left MSM consider the far left to be mainstream, not extreme.
Come on Tom…. you could say exactly the same about the far right thinking Fox was not extreme.
It really is sad how socialists actually believe that anyone to their right is by definition, far right.
That’s true. I don’t think Fox News is extreme. I think they get closer to the truth than anybody.
“these days”? I would say “always”.
Speaking of Mann, I just found out today that he transferred his flag in 2022 from Penn State to U Penn. Clearly, the latter school is taking a run at Ivy League supremacy with major investments in Climate Alarmism, Women’s Swimming and, of course, the Penn Biden Center.
Is he an Unelected Legitimated Misogynist Authoritarian?
It’s funny. the ones they’re calling “authoritarian” aren’t the ones trying to censor ALL contrary speech. They also aren’t the ones who can’t define what a woman is.
Why are misogynists people who hate only women but a misanthropist hates everybody? Isn’t that sexist?
Why are climate activists not happy? The world has spend trillions of dollars on ruinables yet it is showing not to work well. I suppose they think that we need to spend much more on it to make it work right, we are so close to a tipping point whereby it will do the job? What will convince them?
They aren’t happy because AGW skeptics exist.
The collective name for AGW sceptics they hate so much is , ‘scientists’
Nothing will convince them, not even Reality. Communism would work except for the right people.
Notice that they actually fail to show unhappiness toward the largest CO2-emitting, coal-fired plant builder on Earth—-do I need to actually say China?
Couple that with their obvious refusal to Save the Earth by converting to nuclear…..and the case is made:
They hate modern industrial free market societies. Period.
Coming Ice Age. Nuclear Winter. Acid Rain. Ozone Depletion. Global Warming. All the same to them.
Just paradigms and tools to trash our modern prosperity—-because prosperity frees us from them.
They are power greedy. Sick with power greediness.
Why are they so sure they are the objective party?
Leftists in general, find it impossible to believe that they can ever be wrong.
Therefore they must be the objective ones, and everyone else is evil.
Self righteous ignorance defines them!
They aren’t happy because their true goal not only hasn’t been achieved but seems to be getting further away.
What they are after is a lifestyle of leisure without a care in the world. They believe that if it wasn’t for a broken system, capitalism, they would have already been granted everything they believe themselves entitled to.
That’s why the first solution to any problem, is to tear down capitalism, so that they can proceed to perfect the world.
Not sure Misogyny would apply. If describing AOC it would be more likely Misandry.
Well, she is a girl and she did used to go by “Sandy”….
AOC gets criticized for her stupid thought processes, not because she is a woman.
https://wibc.com/123208/aoc-says-her-critics-are-sexually-frustrated-want-to-date-her/
Its just that all those terrible men just want to date her, LOL.
The top pic proclaims Naomi Seibt to be the antidote to Greta Thunberg. But she has hardly been mentioned at WUWT in the last three years, while there has been plenty of talk about Greta.
Wasn’t she silenced ?
At WUWT?
WUWT does not seem to silence people. Credit the host wit trueness to free expression. Clicking “-” was also free.
We prefer to let fools like you talk, Nick
Your comments are truly laughable. !
No, in Germany
WUWT can only report what other people say. If social media put a ban on you it does rather limit your ability to let people know what you are saying.
In the sense that anyone who could see straight through the obviously scripted rhetoric and decided just to ignore her (apart from some silly places like here), yes. She silenced herself.
Your child-girl Greta.. a tantrum-based anti-science harridan.
No wonder you feel akin to her.
Yeah, she was a bit teenager-ish (weren’t we all?) But like I said, you knew (yes, even you) that when she spoke she meant what she said and was real, whether right or wrong.
It was plain to see that ‘Naomi’ was more or less just a ‘bot’. Scripted words and formatting. Just bizarre.
What is bizarre is publicly claiming that you can see CO2. Nothing else comes close.
And you really think Greta wasn’t scripted by her minders. ?
That is truly bizarre and hilarious.
You probably think she was an intellectual giant..
.. hummm.. , compared to you, she was.
To most on the left, believing the lies you repeat, is so much more important that something as trivial as being right or wrong.
“It was plain to see that ‘Naomi’ was more or less just a ‘bot’. Scripted words and formatting. Just bizarre.”
I think you are seeing what you want to see.
Wow, just wow.
Greta reading off the script given to her by her leftist brainwashing parents.
This girl using logic and reason without a script.
Projection is all you have TFN. Typical liberal.
She was extremely ill. And yes, her internet presence was largely cancelled at the behest of the German authorities.
“Naomi almost died of her chronic bowel disease last year. She only weighed 28 kilos and had almost no one who stood by her side. Nevertheless: With the help of a capable doctor, she fought back.”
TFN, thank you for so ably demonstrating the inherent misogyny of so many on the left.
YouTube shut down her channel- according to Wikipedia. After all, climate heretics are verboten to preach that the world isn’t boiling.
According to the Wikipedia article on Naomi Seibt, “In May 2021 a tweet by YouTube
confirmed its final ban on her channel on April 30, 2021, for violating the YouTube Community Guidelines on Misinformation and Harassment.”
So that’s probably why we haven’t heard from her in the last few years.
YouTube confirms that you can say what you like about climate realists (eg. misogynist authoritarians suffering from deep psycholgical problems) but you better not say anything critical of climate alarmists.
Wikipedia’s article on her makes it seem as if she’s practically a Nazi- who worked for a while for that practically Nazi group, The Heartland Institute and that in ’21, YouTube blocked her channel. It’s obvious the climatistas pulled no punches in trying to destroy her.
If the climate alarmists didn’t have personal attacks, they wouldn’t have anything at all. Attacking the person of their political opponents is standard procedure for climate alarmists/radical leftists.
This whole article is just another unwarranted personal attack on skeptics in general.
This is all they have.
Water off a duck’s back.
Nicks comment suggests he has no constructive criticism of the post or it’s main point.
It’s not that often that he does.
The few times he made constructive comments, was years ago. Lately he’s been concentrating on trying to generate as much distraction as he can.
Nick’s paycheck depends on the amount of confusion and distraction he generates.
Nick’s so confused he must be earning a fortune.
Considering the context of most of his posts, he likely isn’t paid by the word but rather by the post
Iirc correctly, Nick is retired, and the only friends he has left are at the climate-scam unit of CSIRO.
He can’t say anything truthful about climate, wind energy or the like, because he would lose what friends he has left, and with his ongoing fight with dementia he needs those friends
Greta is a foreign convicted adult criminal who keeps trying to influence our kids.
Fail to see the connection between your 2 sentences – Naumi can’t be the antidote to Greta if she is new? So the antivenom has to preexist the snake?
Unlike Greta, she’s probably got a job and a boyfriend.
Y’know, like normal young ladies.
Or at least boys interested.
I don’t want to be mean about Greta, but with a face and pigtails like a Cabbage Patch doll, she’s not likely to get too much interest from guys.
Really wonderful job defending against charges of misogyny amongst climate skeptics here, folks.
Nothing like murdering someone in front of the jury to convince them that you’re incapable of violence.
But Murd3r isn’t violent. All you’re doing is releasing a pure soul from it’s corrupted body so it can gain God’s wisdom and enlightenment. You’re setting them free from their burdens of their corporeal life
“Nothing like murdering someone . . . .”
There’s nothing like hyperbole to invalidate your comment. Exactly who said the word: “murder?”
Stating the facts is obviously against AlanJ’s morality !
I hate all children.
Greta had people like Nick and Rusty interested, and cheering, and worshipping.
She a bit older now, so they will probably lose interest.
Oh I dunno she may be 20 but she has the mind of a 13 year old
“she may be 20 but she has the mind of a 13 year old”
Rusty might still be interested, then !
Like minds.
Well she can now be charged with fraud as an adult, so the old “but she’s only a child” excuse doesn’t hold up any more?
Yes, she was positioned as a kind of poster-girl response to Thunberg here for a while.
She didn’t exactly catch on, did she? Not just here. Anywhere. The project fell flat on its face due to its obvious inauthenticity. Is she even real?
Thunberg, like her or not, comes across as authentic. People can tell.
You’re not only an ignorant, uninformed cnut, your a nasty Bs’tard as well.
Thanks, HotScot.
I had no idea. I’ll be praying for her.
(Maybe FinalNail didn’t know either?)
No, I didn’t, and I hope she recovers.
I believe you when you say didn’t know.
Maybe it’ll teach him a lesson, not likely though as he never learns anything..
I am very sorry to hear that this girl is unwell. I mean that. I didn’t know; so there’s no point in being abusive. It’s not mentioned at all in the main post and I’m not psychic. I wish her a speedy recovery.
Abuse, is what they did to a mentally-challenge high-school truent/drop-out, named Greta.
No, just psychotic.
As most climate catastrophists are.
An “authentic” what? Idiot? “Dropout”? Child manipulated by activist parents?
Most of the world seemed to find her authentic. I did. Not to say that she was ‘knowledgeable’; but authentic, certainly. You can be completely wrong about something and still be authentic in your beliefs, right?
“You can be completely wrong about something and still be authentic in your beliefs, right?”
It’s not a problem unless you being authentic is going to send us back to the Dark Ages.
But that’s not the point, with respect. Thunberg came across to people as authentic; Naomi did not, to me at least. It has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of it. One of those girls looked and sounded authentic, the other looked ‘scripted’. And maybe she wasn’t, but that’s how it came across to me. I mean her no ill will. If she is unwell then I hope she recovers fully.
She was authentic, to those who agreed with what she was screeching.
As to your belief that being authentic is more important than being correct, that comes with your territory.
Trying to rehabilitate the climate crier?
“seemed to find her authentic. I did“
ROFLMAO..
That just goes to show your complete and utter gullibility !!
yea right,- you can be authentic in believing the salem witches were devil possessed, and send them to be hanged or tortured.
Your posts smack more of medieval churchy anti-heretic jesuit than anything to do with modern science.
That makes complete sense.
Both the catholic church and AGW climate “science” were/are nasty cults sustained by pyramid like finance systems.
You are just yet another of their apologist for the cult.
Being an authentic idiot does not gain you any authority for being authentic, it just confirms you are an idiot, as Greta has shown us so clearly this past few years.
Thunberg is probably the least authentic climate activist on the planet.
If Rusty can’t see that it is all just brain-washed ACTING..
… it really is a comment on his total lack of intelligence.
If I had any intelligence I wouldn’t be wasting it here, bnasty. Told you that already.
You have none to share or to waste.
You are an intellectual non-entity, incapable of self-thought.
You’ve at last said something that is believable. Keep trying, perhaps you will manage to mature.
You give him much too much credit.
He is giving NO effort to maturing.
He is liberal to his very rotten core.
Like most leftists, you apparently define believability based solely on whether you agree with what is being said.
No she doesn’t.
Nick LUVs Greta. !
Like minds .. you know what I mean. !
That is because she wasn’t needed since Greta is a pile of baloney who is now a criminal who didn’t finish high school is getting wealthy and had her 15 minutes of fame that has long since evaporated.
Some words about missogyny
Who Will Save The World
The Mighty Groundhogs
So disliking fanatic greens is somehow misogyny? While there are some despicable Green women, like Hayhoe, most of the prominent Greens identify as male, like Michael Mann. Is Saint Michael announcing he is coming out as trans?
Is it misogyny if you only hate a few women like, Hmmmmmmm, let me think.
Hayhoe?
Or must it be hatred of all women. In which case I’m definitely not a misogynist as I don’t hate my wife and daughters.
“And so, it is 100% clear that there is this toxic package or bundle of right-wing ideology, nationalism, exceptionalism, racism, sexism, anti-immigrantism, and anti-climate-change that goes with it. That is what drives many of them.
[Katharine Hayhoe, interviewed by Bjork-James & Barla, 2021, p. 389]”
I’m a Christian learning and trying to be a more Biblical Christian.
I don’t hate Hayhoe.
But I do hate that, claiming to be an Evangelical Christian, she’s preaching another Gospel.
She’s preaching the gospel of climate rather than the Gospel of Christ. A wolf in sheep’s clothing as far as the Gospel is concerned.
Doesn’t matter if she’s a girl or not.
Hayhoe is a propagandists.
Like all climate alarmists.
Climate Alarmists don’t have any evidence to back up their claims of climate doom, so they resort to propaganda aimed at shutting up the skeptics.
She’s also a victim of the male misogynistic patriarchy:
But: What’s dough (what’s dough) got to do (to do) with it?
(Apologies to Tina Turner’s “What’s Love…”)
“While there are some despicable Green women, like Hayhoe,”
Yes.
“The study authors have a problem with climate skeptics “targeting” female leaders like AOC and Greta, arguing the motivation is misogyny.”
No. The “targeting” is due to the stupid things coming out of their mouths.
That congressman who worried about Guam capsizing got the same treatment.
Who’s taking it easy on Brandon and the stupid things he’s said and done?
I have a couple more candidates for their “third variable”.
Intelligence
Knowledge
Objectivity
These are common traits of skeptics and conservatives. Not so much in dogmatic religious believers and socialist anti-capitalists. Then again, some of the virulent alarmists are apparently just in it for the money.
Rationality, don’t forget that. If the world was genuinely warming out of control no one here would have a problem jumping on the bandwagon. In fact a lot of the comments get sidetracked by assuming the warming and just discussing the stupidity of the recommended solutions. So in a way, we want to believe and join the popular kids, but they’re crazy-stupid. Most conservative politicos have drunk the kool-aid so there’s nothing inherently left-or-right with “CO2 causing out of control warming”, it is the authoritarian demand for compliance and the mad need to silence any decent that is fully owned by the socialist crowd (of the communist or Nazi stripe)
Yeah, I heard former Speaker of the House, McCarthy say yesterday that expanding oil and gas production would actually help reduce CO2 if we use natural gas for electricity generation.
So, it appears McCarthy is a believer in human-caused climate change.
Rick C
OK, objectively we are now, in these past few months, living in the warmest extended period ever recorded by instruments. How do ‘conservatives’ deal with that, other than by denying it?
Most religious folk where I come from would self-describe as ‘conservatives’. So that argument works both ways.
If I moved from say Green Bay to Chicago, I would experience a 3 C increase in average annual temperature. About twice the global average temperature increase claimed for the last 170 years. That may scare the heck out of you but it doesn’t concern me in the least. The problem with your climate scare mongering is that the only bad consequences are entirely imaginary.
Yes, but you’d you’d expect the change.
Climate change means that, on average, temperatures are rising without you making any moves and you and your environment have to cope with the consequences. That may be good or bad. But it’s change. (And it doesn’t scare me, by the way.)
Do you have any scientific evidence of human causation of the beneficial warming since the LIA?
Or have you finally figured out it is totally natural for the planet to warm out of a Little Ice Age.
Not only totally natural, by highly beneficial…
… especially when accompanied by a rise in atmospheric CO2
Maybe, given time and enough extra warming, trees will once again be able to grow where there are now glaciers.
“Do you have any scientific evidence of human causation of the beneficial warming since the LIA?”
I can answer that: No, he doesn’t have any evidence of human causation.
He could prove me wrong. But he won’t, because he can’t.
TFN always retreats back into the mantra that all the people he considers to be scientists, agree.
He completely ignores everyone else, because by his definition, they aren’t scientists.
Of course the vast majority of people who publicly support the AGW scan aren’t scientists but that doesn’t matter, since they support what TFN wants to believe.
EVen actual data doesn’t matter.
No, I wouldn’t give a second’s thought to the temperature or even notice there was a difference. In fact, I had to look up the temperature data to even know there is a difference. As far as my “lived experience” is concerned the climate of the two cities is the same.
In the last 5000 years, the earth has been through 4 similar periods of warming.
About 90% of the last 12,000 years has been warmer than it is today.
The current warming is no faster than the other 4 warm periods.
The world is enjoying an El Niño, check out the little dial on the RH side of this page.
Dumb fokker.
You’re just unable to exchange in a courteous way, aren’t you? ‘Ill reared’, as my Ma would have said.
Regarding El Nino: these are as old as the hills. This one is only just starting and so far isn’t nearly as strong as 1998 or 2016. So why are global warm temperature records falling like skittles?
Can you try, at least, not to be abusive in your response, if you have one?
And after the El Nino spike.
It will cool again.
Just like it has been since the last El Nino.
Hanging your warming on El Ninos, proves that you KNOW there is absolutely ZERO human causation for this slight but highly beneficial warming out of the LIA.
You do know that 1000 years ago, trees grew where now there are glaciers, don’t you.
Must have been much warmer then, wouldn’t you agree 😉
“Regarding El Nino: these are as old as the hills”
Finally.. you agree they are TOTALLY NATURAL !
Hence all atmospheric warming in the satellite era is TOTALLY NATURAL.
Fine for you to be abusive about a kid lying in hospital, but not so fine when it’s turned on you.
Were that my daughter you wouldn’t hear any abuse at all.
And yet, to this day, one half of the all time state record highs for the continental US were recorded in the 1930s.
You still haven’t figured out how trees grew 1000 years ago where there are now glaciers,..
Still waiting for your answer of how much warmer it must have been. 😉
“ever recorded by instruments”
No time at all if you believe it’s billions of year old.
No, 173 years and counting. Quite a long time, even for tortoises.
Do you think 173 years is enough to characterize a billion year old system?.
e.g. an average iPhone photo is about 2 MB. How well would you guess “what it’s a photo of” given a black rectangle except one possibly bright pixel.
You mean out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years. ??
You really have got zero understanding of climate changes whatsoever, have you.
Let’s try again….
How much warmer it must have been for trees to have grown 1000 years ago, where now there are glaciers.?
You must be American, you think 173 years is a long time.
That is a liberal thing. The all think history started the day they were born.
So you believe that a few dozen thermometers, mostly in Europe, is sufficient to characterize the temperature of the entire planet to a few hundredths of a degree?
I love the way you restrict the period over which you want to compare.
It doesn’t matter that the Medieval, Roman, Egyptian and Minoan warm periods were all warmer than then Modern warm period. And all of these warm periods were cooler than the Holocene, all without benefit of added CO2.
So it’s quite clear that your belief that only CO2 could be the cause of the Modern warm period is clearly refuted.
Nobody is denying that the world has been warming up for 250 years, since the bottom of the Little Ice Age. What we are denying is that this warming means what you so desperately want it to mean.
“OK, objectively we are now, in these past few months, living in the warmest extended period ever recorded by instruments. How do ‘conservatives’ deal with that, other than by denying it?”
It didn’t happen in the United States. The 1930’s are still warmer than today. Is stating facts your idea of denial?
Mann failed The Duck Test when he ignored the most basic of scientific criteria, ie. comparing like with like , and published his infamous hockey stick graph using temperature data with such different provenances with proxy data at one end and satellite data at the other.
Adopting this methodology is telling the world that it is acceptable to sacrifice scientific accuracy for expediency, no-one who cared for science would dream of publishing such nonsense.
Think of the hubris! They are so sure they are right that they have to twist the evidence to make it fit the narrative. I think deep inside they don’t give a rodent’s behind about CO2 emissions but are brainwashed by the lack of resources/ population bomb misanthropic propaganda.
Has he provided his data yet? If not that’s a big scientific fail as his theory can never be replicated.
Yes, the data were provided in the original paper and backed up at the subsequent enquiries, all of which found no malpractice. You can be very forgetful here at WUWT.
His own cult found no malpractice, even though the evidence is still manifest.
How much warmer must it have been 1000 years ago for trees to grow where now there are glaciers?
7 enquiries all found the same thing. 7 ‘cults’? This is wearing thin, boys,
“How much warmer must it have been 1000 years ago for trees to grow where now there are glaciers?”
Your running away is hilarious. !
Great headless chook routine you have there.
7 groups from the same cult, you mean. !
You still think merging instrumental data with FAKED much averaged proxy data is science.??
That would indicate a total lack of understanding of any sort of science or mathematics.
7b agencies, that stood to lose their reputations and lots of money, found that their prize grant winner to be innocent.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
“What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.” (Powerline, August 24, 2019 – my emphasis)
Why are you always wrong about EVERYTHING!?
Somebody sites Tim Ball and asks me why I am always wrong, lol.
Tim Ball was found to be correct.
Mann refused discovery and lost his court case.
You have been provable WRONG about basically everything you believe.
Mann was publicly called out by Prof. Tim Ball.
And Mann then publicly proved that he was misnamed.
He isn’t a man at all.
In other words, you are unable to answer as to why you are always wrong.
As to Tim Ball, I do note that you have never been able to demonstrate that anything he has written is wrong.
No, I cited the court you m0r0n. That’s why I highlighted it in bold!
The passage you’re quoting (from where?) is simply not true. You can read the entire judgement :
https://climatecite.com/british-columbia-judgment-mann-vs-ball-defamation-suit/
There is no mention anywhere of the dismissal being due to Mann failing to provide documents to the court. It seems to be plainly because the case lingered too long without any action being taken by the plaintiff, resulting in inordinate delay (during which time she of Ball’s key witnesses literally died of old age). Why do you believe random articles you find online when the facts are so easily verifiable?
Now you are lying since it has been shown that his paper is crap many times.
Only it hasn’t; otherwise you would be right.
Statisticians have shown it to be manifestly corrupt and anti-science.
Only your DENIAL of that fact keeps your worship of Mann’s FAKE graph alive in your puny little anti-science mind.
You didn’t even defend the stupid paper…..
It was exposed by the Wegman and North Reports and that Dr. Mannfraud used tree data from Dr. Isdo for temperature, but the data was really about CO2 effects on tree growth.
LOL.
Actually it has. Getting a bunch of acolytes to re-run the same faulty numbers using the same invalid methods is hardly the re-affirmation that you desire it to be.
Other competent statisticians have shown that the statistical methods that Mann invented mined for hockey stick shapes. If even one of the proxies had anything like a hockey stick shape, then the result would always be a hockey stick.
First off, using the same data and same methods and getting the same results is not that big a deal. He had major problems with the data selected, and the statistical methods that he invented simply did not work in the way he advertised.
As to those joke enquiries, they consisted of a couple of low level workers from the president’s office going to Mann and asking him if he did anything wrong. When he said no, they closed the investigation.
We aren’t forgetful, it’s just that nothing you know is actually true.
“subsequent enquiries”
You mean like at Penn State where Mann was allowed to submit the questions they would ask him? And the head had previously found nothing wrong with Sandusky when complaints were made against him?
Those kind of enquiries?
The said ‘hockey stick graph’ does not rely on satellite data at all.
What were you saying about ‘failing the Duck Test’, Brian bunch-of numbers?
True, the blade was made from surface data massively corrupted by urban, airport and manic agenda-driven mal-adjustments
He still spliced short time-period data onto massively average and faked long time period data… creating scientific nonsense.
Right, all the global temperature data producers are wrong and bnasty is right? Let me see….. The agony of choice. Wait. It’s bnasty or NASA, NOAA, UK Met Office, Japanese Met Office, Berkeley Earth, UH, RSS….
No, it must be my wee internet blog-post mate, bnasty!
See, you were right all along!
DENYING that they are ALL based on surface sites that are PROVABLY unfit for climate purposes.
DENYING that urban warming doesn’t even exist.. when it is provable and measurable.
DENYING that the original raw data is manipulated to cool the past, when the data adjustments are show on the GHCN site.
You really haven’t got a clue, have you.
Now let’s try again.. keep running little child…
“How much warmer must it have been 1000 years ago for trees to grow where now there are glaciers?”
This is why you have ZERO credibility since Dr. Mannfraud grafted annual modern temperature data onto a 1,000 year variable low resolution proxy sets which fails to show the long-known LIA and MWP.
You are an ignoramus!!!
No, the ground based temperature series is hopelessly corrupted by many issues, including UHI contamination, improper maintenance of the immediate area, and undocumented equipment changes and equipment moves.
One survey of ground based monitors found that 80% of them failed to meet even the most minimal of standards.
This is a fact that is well known and acknowledged even by your fraudulent heros.
They claim that they have invented fanciful statistic methods that remove all the errors from the data. And the useful idiots (that would be you) eagerly lap it up.
I have record highs and lows for the day for my little spot on the globe from different years. From NOAA.
About 10% of the records between 2007 and 2012 have changed. Not new records set but old records changed. i.e. A new record high for a certain day is lower than the record high in the 2007 list.
PS I also got a list via TheWayBackMachine for 2002. No changes in the 2007 list.
Coal is just wood compressed and heated by nature. It is completely renewable. Burn it and it releases CO2 which the trees take up and use to make more wood. The ashes make good fertilizer.
Belief in Catastrophic Climate Collapse is a political issue, not a scientific one. No amount of facts will change an Alarmist’s belief.
100%.
Around 90% of the worlds population lacks a higher educational qualification in any subject never mind science.
The alarmists figured this out long ago so used propaganda rather than science to convince the masses that climate change was catastrophic.
Talk science to 90%+ of the worlds population and you are talking a language they don’t understand.
“… The most upfront manifestation of this is the ways in which outspoken female advocates of addressing climate change in substantive ways are targeted.”
C’mon, Mann!
You’ve gotten your share.
Gunga Din says:
May 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm
What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desperate measures I did take
To make that stick reappear.
There were some coring’s from a lake.
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweak my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!
I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill
Mann is a disgrace to the profession.
Calling people that disagree with you “truly awful human beings” as Professor Mann did, is about as contrary to sincerely practicing the scientific method as it gets.
Both sides are doing that sort of name calling.
However, there is a massive difference here with Dr. Mann.
Professor Mann, with all his credentials and decades of work has an enormous following. Many tens of millions of people look up to him as he sets an example and helps create the tone for much of mainstream climate science as one of their key spokespeople.
Michael Mann is a Modern Hero and we need to acknowledge that!
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/03/09/1072828/-Michael-Mann-is-a-Modern-Hero-and-we-need-to-acknowledge-that-
Mann in the Middle
https://thepenngazette.com/mann-in-the-middle/
Regardless of whether authentic climate science realists agree with people feeling this way about him or not, it’s a fact that they put him up on a pedestal.
He should be held to a much higher standard because of the responsibility that comes with his position and huge following. He is clearly violating that trust which people have in him by constantly digressing with unprofessional behavior and ANTI scientific messages like that one above.
Assuming that this quotation isn’t taken out of context, then I would agree that this is an over-the-top remark by Mann and unhelpful.
There are a few things that annoy me a little about Mann, although I would say that his books are clearly written and well argued, so I won’t get personal. But I can see why he winds some people up.
You are not a ‘truly awful human being’, based on your position on the validity or otherwise of climate science. We’ve all seen what ‘truly awful human beings’ are during the sad events in Israel over this past few days. Let’s tone the rhetoric down: it’s just a scientific dispute.
“. . . it’s just a scientific dispute.”
It would be great if it was. Except your side wants to destroy Western civilization in the name of climate change (global warming). It’s far more than just a scientific dispute.
My side? What side would that be? The side that acknowledges the clear scientific evidence?
My side is the side of science and accepting that the obvious climatic changes we are seeing are the consequences of our actions. I’m on the side of not flat-out denying these consequences as they occur daily in front of our very eyes.
I am a citizen of Western civilization, as are my children. I want a future for them in it. Yes, in that sense, it is far more than a scientific dispute.
“My side? What side would that be? The side that acknowledges the clear scientific evidence?”
Well, first, you need to acknowledge what side you are on. I can’t help you there. Second, many here have had decades of science training. I’m guessing you haven’t.
A so-called, self-proclaimed “scientist” said I was, “Just an engineer.” I probably have had more physics and mathematics than many scientists. I’ve also have studied continually since school–including thermodynamics. I can tell (but you probably have your fingers in your ears–or covering your eyes) that climate scientists are violating thermodynamics. Clear scientific evidence? That’s a laugh.
“the clear scientific evidence?”
ROFLMAO.
Which you are totally incapable of producing !
“Your” side is built on fantasy, data mal-manipulation, and anti-science.
If you want a future for your children, you should be fighting tooth and nail against the corruption of electricity supplies by erratic, unreliable sources that waste HUGE amounts of money that doesn’t exist.
The anti-CO2 Net-Zero agenda is destroying western civilisations around the world.
Future generations will suffer a massive loss of life-style and self-worth because of these anti-science agendas that people like you espouse.
The massive debt needed for this fantasy will be passed down to many generations.
The whole of western civilisation depends totally on the constant availability of energy for electricity, transport, food , infrastructure… all brought to you by fossil fuels.
WHY DO YOU WANT TO DESTROY ALL THIS !
Why do you want to DESTOY the future for you children and their children !!!
“ the consequences of our actions”
What consequences might they be?
All real data points to nothing much happening in terms of extreme weather.
A slight beneficial warming .. by natural causes (in the absence of any evidence of human causation).
You still have produced absolutely nothing but empty, brain-washed rhetoric.
There is not and never has been any clear scientific evidence to support the religious conviction that CO2 is causing the current warming.
CO2 didn’t cause the 4 previous warm periods, nor did it cause the Holocene optimum.
There is no climatic change, much less an obvious one. Everything that has happened recently has happened multiple times during the last few hundred years.
There will be no future for your children if we continue on with this renewable energy nonsense. Billions will have to die in order to cut the world’s population enough for wind and solar to support them.
You are the one who refuses to deal with reality and the world as it actually is. You prove pretty lies to tough truth.
As I have said a few times..
We are lucky to live in a time of CLIMATE NORMAL !
From the proxies, it’s quite clear that current temperatures are several degrees below normal.
Yes, it does look that way.
Will have to remember that in future.
The evidence is CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature, not CAUSE it.
A gas that is a mere 0.04% of atmospheric inventory is incapable of warming anything,
+
if halved in level would just cause a massive bee death followed by plant die off, and global famine.
You would be suprised to see how sensitive bees are to cold weather.
They don’t like it.
Try drinking warm coca-cola to enjoy a kiddies experiment about CO2. It’s about the level of rusty’s science knowledge.
1) That delay that you reference is typically 900 to 1000 years. Thus it cannot be the cause of the recent CO2 increases. On the other hand, when we calculate all the fossil fuels that are known to have been burned, there is more than enough CO2 to explain the increase.
2) The belief that small amounts of a gas can’t possibly impact the larger atmosphere is simply anti-scientific.
“That delay that you reference is typically 900 to 1000 years. Thus it cannot be the cause of the recent CO2 increases.”
It’s 800-1000 years, and about 800 years ago was the Medieval Warm Period.
https://www.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period
The MWP was approximately 900 to 1300. By 800 years ago, the world was already cooling. It continued to cool up until around 250 years ago.
Hmmm, 2023 – 800 = 1223 and 2023 – 1000 = 1023. I fail to see the problem. Of course, my calculator could be using the new math.
“it’s just a scientific dispute.”
And you have been soundly trounced at every turn when it comes to science.
You are, in fact, totally devoid of any scientific understanding or science of any worth whatsoever.
You just go on with your manic DENIAL and AVOIDANCE headless chook routine.
You quite clearly define “well written” as being anything you agree with.
I guess even frauds can be well written when they are shopping their lies.
“it’s just a scientific dispute.”
Except that you have no zilch about science, because everything you type in your silly ascii is emotion based giberish
+
you refuse to accept clear evidence that the earth has just emerged from a famine ridden freezing “little ice age”, and that the Romans grew wine grapes successfully in the wet/cold UK 2000 years ago…
Quite apart from the Vikings farming 1000 yrs ago in a place now which is limit useable today for farming. “GREEN” – LAND.
And he has not been able to give any explanation whatsoever of how much warmer it must have been 1000 years ago, when forests grew where now there are glaciers.
I doubt he is capable of any rational thought process of his own, at all. !
“authentic climate science realists” Sammy Sooser just spit his steroid-laced root beer.
That abstract is rhetorical onanism.
Not sure how much i afree but _+1 for word usage.
Methinks they doth protest too much. Anyone paying attention knows the political left are more or less openly authoritarian and horribly misogynistic as well.
The left is everything they accuse the right of being.
racist
sexist
anti-semitic
obsessed with wealth
the list goes on.
Which was the party of slavery?
Well blow me down, it was the Democrats.
Does he hang out with Hillary?
Does anybody hang out with Hillary?
Even Bill looks elsewhere!
Did they have artificial insemination back when Chelsea was conceived?
Thanks!
That’s a mental image I can now never unsee.
Hillary talking about those who support Trump.
Deplorable statement.
Sounds a bit “authoritarian” to me.
To the left, it isn’t authoritarian when they agree with the goals.
Hillary ought to be in jail.
I hear the Republican House is planning on investigating Bill and Hillary’s “Clinton Foundation”.
Hillary is hoping Trump and the Republicans don’t win the next election. If they do, it will be bad for Hillary, and a lot of other traitors to the United States, which basically means most of the members of the Obama-Biden administration and the Biden administration. Many of the actors are the same in both administrations, and every one of them that took part in trying to impeach Trump over Russian collusion are traitors to their country because they all knew from the very beginning that there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians. The charges were trumped up from the very beginning, and Hillary played a major part in all this.
These traitors used the power of the federal government to try to destroy their political opposition, and they are doing it today with their continuing attacks on Trump and Trump supporters.
Traitors, every damn one of them!
It’s really sad when scientists resort to name calling and personal attacks, and on top of that, jump-the-shark by putting their hatred into a formal looking research paper.
All climate change alarmists have is name calling. They don’t have any evidence for their claims of climate doom, so they disparage skeptics in hopes this will discourage skeptics from telling the world there is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth.
Climate alarmists can’t prove their case, and they don’t want skeptics pointing this out.
I didn’t realize we were beating the CAGW mongrels this badly. This has to be the sorriest piece of claptrap yet. Have the CAGW offered any proper science to support their claims?
Hey!
My dogs are mongrels. They don’t give a sh!t about CAGW.
I think they are failing the marshmallow test. How hard would it be to wait 100 yers for a probability to say “see, told ya!”.
“Have the CAGW offered any proper science to support their claims?”
NEVER !
I’m going to go way, way off topic right now so apologies in advance!
A possible story tip – One of Luton Airport’s large multi-storey car parks has, this evening, burst into flames, engulfing the top 2 storeys and spreading. It started this evening when a car caught alight and 12 more are now burning fiercely. Multiple fire crews are tackling the blaze where 6 firefighters and a civilian are suffering from smoke inhalation, many ambulances have attended including the Hazardous Area Response Team.
I say possible story tip because it isn’t clear if an EV was the cause but, if it was, then this might be the biggest and, certainly, most visible EV fire in the UK so far. I haven’t included a link as it’s been picked up by several news outlets already – should be easy to access.
So it it turns out that a gas/petrol/diesel vehicle was the cause we should immediately ban all gas/petrol/diesel vehicles?
No, just the badly maintained ones or the ones caused by terrorism.
Speaking of terrorism and electric cars, I imagine it wouldn’t be too hard for a terrorist to rig a small explosive and go into a parking garage and use the explosive to damage an electric vehicle in hopes it would burn the whole building down once it got started.
According to you lot, ICE cars go on fire all the time so it would make no difference.
Having seen more ICE car fires than I’ve had hot breakfast’s over the years, I can say with complete confidence that 99.9% of them were stolen and torched deliberately.
The other 0.1% were entirely undramatic, confined to the engine bay, and extinguished by the fire service within minutes.
Video is weird.
It looks like the building collapsed on top of the car. (looking at the video titled “dramatic moment….”) Which then exploded.
Is this the car that started the Luton airport car park fire? Moment vehicle explodes before £20m multi-storey structure collapses – sparking travel chaos for up to 50,000 passengers with all flights cancelled until 3pm | Daily Mail Online
Interesting…..
On the same link as above, the picture below the roof collapse video shows a car on fire.
The shape and tail-light seems to indicate it is a Landrover Discovery Sports
Guess what.. while, yes, it is a diesel car.. it also has a PHEV plug-in battery.
Explore Discovery Sport | Plug-In Electric Hybrid | Discovery (landrover.com.au)
This would explain the strange location of the flames. !
Look where the flames are coming from under the car…….
… then have a guess where the drive battery is in a Landrover Discovery Sports. 😉
I have to say, that from an engineering point of view, a multi-story car park made of unprotected steel and with no sprinkler system, seems a pretty idiotic sort of design !!
Even a small fire next to an upright would weaken the structure considerably.
Looks very odd – source of ignition looks almost like it starts off-camera then engulfs the car, which then goes up. I’ve no issue with the people on the scene saying the first vehicle destroyed was the diesel engined car but how, exactly, was that diesel ignited? Diesel is a difficult fuel to ignite outside of an engine and, if it was the leaking fuel line that has been quoted, it wouldn’t just go up from a stray spark like a petrol leak. No, jury’s still out on this one, still a lot of questions and time will tell. If those initial conclusions are premature and it was an EV, I think that’s the insurance out the window at least.
Who mentioned a ban? I certainly didn’t, so where did that bit of tomfoolery come from TFN? If an ICE car has spontaneously combusted, ripped through a multi-storey car park, causing structural collapse and the destruction of nearly a thousand other cars (latest estimate) then, yes, the least I’d expect is an enquiry into how it happened and a ban on parking cars close together in a big car park.
Oddly enough this is not the first big fire in a multi-storey that highlights the lack of safety features. New Year’s Eve, 2017 the King’s Dock, Liverpool, car park erupted destroying 1600 other cars and the cause was a faulty petrol engined Range Rover. The fire safety report also highlighted a lack of sprinklers as being an issue.
BBC Reporting:
“[The Chief Fire Officer] said it was thought the fire started with a diesel car, and then spread through the car park.”
So there we have it. Ban all diesel vehicles or just stop talking about it and pretend it didn’t happen because it wasn’t started by an electric car?
The Final Nail (TFN) seems to jump before the gun which explains the preference for CAGW rather than the very measured case for the those with attention spans greater than a few seconds.
The BBC latest on the Luton Airport Fire explains “Liam Smith, crew commander at Leighton Buzzard fire station, said that when he arrived, the fire was mainly on the third floor. But it quickly spread down to the lower floors when the third floor started to collapse.
He said there were “lots of electric vehicles potentially involved quite early on”.
No doubt there will be more to come. There were a lot of explosions heard – electric cars seem the obvious explanation but well done to the emergency services for managing to save many cars.
Personally speaking I think electric cars are a tragic and dangerous waste of technology, much like wind and solar are for other (similar short sighted) reasons. I don’t think TFN is quite up to the job of helping the alarmist cause inj any way, shape or form. Another waste of human space?
Yeah – it really doesn’t matter if the first car to go up was an EV, the fact is that the fire spread quickly to ‘lots’ of EV’s parked close together which then went off like bombs.
Public perception was, before this, that EV’s cause fires; the fact that within minutes of the report of the Luton fire the internet was filling up with people blaming EV’s is hugely significant and disastrous for the EV industry.
Misogyny?
Greta has not been sued for making things up.
AOC has not been sued for making things up.
But Michael Mann…
Those on the left are absolutely convinced that they are doing the work of the angels, and that anyone who opposes them is pure evil.
Deranged superman syndrome
Deranged, for sure.
I definitely hate nitasha cos she’s all girly. I hope that tom is transgender or binary so i can hate they too. It goes without saying that I hate M E Personn whatever their pronouns cos they is an unscientific eejit
I bet you Mann does not have solar panels on his house.
But he will blame it on a Big Oil conspiracy making solar panels much more expensive, inefficient, and toxic than they would be without evil Denier interference.
I seem to recall several years ago a satellite photo of his house. There were a couple of solar panels. Maybe enough to power his coffee maker. Hardly enough to recharge his EV. (If he has one.)
This “study” appears to be Mann’s kind of “science”.
Maybe he’ll make a Hockey Stick out of it?
Does WUWT know its audience demographics? As a long-time reader of the comments section, I sense “we who opine” are over 40, white, male, educated, politically conservative and economically middle class. If the web is an open party (all seem welcome on WUWT, though a few names get pummeled every post) then no one should blame the host for who shows up.
That may describe the majority, however the left is pretty well represented as well.
MCourtney and HotScot are well to the left.
Why, because you don’t like hearing the cold hard truth about what’s happening in Ukraine?
The west is getting it’s a** handed to it. Russia is mounting it’s own counter offensive right now, and the Ukrainians have run out of men and equipment.
But you would rather Ukrainians kept fighting. 500,000+ dead Ukrainian soldiers so far. A country of 40 million people now down to 20 million people, with millions of refugees flooding across Europe.
This entire mess caused because the US threw it’s toys out the pram (again) when it didn’t get its way to site nuclear weapons in Ukraine pointed at Moscow.
All of which is needless and utterly futile. Biden despatched Boris Johnson to order Zelensky to tear up a draft peace treaty agreed between Russia and Ukraine in March 2022. Iraq WMD lies between the US and the Uk once again (nor do I exclude the UK from any of this).
The US has been involved in 71 major conflicts since 1945. US troops have been sent into service 251 times since 1991 (Congressional Service Report) and the CIA has overthrown 83 governments since 1947. Hundreds of military bases scattered around the world including it’s illegal presence in Syria, whilst Russia is there by invitation.
The Minsk agreement, trashed by the west with Merkle announcing to the world it was simply cover to train, arm and mobilise Ukraine to conduct an 8 year war against it’s own people to provoke Russia.
At least three further attempts by Russia since then, working with other nations, to broker a peace deal have been rejected by Washington.
How does Russia stack up against that astonishing level of dishonesty and aggression?
But someone disagrees with you Mark, so you retreat to your entrenched Cold War mentality, snarl and spit about others being leftist, and squeal about the evils of communism, which Russia rejected 30 years ago.
You are a bitter old man feeding on propaganda and living in the past.
Maybe you need to look in the mirror.
“How does Russia stack up against that astonishing level of dishonesty and aggression?”
Perhaps Putin isn’t as honest as you think he is.
Here’s some truth for you (I saved in just for you):
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4064431-wagner-chief-says-russias-war-in-ukraine-intended-to-benefit-elites-accuses-moscow-of-lying/
Wagner chief says Russia’s war in Ukraine intended to benefit elites, accuses Moscow of lying
by Brad Dress – 06/23/23 12:28 PM ET
“Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin on Friday said Russia’s war in Ukraine is intended to benefit Russian elites and accused Moscow of lying about the full-scale invasion launched last year, escalating his feud with top Russian leadership to new heights.
In a video released on his Telegram channel and circulated widely on the internet, Prigozhin countered Russian President Vladimir Putin’s argument that invading Ukraine was necessary to denazify and demilitarize the country. Putin has also accused Kyiv of persecuting ethnic Russians and of acting as a puppet and “battering ram” against Russia on behalf of Western allies.
“The war was not needed to return our Russian citizens and not to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine,” Prigozhin said in the video, claiming it was instead launched to benefit Russian leaders. “The war was needed by oligarchs. It was needed by the clan that is today practically ruling in Russia.”
Prigozhin claimed the goal of the “special military operation,” the official name for the war in Russia, was to install pro-Russian and Putin ally Viktor Medvedchuk, who is living in exile in Russia, as president of Ukraine and to divide up the assets of the country.
“They were stealing loads in Donbas, they wanted more,” Prigozhin said, likely referring to the Russian-backed resistance launched in eastern Ukraine in 2014. He also said there was never any plan for Ukraine or the Western security alliance NATO to attack Russia.”
end excerpt
So it is all about greed for Putin and his buddies. It’s not about righting wrongs. All your excuse making for Putin means nothing, and is based on nothing.
HotScot, like most of the left, is intellectually incapable of believing that the US is not the cause of all evil.
So much hatred, so little actual data, yup HotScott is definitely a creature of the left.
BTW, nothing you believe is actually true, but so long as you can blame the US or NATO, you lap it up.
WUWT’s policy is to be an open forum, so we have a wide range of people Anthony identifies maintaining openness as one of the main reasons this forum is so popular – a place where actual conversations and debates occur.
Yes, WUWT does an excellent job of allowing all sides to speak.
Hayhoe, here we go again !
So …. What’s a Woman ???
Since no one, even Supreme Court judges, do not even know what a woman is these days, how will we know a feminist solution if we see one ? Are we looking for a TERF solution ? Most male politicians seem to declare themselves “ardent feminists” these days, does that count ?
I know what a woman is. 🙂
I suspect that applies to most of us, who are not radical leftists.
“Climate change is a man-made problem and must have a feminist solution.”
Anybody else notice what they did there?
“Man-made” as in Mankind just means “human”, not only males. Yet it must have a female solution?!? Who’s being sexist here?
I tried to read the paper but I got stuck on the first sentence of the introduction that states:
“Many contemporary democracies are under severe strain from right-wing majoritarian political projects” (my bold)
Which appears to be saying that politicians elected by a majority of voters are a threat to democracy.
Funny, I always thought that being elected by a majority was the essential principle of democracy.
The first paragraph includes a list of democratically elected leaders who aren’t to their taste. I suppose even these dimwits were unable to cast Giorgia Meloni as a misogynist, so she was conspicuously absent from the list. And the whole screed went downhill from there.
I couldn’t stand the thought of wading through pages of such sophomoric nonsense, and gave up after a page and a half. It’s just ivory-tower gibberish, devoid of any real meaning.
“It’s just ivory-tower gibberish, devoid of any real meaning.”
Exactly.
“All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.”
(They deserve multiple votes.)
Mann is a lying, deceitful POS and a bully. He was a main force in twisting the arms of generally spineless academics into playing along with the climate scam.
His hockey stick was a botched mess. “Mikes’ Nature trick”, where he cropped off the inconvenient part of Briffa’s tree-ring proxy was scientific fraud. He lied about winning a Nobel Prize, trying to give the impression he was a Nobel winning scientist when he was not even entitled to claim he won a ridiculous “peace prize”.
Why does anyone listen to this fraud at all ?
“Why does anyone listen to this fraud at all ?”
That’s the question.
I think if they repudicate Mann, then they essentially repudicate the climate change crisis.
I think Phil Jones needs a little repudiating, too. Along with some others in the temperature data mannipulating community who have given us a false temperature trendline with the aim of demonizing CO2.
Poor pathetic sociologists trying to get in on the climate trough.
Little Mickey knows he has lost any chance of arguing the actual science, so links in with other scientifically INCOMPETANT clowns like himself.
It is totally LAUGHABLE !
Which reminds me – we don’t seem to have heard from Lewandowsky for a while.
“Is it a coincidence that most climate activists (though not all) also seem to have very left wing political views?”
It seems that most of the climate protesters are also women. Their nurture/caring genes served the survival of prehistoric humans admirably, but it is a somewhat lefty trait.
https://www.voacambodia.com/a/worldwide-protest-launched-against-climate-change/5092484.html
What a dork.
The first clue that what follows is nonsense is “Michael Mann tweets . . .”. Everything after that is irrelevant. It’s nice that you take the time to critique a ridiculous “study” but my Spidey Sense had already alerted me to its vacuity thanks to the fact that Mann believes it. The title of the screed gives away its purpose “Misogyny, authoritarianism, and climate change”. That the authors would connect misogyny to opinions on climate change—two completely unrelated subjects—and attempt to “explore” it tells us volumes about the perverse thought processes of the authors. You can sleep peacefully knowing that what they produced is exactly bupkis, according to the original meaning of the Yiddish word.
“the perverse thought processes of the authors”
Their thought processes are to demonize skeptics in any way possible.
Today, they claim skeptics hate women, and are therefore bad people, without any eveidence of any hatred, I might add (what else is new with alarmists?) and they imply one should not listen to skeptics for this reason.
This is just a different way to attempt to demonize skeptics.
Propaganda 101.
I feel dumb. I don’t recognize the lady in the photo.Looks too young to be a famous conservative.