Wednesday 23rd of January 2019

being scared is not a bad thing. It forces us into self-protection...

running scared

Ten years ago, a couple of biased ignorant pen-pushers, Christopher Booker and Richard North, published a book called "Scared to Death — from blah blah blah to blah blah blah"... Obviously, it was written with some "good" intentions, such as to favour the rabid capitalistic system that is slowly killing us, but it missed the mark of reality by a million miles... It was promotes as:

Modern society has regularly, in recent years, been gripped by a series of headline making "scares" - from mad cow disease to SARS -- which have become one of the most conspicuous and damaging features of our modern world. This book is the first to tell the inside story of each of the major scares of the past two decades, showing how they have followed a remarkably consistent pattern. It analyzes the crucial role played in each case by scientists how have misread or manipulated the evidence; by media and lobbyists who eagerly promote the scare without regard to the facts; and finally by the politicians and officials who come up with an absurdly disproportionate response, leaving us all to pay the price, which may run into billions of dollars. Scared to Death culminates in a chillingly detailed account of the story behind what the authors believe has become the greatest scare of them all: the belief that the world faces disaster through manmade global warming. In a final chapter, the authors take on its proponents such as Al Gore in a devastating critique of the consensus on global warming and its consequences.

It is obvious that these two dumb writers never had to live through WWII nor through the bombings in Syria or Iraq, nor had they ever been the unlucky ones who caught a deadly disease such as asbestosis. They tend to forget that the flu epidemic at the beginning of the twentieth century killed three times more people than the "war to end all wars". At this stage one has to know that some people are more susceptible than others and that some people will survive a "deadly" dose of radiation while others wont. The reality of the scare is in which camp are we going to find ourselves? Dead or alive? Some of my friends did not make it before Christmas. Despite the advent of antibiotics and other medical marvels, they went down to the now so-called "Australian flu".

These days, epidemics, including the bird flu, "are managed" to minimise the risks. The awareness of such disease is not part of a "scare to death" tactic but of being aware that a) some people will inevitable die from these disease and you could be the unlucky one, and b) that our medical system will work hard to find counter-actions. These epidemics, left unchecked, and other wanton destructions of the natural environment such as deforestation, kills more than a few people. It leads to the extinction of some species. The list is long. By challenging a lot of precise scientific research and management of such problems, these two moronic authors show their ignorance with the importance of data and the management thereof by authorities who try hard to minimise the hurt done by whatever we do wrong or by what occur naturally. 

They start their idiotic foray into what has faced humanity with some uncertainty — the AIDS epidemic which they dismissed as a scare rather than a problem that was solved by various strategies, from condom usage to public "education" of the risks factors, then helped by new drugs that have arrested the further development of this still latent disease. My many friends who died from AIDS would be appalled by the amazing flippancy of Christopher Booker and Richard North. 

But after having dismissed passive smoking (sure I have not died from passive smoking yet, but I suffer from chronic bronchitis induced by others' smoking and a couple of my doctors died from direct smoking) and BSE, as fads from the scientific madmen, they shitlessly bag the issue of global warming as a ridiculous footnote in the history of this planet. Let me say that Christopher Booker and Richard North are two of the worthless shit talking about a subject in which they wonkily use a lot of statistics to raise a lot of nonsensical conclusions. Unfortunately, this 2007 crap-book could be on Trump's present bedside table and on the reading list of many other idiots, such as Pruitt, who basically do not understand a skerrick of sciences, but make-believe as if they knew everything and you are morons, should you believe contrarily to their masterly ignorance.

The scares are not costing us the earth. Warnings about "global warming" are necessary to minimise the problem which obviously bypassed Christopher Booker and Richard North's little brains. I actually believe that their stupid book was written to pay homage to the fossil fuel burning industry and decry "global warming" as the "new secular religion". It's silly. But what is worse, is that it provides arguments, how erroneous they are, to many denialists and ordinary folks who have problem digesting the complicated nature of the "warming". Many people do not want to know the complexity of reality and these writers indulge into this aspect by provided crooked information that make as much sense than 2 + 2 = 7. This book is on the list of fabrication, false facts and fantasies dedicated to the coal, the tobacco, the petroleum and the nuclear industries that are destroying my life as well as yours, in various proportions — and though this ignorance will not kill this little planet to death, it will eventually make life more difficult. The book "Scared to Death" should actually SCARE YOU TO DEATH for its crafted lunacy.



will the MMMM be duped by climate denial spin doctors in 2018?..

Will 2018 be the year that mainstream media is not duped by professional spin doctors and fake experts paid to downplay and deny the realities of climate change? 

Call me cynical, but after more than a decade of research and writing into the role big fossil fuel companies have played in sponsoring coordinated attacks on climate science with public relations spin, I remain unconvinced we won’t see a resurgence in climate denial. 

Later this year, a major update on the state of climate change research — the impacts, solutions, scientific underpinnings, etc. — will be released by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In the past, these IPCC reports have turned into a lightning rod for attacks by organizations like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who claim to tout freedom and liberty as their cause, but enjoy big dollar sponsorship from coal and oil companies like Koch Industries, Murray Energy, and ExxonMobil.

IPCC climate reports are the Spin Olympics for these fossil-funded groups, with the winner reaping the rewards of notoriety and ultimately more funding to continue their disinformation campaigns. 

As in the past, whether an attack on the IPCC climate change report is successful is almost entirely contingent on whether opinion leaders in the media are duped again. 

Much of the spin doctoring and public opinion shaping strategies undertaken by the climate science attack dogs relies on getting their message out past their “audience bubble.” In order for them to win the day the story needs to go mainstream.

It is not good enough to get their story published in the ideological bubble of an outlet like Brietbart News or the conspiracy theory echo chamber over at InfoWars. The story can start in these outlets, but it ultimately needs to reach past these audiences, and that is where mainstream media outlets become very important to the climate denial cause. 

If the attack can leap to the pages of outlets with more credibility with larger audience segments (think New York Times and CNN), then the fossil-funded climate cabal wins the gold medal. 

Fortunately we have a thing called history. 

Like big tobacco companies who paid pretend scientists to make up pretend research to fight back against the scientific body of evidence linking tobacco smoke to cancer, there is now a well-documented history of coal and oil companies paying unqualified experts to attack climate science research with the goal of stalling climate change policies that would impact their bottom lines.

In fact, right now Attorneys General in multiple states have active investigations into what ExxonMobil knew and when about the scientific research on climate change and whether the company actively worked to undermine what they knew to be true.

Tobacco companies paid dearly in the end for artificially manufacturing doubt about the link between cigarettes and tobacco, and ExxonMobil and these other big fossil fuel companies will likely pay dearly for their misdeeds some day. 

But someday is not today, and while there have been massive leaps in renewable energy technology and major policy initiatives like the Paris Climate Accord, we also know that we are getting close to past the point of complacency on climate change. 

Ignoring the mountains of evidence showing that the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels is causing unnatural levels of heat trapping gas in our atmosphere seems insane at this point, and we know that those who do are likely driven by ideology, their bank account or an overly active conspiratorial mind. 

And any journalists who ignores the similarly larger mountains of evidence documenting the decades long multi-million dollar public relations campaign to prop up fake experts and create doubt about the realities of climate change falls into the same boat or is just naive at best.

The IPCC releases their updated report later this year, leaving more than enough time for any journalists covering climate change, energy and environmental issues to get up to speed.

read more:

2017 was a La Nina (cool) year, with the sun in its "quiet cycle"... by 2025, this cycle will be in its active period. As well, by then it is most likely that El Nino (hot) will be in full force (cycle with La Nina around 3 to 7 years). 2017 was the second warmest year on record for the planet. With the sun "in full force" and El Nino "in place" expect a torrid weather in 2025. Before this 2019 and 2021 will also beat records. The EXTRA (anthropogenic) amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is enough to drive temperature up beyond 6 degrees Celsius. Alarm? Scaring people "to death"? No. Has our "economy suffered because of paying attention to global warming"? No. Our economies have suffered because of greedy banks selling subprime estates at premium prices. Economic corrections to take in the prospect of global warming SHOULD NOT COST THE EARTH, BUT PROTECT US FROM the BLIND IDIOCY of the denialists. Be prepared? Yes, we should be...

the cost of changing climate...

2017, one of the hottest years in modern history, was also an extremely costly year. According to a new report from the National Centers for Environmental Information, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “the U.S. experienced 16 weather and climate disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion, with total costs of approximately $306 billion—a new U.S. annual record.”

The federal agency listed several noteworthy events, including the wildfires in the west, with total costs of $18 billion, tripling the previous U.S. annual wildfire cost record.

The year's string of devastating hurricanes were also very expensive. Hurricane Harvey had total costs of $125 billion. Hurricanes Maria and Irma had total costs of $90 billion and $50 billion, respectively.

2005 was the previous most expensive year for the U.S., with losses of $215 billion mostly due to Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma and Rita.

The tropical cyclones, storms, floods, a crop freeze, drought and wildfires in 2017 were not only costly financially—they also caused a total of 362 direct fatalities, the report said.

read more:


At this stage, this does not include the mud slides in California... nor the big freeze in Eastern USA...