A new low for the guardian climate denial linked to the christchurch mosque massacre watts up with that grade 6 electricity test


As the news of the Christchurch mosque massacre broke and I scoured the news, I came across a map showing that the Friday morning climate strike in Christchurch was close to the bloodbath. I felt terrible for the young people who showed up with hope and idealism, wondered whether the killer or killers chose this particular day to undermine the impact gas emoji meaning of this global climate action. It was a shocking pairing and also a perfectly coherent one, a clash of opposing ideologies. Behind the urgency of climate action is the understanding that everything is connected; behind white supremacy is an ideology of separation.

Of separation as the idea that human beings are divided into races, and those in one race have nothing in common with those in others. Of separation as the idea that though white people have overrun the globe, nonwhite people should stay out of Europe, North America, and now even New Zealand and Australia, two places where white settlers came relatively recently to already inhabited places – as a fantasy of resegregating the world. Of a lot of ideas and ideals of masculinity taken to a monstrous extreme – as ideas of disconnection, of taking matters into your own hands, of feeling no empathy and exhibiting no kindness, of asserting yourself as having the right to dominate others even unto death. And of course, of guns as the symbols and instruments of this self-definition.

Climate change is based on science. But if you delve into it deeply enough it is a kind of mysticism without mystification, a recognition of the beautiful interconnection of all life and the systems – weather, water, soil, seasons, ocean pH – on which that life depends. It acknowledges that everything is connected, that to dig up the carbon that plants so helpfully sequestered in the ground over eons and burn it so that returns to the sky as carbon dioxide changes m gasbuddy app the climate, and that this changed climate isn’t just warmer, it’s more chaotic, in ways that break these elegant patterns and relationships. That chaos is a kind of violence – the violence of hurricanes, wildfires, new temperature extremes, broken weather patterns, droughts, extinctions, famines. Which is why climate action has been and must be nonviolent. It is a movement to protect life.

I asked Hoda Baraka, who is both Muslim and 350.org’s global communications director, how it all looked to her in the wake of the climate strike and the massacre, and she said “In a world being driven by fear, we are constantly being pitted against the very things that make this world livable. Whether it’s people being pitted against each other, even though there is no life without human connection, love and empathy. Or fear pitting us against the very planet that gas stoichiometry formula sustains us, even though there is no life on a dead planet. This is why fighting against climate change is the equivalent of fighting against hatred. A world that thrives is one where both people and planet are seen for their inextricable value and connectedness.”

There’s no point, Patrick. The great days of the old Manchester Guardian, when its pages were illuminated by gifted writers such as Harry Whewell, James Cameron and Jack Trevor Storey, are long gone. As is the humour that brought us spoof holiday supplements to the island of Sans Serif (with its capital Bodoni) in the early 70s gas variables pogil. The Guardian has sadly become a humourless socialist rag where any departure from the party line is not to be tolerated.

Writing to the editor will achieve nothing as it will not elicit an intelligent and balanced response. Take a look at some of the amazingly ignorant comments posted by warmists at the end of its bonkers articles about CAGW. It is like reading the views of an alien species. Save your breath. There is nothing that can be done for the Guardian or the hate-filled ignoramuses that inhabit its comments section. They are part of a tradition where logic, enquiry and open-mindedness has been replaced by political dogmatism and the triumph of ‘belief’ over fact.

One of the most racist actions humans have embarked on is the myth of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming which is used as support for policies that deny the poorest people on this planet the opportunity to duplicate the great successes of the western developed nations which have greatly reduced hunger, conflict, infant mortality, subjugation of women, lack of eduction and lack of economic opportunities. Racism is being a wealthy, healthy European and telling poor, hungry Africans and Indians to forgo development in favor of self sacrifice in the name of a mythical Gaia, when no observational evidence suggests the mild warming we have had in 170 years is anything but beneficial to the biosphere and people who inhabit this planet. Tying white supremasists to denial of climate change is a classic liberal diversion to distract from the fact that democrats and socialists created and promoted much of the fabric of racism with movements such as eugenics, and the fascist socialist government programs of Italy and Nazi Germany. Racism and xenophobia were also epidemic in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Communist China under Mao.

While radical t gas terengganu enrivonmentalists and far left socialists (often the same people) want us to adopt policies that will remake successful nations in the image of the broken shard of a country that is Venezuela, more rational individuals know that the elimination of racism and other evils that plague humanity requires development, opportunity and wealth for all.

Simon there are a lot of eminent scientists who do the correct job of science, even on this quasi religious topic of anthropogenically caused climate change (CO2) by questioning the science. Here are only a small number but if you want you can find increasing numbers of them. BTW if you dig into the John Cook ‘research’ you will find his methods, process and his conclusions false. He’s the guy who claimed 97% of scientists agree that catastrophic climate change is anthrop. caused.

So here are some names of those who question the claims of A.C.G.W.: Dr Judith Curry, Prof. Freeman Dyson,Dr. Ivar Giaever, Prof.Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Richard Bellamy, Piers Corbyn,Prof. Steve Koonin, Prof.Nils-Axel Mörner gas turbine, Dr Garth Paltridge…I haven’t time to do more. But 31,484 scientists signed the Oregon Petition (see here: http://www.petitionproject.org) If you are really interested in science and the preservation of intelligent inquiry go do some reading. Nothing in science is 100% certain except that there is evidence indicating a repeatable predictable outcome. If someone says it is 100% certain then they haven’t looked at all the evidence. Climate is incredibly complex and no-one has the full measure of its processes. Why are birds dropping from the sky in huge numbers, why mass fish die offs, why are seals and whales getting sunburned, why are transformers spontaneously exploding, why has the northernmost jet stream split, why are plasma events increasing,why gas smoker ribs are glaciers now growing, why is the sun quiet, why is there so much flooding, why are clouds nucleating, why is the magnetosphere weakening, why are the magnetic poles moving so erratically, why why why? So many questions unanswerable by current scientific understanding. It is not tin foil hat-ism to question, it is man’s nature to be curious enough to ask. It is the empirical process. In reply to the article conflating the murderer with climate denialists well, it is a disgrace, a proof of the work of propagandists so dominant in the media these days.

There is no generally accepted definition of “indigenous peoples”. In Australia it is generally taken to mean Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. However, I have heard that it can also include those whose ancestors bones are buried in Australia. This can, of course, include most of the population of Australia, whose parents are dead and buried in Australia. Including, for example, Andrew Bolt, whose parents – of Dutch origin, are buried here.

The Aborigines became British subjects by virtue of the annexation of Australia – “Cook wrote that he formally took possession of the east coast of New Holland on 21/22 August 1770 when on Possession Island off the west coast of Cape York Peninsula gas vs electric water heater.[102] He noted in his journal that he could “land no more upon this Eastern coast of New Holland, and on the Western side I can make no new discovery the honour of which belongs to the Dutch Navigators and as such they may lay Claim to it as their property [italicised words crossed electricity word search puzzle out in the original] but the Eastern Coast from the Latitude of 38 South down to this place I am confident was never seen or viseted by any European before us and therefore by the same Rule belongs to great Brittan [italicised words crossed out in the original]. Wikipaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia

At that time all aborigines became British subjects – but this was only given effect by the opening of the settlement in New South Wales (a country can annex a territory but this must be given effect by landing and maintaining a population thereon.) For this reason the French annexation of Western Australia lapsed. Wikipaedia again: “In 1772, a French expedition led by Louis Aleno de St Aloüarn, became the first Europeans to formally claim sovereignty over the west coast of Australia, but no attempt was made to follow this with colonisation.”