Skip to content
June 19, 2017 | 30 Comments

To Put America First Is To Put Our Planet’s Climate First — With Critical Updates

Global warming increasing pleasant afternoons!

Breitbart: To Put America First Is to Put Our Planet’s Climate First.

On June 2, 2017, in a Letter regarding US withdrawal from Paris climate agreement addressed to the MIT community, Professor Rafael Reif, president of MIT, criticized President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Climate Accords. In this refutation, we propose to clarify the scientific understanding of the Earth’s climate and to dispel the expensively fostered popular delusion that man-made global warming will be dangerous and that, therefore, the Paris Agreement would be beneficial.

Professor Reif wrote, “Yesterday, the White House took the position that the Paris climate agreement — a landmark effort to combat global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions — was a bad deal for America.”

There is no science unambiguously establishing that CO2 is the chief cause of the warming observed since the end of the Little Ice Age. The opposite has been repeatedly demonstrated. Ice cores have revealed that changes in CO2 concentration follow, rather than precede, changes in temperature. During the last deglaciation, the latest high-resolution records show atmospheric CO2 lagging temperature by 50 to 500 years. Our enterprises and industries return to the air some of the CO2 that was formerly present there, and some warming may be expected. That warming will be small and beneficial.

Professor Humlum and colleagues have demonstrated that changes in CO2 concentration follow changes in temperature after about 8-11 months. The time-lag between changes in temperature and consequent changes in CO2 concentration are caused by outgassing of CO2 from the oceans when they warm and uptake by the oceans as they cool. In addition, the growth rate of the atmospheric CO2 has been slowing recently, linked to an enhanced terrestrial biosphere uptake. Our contribution to atmospheric CO2 adds to the effect of these fluctuations, but it does not add much. One of us (Harde 2017) has reached similar conclusions.

Professor Reif’s assertion that global temperatures can be regulated by an international agreement to atone for our sins of emission is, therefore, at odds with scientific knowledge regarding cause and effect. King Canute’s warning to his English courtiers in 1032 A.D. that even the divinely anointed monarch could not command sea level should be heeded by bombastic intergovernmental agencies a millennium later. The professor’s assertion is, moreover, logically invalid, since the Paris agreement permits China and India to industrialize without limit on their emissions.


The climate is changing even as we speak! Click before it’s too late!


One of us (Marko) showed Reif the linked piece in advance. One of his functionaries, Maria T. Zuber, Vice President for Research, E.A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics, responded. Here is her response.

Dear Dr. Markó

President Reif has received your communication regarding his June 2 letter to the MIT community and he has asked me to respond.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its 2014 synthesis report, wrote:

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

This is a view shared by scientific academies and professional societies around the world. For example, a statement issued by the Royal Society and member institutions included this text:

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the climate is warming and that human activity is largely responsible for this change through emissions of greenhouse gases.

Based on the hundreds of conversations that I have had with faculty, students, alumni, and researchers, these statements reflect the consensus view within the MIT community — a consensus grounded in the compelling body of scientific evidence regarding anthropogenic climate change. For example, 22 faculty members from MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences recently wrote:

The risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by climate scientists to be real ones. These include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts, all with serious consequences for mankind.

In summary, we have found strong consensus within the MIT community that the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change is compelling; that the risks posed by climate change warrant global action; and that the Paris Agreement represents an important step toward greater global cooperation in responding to this challenge.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views with President Reif.

Maria Zuber


The esteemed and well known Viscount Monckton of Brenchley prepared the following response to President Reif.

Dear Professor Reif,

I see from your reply to Professor Marko on the climate question that MIT, like so many academic institutions captivated by totalitarianism, no longer does science by the scientific method but solely by reference to the Party Line, which you have rebranded as “consensus”.

You were given the plainest of evidence (Legates et al., 2013) that, in the peer-reviewed literature where the rest of us do science, the express support for IPCC’s Party Line to the effect that it is near-certain that recent warming was mostly manmade is of order 0.3%. That evidence might have given a rational observer cause to question whether IPCC, whose duty is fairly to reflect the peer-reviewed literature, is doing its job when it asserts, to a spurious 95% “confidence”, that recent warming is mostly manmade.

You say that “scientific academies and professional societies around the world” share the viewpoint of IPCC, cited by you with enthusiastic approval. The evidence (Legates et al., op. cit., as well as the growing discrepancy between predicted and observed warming) might have given a rational observer cause to ask whether those knowledge workers’ unions were advancing science or their members’ cash interests.

You say, on the basis of “hundreds of conversations…with faculty, students, alumni and researchers”, that the Party Line (sorry, “consensus”) is “grounded in the compelling body of scientific evidence regarding anthropogenic climate change”. Let us narrow the issue to just one aspect of the official science.

There is a natural greenhouse effect, which drives the difference of 33 K between the mean emission temperature of the Earth (255 K) and the mean surface temperature (288 K). That greenhouse effect comprises partly the consequence of forcings and partly the consequence of feedbacks. Assume ad argumentum (and per impossibile) that the 33 K natural greenhouse effect comprises entirely feedbacks.

You will agree, I think, that the feedbacks acting on today’s climate (before any perturbation by us) cannot by any stretch of the imagination exceed the entire natural greenhouse effect, for otherwise they would be by some magical process materially influencing the Sun itself. Accordingly, elementary feedback theory stipulates that the feedback fraction f, which is the fraction of today’s 288 K surface temperature that is fed back, cannot exceed 33/288, or 0.11, and it is most unlikely to be this large.

IPCC, however, says reference warming ΔTs in response to doubled CO2 before feedbacks will be 1.2 K, but that equilibrium warming ΔT after feedbacks will fall on [1.5, 4.5] K, implying that its feedback fraction f = (1 – ΔTs/ΔT) will fall on [0.23, 0.74]. But that interval is between twice and seven times the absolute maximum possible value of f, and two orders of magnitude greater than any realistic value.

The above three paragraphs constitute a complete, formal demonstration by contradiction that the “consensus” interval of equilibrium sensitivities to which you and MIT and IPCC so profitably cling must be a monstrous overstatement. If so, IPCC’s conclusion and yours, defying all but 0.3% of the peer-reviewed literature, that recent warming was almost certainly mostly manmade is manifestly insupportable.

Yours sincerely,

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Important note

Yours truly received a total compensation of all and any consideration for this work $0.00. In cash.

June 18, 2017 | 25 Comments

Items In Our Ongoing Civil War

Because of certain events, we interrupt the regularly scheduled broadcast (Summa Contra Gentiles) to bring you news of the latest in the civil war in the once United States of America. Not talking about won’t make it go away.

Item: The combatants are the Reals and Progs. The Reals hold with Tradition in the metaphysic of Realism, with all its implied limits, strictures, and glories. Their flag is red. The Progs hold with Will in the metaphysic of Nominalism and say what is true is what is asserted and what feels good. Their flags are blue or a rainbow.

As with all wars, most citizens are not combatants in any active sense.

A common error is assuming the battle is between Republicans and Democrats. Nearly all, but not all, of official (active) Democrats are Progs, while only a majority of official Republicans are Progs. Unofficial members of these political parties may fall into either camp or are non-combatants.

The war is of long standing (well over a century in existence), and is usually a cold war, as the Progs, who have been consistent winners and are the majority in positions of power, have been content with small victories since the last major hot war. But lately the Reals have begin to rebel, which riles the Progs. Regular skirmishes are now routine. Even though all are not combatants, depending on how hot the war becomes, choices may be forced upon many. Like all civil wars, it’s father against son, father-pretending-to-be-mother against daughter, and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse.

It is also understood that among Progs and Reals there is great variance. Not every Prog thinks his will supreme, and not every Real has a solid grasp of reality. These variances are tolerated, and even encouraged when the war grows cold. But they will wane and even disappear as it heats up. It will be of interest to predict exactly what official stances are decided in both camps if the war becomes hot (e.g. this).

Item: About those stances, the above video, in which we find terms like “eliminate” and “f*** you and f*** the police”, is not a clash between Reals and Progs. This is strictly an internal conflict among self-identified Progs. The hard liners of the Progs are winning, in spite of the liberal members having all rightful authority on their side. This proves the old saying that all crises are spiritual. Do note the point in the middle where one Prog mentions threats they received from outside Reals. These are likely genuine, but what is surprising is the Prog was surprised to receive these threats. This is a affronted reaction we expect in a person in a position of power.

Item: Adopting tactics taught and used by Progs on their training grounds, two Reals ran upon the stage in New York’s Central Park where the nightly mock-bloody execution of President Trump was occurring (the play satisfies the blood lust of the Progs). The Reals did not stop the play from continuing. The incident is significant because this is the first and most public act by Reals nowhere near a training ground.

As proof that most Republicans are Progs, we have a prominent one who said of the incident, “Anyone on the ‘right’ who defends the BS that went down at the play tonight is showing themselves to be tribalist, not conservative.” That, Mr French, is rather the point. Here’s another example.

Item: Not to be outdone, Progs did the same thing at a St Louis symphony orchestra concert, hanging flags commemorating deceased Prog Michael Brown (Brown, a thief, tried to grab the gun of a cop and was subsequently shot). It’s unclear, but the number of Prog flag-hangers were more than two.

Item: Prog Chelsey Gentry-Tipton, an official in Nebraska and member of its “black caucus”, reacting to the Prog attack mentioned next, said “Watching the congressman crying on live tv abt the trauma they experienced. Y is this so funny tho?” When told her words passed from cold to hot, she said she refused to resign from her official position.

Being black, Gentry-Tipton has a lot of weight with Progs, so it will be of interest if she can be forced to resign without screeching “Racism!”, a tailsmanic word among Progs. If she is forced to resign, the civil war is not as far advanced as some fear. If she stays, and given she said she was “having a hard time feeling bad for” the Reals who were shot, the war is more advanced.

Item: A Prog opened fire on a baseball diamond last week, with the intent of killing as many Reals (or whom the shooter took to be Reals) as he could. This was previously discussed.

Item: There have been a spate of openly violent confrontations with Progs and Reals, mostly centered around Prog training grounds. These have been spreading, however. Many are minor, like the MAGA flag (a Real proxy) shot at (note the shooter).

One site has compiled a list. Most attacks by far are Prog on Real. This is not unexpected for many reasons, the least of which that there are simply many more active Progs. Progs, of course, have their own list; and though it is generously padded (“anti-Muslim bias”, “anti-Semitic”, etc., without including attacks by Muslims or subtracting faked ‘hate’ crimes, which is an even larger list) some items are nonetheless genuine. It is of major interest that the Prog article did not write “the majority of ‘hate crimes’ were perpetrated by non-whites” and instead wrote, “Of all the hate crimes carried out that year, over 48 percent were committed by whites.”

Item: The race war is immensely complicated, with the Progs forcing the Reals to make it more open. On Prog training grounds, many white Progs will ritually declare “I am a racist (All whites are racist).” But this doesn’t go over well in Real country. There can be no common ground on this question if it is pushed to its limits.

Item: Progs have begun removing statues and other reminders of past Reals (or said-to-be Reals), most notably from New Orleans, not being able to bear the reminder they had (at one time) important enemies. The old enemies are branded “racists”, from which (as the above video shows) there is no defense.

Item: That Taliban-like vanishing statuary accounts for the imagery in the poster for the “Unite the Right” event, which is deliberately provocative—and proof of the choices that are being made. This event, which takes place 12 August, will be written about separately. But here, the intentionally incendiary nature of this meeting will in Progs confirm all their worst fears, and will likely induce in some of their members actions which will, in turn, provoke the Reals. Et cetera.

Thiw is, after all, what makes a civil war.

Item: For those of either camp interested in home defense, I suggest this informative and enjoyable video. Many Progs are of course armed, but most denounce arms ownership, content (as the majority) with being protected by armed Prog servants. Reals are much more likely to have more than one personal weapon, which makes Progs all too nervous.

June 17, 2017 | 11 Comments

Trump’s Election Causing Disease!

Warning: viewing this image might cause you to have a disease.

Update The links below are now working! Sorry for the screw up.

Stream: Trump’s Election Causing Disease!

A writer for the Washington Post who won the same journalism prize as did the infamous liar Walter Duranty thinks if you support Donald Trump you suffer from a “reality discernment malfunction“.

She suggests you might have “been ingesting mushrooms plucked from bull dung” or “Drinking water spiked with credulity-enhancing chemicals” and that you are one of Trump’s “starry-eyed minions.”

This same woman quotes approvingly from devout Catholic Walker Percy but pronounces herself frozen in fear of religion because “Reince Priebus said it was a ‘blessing’ to serve the president”.

And then she tells us of the upcoming book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump which is written by “More than two dozen top psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental-health experts.”

This award-winning writer says these top psychiatric minds “don’t diagnose Trump, which ethically they can’t do without examining the patient”. But then they go ahead and diagnose him as a “complex, if dangerously mad, man”. These mental health experts also diagnose that Trump’s “mental illness is affecting the nation’s mental health as well.”

Two other mental health professionals from Harvard agree with this grim (non) diagnosis.

Writing in the in the New England Journal of Medicine, David R. Williams and Morgan M. Medlock’s “Health Effects of Dramatic Societal Events — Ramifications of the Recent Presidential Election” tells the tale of a nation near its bitter end all because of Trump’s election.

All manner of mental horrors might be wreaked on a sensitive nation, they warn. Like “increased racial hostility”.

How do they know? Williams and Medlock discovered some blacks “whose ancestors have been in the United States for centuries expressed concerns about a return to slavery or being sent back to Africa.”
President Trump has, so far, mentioned nothing about this. But keep your ears tuned to CNN just in case.

The Harvard pair did discover that “Democrats were more likely than Republicans…to report that the outcome of the 2016 presidential election was a significant source of stress.” Who knew?

We also have to watch for “community-level prejudice”. A study Williams and Medlock noticed discovered “an elevated risk of death from heart disease among both black and white residents of high-prejudice counties”.


If you still have the strength, click on over to see the good news at the bottom.

June 16, 2017 | 18 Comments

I Applied To Make Our Planet Great Again

In need of a job and having a fondness for cheese, wine and pétanque, and knowing the difference between gauche et droite, and seeing the sad, pleading, almost tearful look of Président Macron as he begged for American scientists to save France, I knew what my duty was.

I applied to Make Our Planet Great Again.

The call is an extraordinary one. Président Macron was unhappy that President Trump withdrew from the Paris thingeemabob. So he put out the call for American scientists to emigrate.

And he put it out in English!

This may be the most astonishing event in modern diplomatic history. Not the plan to spend government money on an impossible task. That happens daily. No. A sitting French president asked Americans in English to come and show France a better way!

I was so overcome by emotion, that I ran to the site and answered the series of preparatory questions, which you can see below.

After those wisdomy words, I was invited to input my personal details, and then up popped these words:

“I’m a researcher / teacher from United States of America coming to France to fight climate change.”

I was told I would hear back within a few weeks. Undoubtedly, Macron himself will swoon when he sees my words. Thus I am announcing now that I will be moving to France.

Join the la résistance! Fight the nasty climate invaders! Let’s stop forever the climate from changing!