It’s The End Of The World

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

It’s the end of the world. Again. And I still feel fine.

I grew up very at home with the idea that there would be an end of the world, because most of the people around me seemed to think the world would end in two thousand. Which begs the question of why they were working, saving, having children and planning for retirement, etc, less than 30 years away. Never mind. People are weird.

I used to worry about it but grandma told me a very old story of who knows what origin, that after the delluge, G-d had said “Till 2000 you’ll last, and from there you’ll not pass.” And then our lady took a handful of sand and tossed it into the Earth and said “I add these many more.” Theologically, this is not the Judeo Christian G-d, of course. The story had the feel of an old legend, but who knows from where and when. And definitely the year wouldn’t be 2000.

Having tried to count the grains of sand in one of MY — admittedly not adult — handful, I decided there were way more than a thousand grains, and it was my far distant descendants look out.

Having survived the apocalypse, thus, mentally, at 10, I went on to be just jaded.

Most of the stories I read at the time, the authors knew we’d all die in a nuclear exchange. (If you’re not aware of this, it’s time to inform you most of the nuclear panic was fueled by USSR propaganda. Being far behind us in arsenal — if you don’t know that, please do some research — they tried to use what they could do — propaganda — to get us to surrender.) I remember worrying about it for maybe a summer, but it just didn’t seem plausible. Oh, sure, maybe some cities would get hit. But most of the world would just have to do the best they could after. The overblown after effects always felt overblown. Not plausible.

Then at some point I read Paul Ehrlich — the world’s most accomplished false prophet — saying by 1980 we’d have no potable water, or the like. It didn’t hit as hard as it could. Look, by then it was 75? 78? I was worried for a while, and then Dad read it, laughed and pointed out this jerkoff had completely missed the water cycle.

Then there was overpopulation. My fear over that lasted until I was in my thirties, but by then it didn’t ring true. Where were these masses of humanity? Everywhere in the world, including places that claimed otherwise, people were having fewer kids. These endless kids seemed to only exist for the purpose of getting welfare, whether at a country or personal level. Which is one of those things that make you go “um”.

By the time the ice age panic hit, I was uber-jaded. Like, so jaded I realized that the prescription to save us from that was like the prescription to save you from everything else dire was “more socialism.”

(Hums “If the world is ending tomorrow, it’s a scam; If capitalism causes sorrow, it’s a scam; If there is no escape but socialism, it’s a scam; If you can die of individualism, it’s a scam.”)

I read the articles, and then all the anthologies from science fiction, all the stories talking about how we’d all freeze to death in like twenty years, and raised my eyebrow and thought “It’s a scam.”

Because, you see, I had some idea of geological time, and how fast things move in a system as large as Earth. Or how slow.

I mean, if we are to believe things, we got hit with such a large asteroid circa 1500 BC it destroyed civilization such as it was then, but–

But not humanity and not the Earth. And again, why was the solution always “socialism”?

And then suddenly we were all going to burn, unless we were going to freeze because it was so hot, and we had to go full on commies to survive.

There are still idiots, most of them in government and academia, running around with their head on fire about this.

That’s nice. I hope they enjoy their little freak out. And no, I’m not freaking out about nuclear war, either. I don’t believe any of our enemies has an arsenal maintained well enough to be worth the name. Heck, I’m not sure we do.

I’m not convinced that freezing to death while baking or whatever the heck it is today (by people who can’t even predict weather that ALREADY happened) , or even being nuked is worth all that panic. It certainly isn’t worth socialism/communism

Communism — which the Green Nude Heel is — well, that is for real and absolutely deadly. I enjoin you to reach The Black Book of Communism, if you don’t believe me.

To quote Shakespeare, we all owe G-d a death. But I’d like to leave the world in a shape that my grand kids (at this point all adopted) can write their own stories.

Warming/cooling/nuclear war, anything short of a crash big enough to wipe out the biosphere, and that’s not something we’d do, there’s a chance we’d survive all “ends of the world.”

I mean, the world ends a little with each generation. But a new one is born. Sometimes the birth pangs are more intense and a lot of people die, that’s all. (I’m looking at the Black Death here.)

But socialism/communism? Those kill. Fast or slow, they kill. And they destroy civilization from within.

Cataclysm move at such a pace all humans can survive and adapt.

Any “cataclysm” that can only be cured by more socialism and communism and government control?

It’s a scam.

And we’re not at home to scams.

We’ve survived enough ends of the world to laugh in the face of them.

Let free humans face whatever comes. If it needs socialism? It’s a scam. A stupid one.

351 thoughts on “It’s The End Of The World”

  2. I’ve said the following before and I’ll say it again.

    In my 65+ lifetime, I’ve “We’re Doomed” plenty of times and we’re still here.

    So why should I believe the current “We’re Doomed” garbage? :mad:

    Liked by 2 people

      1. At which point I freely admit my response might be “oops”. Maybe. Since there is 0 chance they’ll be right, based on their “the sky is falling” screams (didn’t they ever read Chicken Little?)

        Don’t get me wrong. We needed to stop spewing visible particulates into our air. We needed to stop spewing raw sewage in to our rivers. Dumping garbage into the ocean is wrong. New industries have sprung up to address these issues. I’ve seen the progress. Now a lot of the problems are because people are bypassing passed regulations and dumping toxins. Declaring CO2 levels toxic is ludicrous. How is cutting off what the trees eat good. Trees take CO2, sequester the carbon, and release O2 in to the air. O2 is good.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Tell that to the anaerobic bacteria that thrived in earth’s original atmosphere. They weren’t terribly fond of the O2 that spewed into their atmosphere when chlorophyll based plants evolved. The Reader occasionally thinks we should round up all of the ‘climate change’ crazies and put them in a dome with that original atmosphere. After all, it is what they claim they want – no ‘climate change’ on the planet. Right?

          Liked by 1 person

        2. “Declaring CO2 levels toxic is ludicrous.”

          Especially since they’re at levels where if they drop much further they’ll be at the point where our current plant biology WON’T FUNCTION.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Especially since they’re at levels where if they drop much further they’ll be at the point where our current plant biology WON’T FUNCTION.
            …………

            Didn’t know levels were getting that bad. Wouldn’t surprise me. Might explain why Spruce and Douglas Firs are exhibiting stress. Sure blame it on the beetles. But beetles wouldn’t be so bad if the trees weren’t stressed. Nothing new. But not pretty either. (JIC some of this is sarcasm.)

            Liked by 1 person

          2. If they drop much below where they were during the peak of recent ice ages, then plant biology ceases to function. We’re at over twice that level. We’ve probably emitted enough CO2 to prevent the next ice age, which is a Good Thing.

            That’s right, fossil fuel use has likely prevented some serious climate change.

            But at some point continued fossil fuel emissions might do a good deal more than offset the scheduled cooling. When permafrost starts thawing enough to start belching methane bigly, then you will know we are at the point where serious measures are in order.

            Or, we could just build more nuclear power plants and replace payroll taxes with a carbon tax and let capitalism figure out the rest.

            Like

              1. IIRC there’s some suspicion now that CO2 lags temperature because of data tracing the dissolved CO2 in the oceans.

                I agree on nuclear power, however. Just not for vehicles. Or being 100% electric for domestic use – natural gas is more efficient for some things. Like cooking.

                Like

                2. It’s a potential positive feedback loop. Warmer oceans release CO2. More CO2 warms the air. This is one basis for the major fearmongering.

                  We can safely write this one off for at least small perturbations.

                  Like

                    2. The operative word is, “potential.” Oh, no, it might happen, so we can’t take the chance!
                      That drove so much covidiocy, too. X “might” help, so do it no matter the cost, “Y” might harm, so don’t do it, even if the benefits obviously outweigh any possible cost.

                      Like

                    3. “We’re afraid [x] might happen, therefore everybody must do [j]!!”

                      “How, exactly, is [j] supposed to prevent [x]?”

                      “You’re not allowed to ask that! We’re the Experts!”

                      Sounds uncannily like the arguments for ‘Red-Flag’ laws if you ask me. “She’s got a gun! I’m afraid she might go berserk and shoot me! WAAAAAAH! Take it away from her!”

                      Liked by 1 person

              2. I saw some data about the frost line creeping south, and the winters in the south MAY be seeing more snow. It’s hard to tell since we have no good data beyond about fifty years. And much of that data has been skewed in the last few years by placement of their temperature stations. Where Stations used to be in rural or near urban areas, they are now in urban hot zones. Where they are getting higher temps by being near paved surfaces. One I saw in an article had shown unusual sudden warmth, they figured out a glass building was reflecting the sunlight right at it. It is also why they had the cooling happening mostly at night mistake. Concrete and blacktop will hold heat in longer than a grass field so their poorly placed stations were reflecting that warming at night from concrete.

                Like

              3. ‘the caron cycle’? Does that have anything to do with the actress Leslie Caron? She was good in ‘Father Goose’. :-D

                I must say, the predictions of their climate models for 2023 bear little resemblance to the actual climate we’re experiencing here in the real 2023. San Diego just had the coolest, wettest April I’ve seen in quite a while. This is May, and it’s supposed to rain again tomorrow and be cool all week.

                I remember the Great Texas Freeze two years ago, whether the Climate Alarmists want me to or not. I remember the dozen or so Climate Catastrophe!!’s that never happened. You’d think after that much squawking over nothing, people would stop listening to the Climate Chicken Littles, but no.
                ———————————
                There are forms of stupidity that businesses can’t indulge in. There are no such limitations on the stupidity of government.

                Like

            2. Nope, I don’t believe it. There is no proof that human activity has any impact on the planet’s protective covering. Bjorn Lomborg notwithstanding.

              And, increased CO2 means we can green the deserts, too. More CO2 makes it easier.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. No reason to think any of the human factor arguments were measured correctly or built correctly or tested correctly.

              The basic issue that we know that some of the local patterns with periodicity are necessarily a result of the configuration of the continents. If these smaller flows are what the total flow is made out of, then tectonics will be certain to have provided different continental ‘state spaces’ at any point significantly back in history.

              This provides the inference that if these situations were very fragile/unstable, then there would have already been instances of doom escalation.

              Fundamentally, the doom escalation heating model has the issue that there is a very strong effect that would tend to limit max temperature. That is that the radiant heating from the earth is a function of T^4.

              It is perhaps more likely that major variations are driven by variability of the sun.

              As for the human factors case, there is very little reason to be confident in that conclusion from anyone. These models are in theory based in physics of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. Fluid mechanics is a particularly screwy area of physics. Even with a good and appropriate numerical solver, there is little reason to be confident in results before you can experimentally verify. The modeling methodology of the climate scientists is a bit too prone to bespoke tailoring. There is no reason to think that they have particularly good solvers. Also, the atmosphere is a spherical shell with the fluid loaded with a radial body force due to gravity. This makes experimental verification of any numerical model extremely difficult.

              The results of Climate Science bend in the direction of mass murder. This implies that they merit the strict scrutiny that all arguments for mass murder merit. IE, ‘No, we do not know what the Earth’s temperature is now’, and ‘shoot the climate scientists first, and see if their replacements give the same answer’.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I mean, I want Fabios to answer:
                What is your solution to China and India? Invasion and mass murder?
                If not, you’re not serious about the climate. If yes, you need to rethink your morals.
                Humans adapt and have adapted to all sorts of climate. For whom are you saving the Earth? The Earth went through 5 extinctions before there were humans. Do you think it wouldn’t do that again?
                Your thought is fuzzy and faith-centric. If that’s what you want join an evangelical faith and go shout earnestly through people’s letter-flaps.

                Like

                1. I will write slower for the hard of thinking.

                  The Left did not invent the global warming issue. They jumped on it roughly 80 years after it was brought up by scientists. Believers in global warming included the not very communist John von Neumann and Jerry Pournelle. Pournelle wrote on the subject in Galaxy magazine in the early 70s. At the time he thought human induced warming was offsetting a looming ice age. But he also thought we would run out of fossil fuels before we could do more than offset said ice age. (It’s in the link I posted earlier.)

                  To say that the Left has been Crying Wolf is a grave understatement. It’s more like the Left has recorded an album of William Shatner screaming “Wooooooolf!!” with background music by L. Ron Hubbard, and has used that album to replace the national anthem at all public events and school openings.

                  But remember how that story ended: the Wolf finally came.

                  Regarding China and India. You are correct. And you would be correct in writing off the utterly stupid proposals that the Democrats are pushing to fight global warming. The proposals are so stupid that even Michael Moore realizes it; he executive produced a movie debunking green energy.

                  The Right can steal the issue. The Woke Left is not green. Letting crime run rampant increases sprawl and commuting distances. Duh. Crime friendly and bike friendly don’t mix. And Critical Race Theory is a great recipe to increased White Flight.

                  I don’t like electric cars save perhaps for predictable commutes — even if we had cheap batteries which didn’t use too much rare minerals. Too much dependence on the grid. Too long to charge.

                  But if you have electricity, you can make hydrogen. And if you have hydrogen you can make methanol. Not the most efficient process, but you can power conventional automobiles with methanol. Indy cars were running on methanol in the 1970s.

                  Dial back the nuclear regulations a notch and you have gobs of clean electricity to both power the grid and make methanol. Develop a good thorium breeder reactor and you have a solution for India and China . (Actually India or China will probably figure this out on their own.)

                  Solar energy is probably the better alternative for politically unstable areas. Many of these are sunny areas.

                  Like

                  1. I will write in small words for the science and reasoning impaired:
                    Shout louder doesn’t PROVE your point.
                    There is no global warming created by men. There might be global cooling, because cycle.
                    Don’t be an idiot. People here aren’t.
                    Nothing to do with partisan.
                    LOUSY “science.”
                    Don’t be an idiot.
                    Stop trying to kill population of Earth and bring on socialism.
                    Doesn’t help anyone. And scam is not science.

                    Like

                  2. I will write slower for the hard of thinking.

                    :falls over laughing:

                    Dude, not only is that lame, but it does nothing to actually support your argument.

                    Try again, with something besides fallacies.

                    Or is that not in the guide book?

                    Like

                  3. I stopped reading at “I will write slower”. As Glenn Reynolds sometimes says, “Sod off, Swampy.”

                    Liked by 1 person

                  4. Also, you need to learn to read.

                    You misunderstood the quote from Jerry.

                    Another doom, the rising levels of carbon dioxide which convert our planet into a sterile hothouse, falls to quantitative analysis: it’s true enough that the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere have risen since 1900, but not so sharply as all that; and before they can get to a point where they do any real damage, we’ll have run out of fossil fuels to burn. It’s true we should concern ourselves with the climatic future of the planet — there’s evidence that we’d be in one now, if it were not for all the fuels we’ve burned and the heat we’ve introduced. But that too is something we can deal with, provided we don’t lose faith in ourselves.

                    I will translate it for you.

                    “They say we should be terrified about global warming because there’s rising CO2 which will burn us to death. While yes, there’s higher CO2, it’s not that sharp, and there is not enough fossil fuel in existence for us to make the levels that high. We do need to worry about climate, there’s evidence we might be preventing an ice age. But we can deal with an ice age, too, if we’re not deliberately stupid.”

                    That is quite far from “a believer in global warming.”

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. And dear Lord. I didn’t even read far enough in snowflake’s screed. DUDE BRO, I was a friend of Jerry’s. I discussed this stuff with him. He’d laugh you out of the room.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. “We do need to worry about climate, there’s evidence we might be preventing an ice age. ”

                      And Dr Pournelle knew enough damn history to recognize that ice ages are far more deadly than hot spells. Fabius needs to go back to whatever school granted him a degree and demand a refund.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. I’d be mildly startled if the whole article– rather than a carefully selected and misrepresented quote– didn’t mention the whole “CO2 gets too low, plants dead, we dead” thing.

                      Like

                    7. Pournelle’s position was similar to the Lukewarm School of today. The Lukewarm School accepts the first order forcing effects and notes that we have a long time before it gets truly serious. We have quite a few decades before the wolf comes, as it were.

                      I mostly agree with this position, but admit the possibility of some positive feedback forcing at some point. We won’t know exactly when until we do the experiment.

                      If I can avoid the experiment cheaply, then I’m for doing that. Restarting research on breeder reactors — research which was ended by Jimmy Carter — strikes me as rather cheap as government projects go. Potential ROI is huge.

                      Breaking up cities into multiple urban villages with multiple centers would reduce commuting and have quite a few other benefits. And you cannot have your bike friendly latte communities without law and order.

                      Being rationally preemptive prevents panic by two mechanisms:
                      1. It eliminates the future need for emergency measures
                      2. it gives Republicans something to run on in West Coast states and college towns in order to stave off premature panic.

                      I hate government emergency measures.

                      Like

                    8. You’ve repeatedly lied, you got CAUGHT misrepresenting a late friend of the blog, you have been substituting abuse for rational argument–

                      Fuzzy’s right.

                      Sod off, Swampy.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    9. I was referring to Pournelle’s Galaxy Magazine article. I never claimed to represent his subsequent positions.

                      Like

                    13. No. I was serious. I read “A Step Farther Out” back in high school — 1981. I’m looking at four feet of shelf space of Pournelle books when I peek over my monitor. I’m a fan.

                      However, I did not keep up with his immense blog. WAY too much content.

                      It was a recurring theme of his published works that the way to fix environmental problems was with better tech. I agree with that sentiment. The planet’s population has grown too high to run on “soft tech” without screwing up the environment. And maybe, just maybe, that includes fossil fuels. Maybe. Maybe we can go another century burning coal and oil without problem, but those who are frightened by that prospect have a point. There is substantial risk.

                      Fusion continues to be just around the corner. I’m leery of Pournelle’s orbiting solar platforms. Not convinced that sending gigawatts of energy down to Earth using microwaves is safe. Ergo, fission for now, and research for fusion and high efficiency solar.

                      If I was god-emperor, I’d stick with the research and continue with the fossil fuels. In the real world I’m faced with a major majority of the cognitive elite who want to act now and they are willing to side with batshit crazy woketards if that’s what it takes. Given that situation I’m for proceeding with fission.

                      Like

                    14. No. I was serious. I

                      Alright, if you insist, idiot.

                      Happy, now?

                      Throwing up more chaff isn’t going to distract from you first trying to hijack Jerry:

                      <ahref=”https://accordingtohoyt.com/2023/05/01/its-the-end-of-the-world/#comment-916786″>Believers in global warming included the not very communist John von Neumann and Jerry Pournelle.

                      And then when solidly shown that you’d murdered a quote and misrepresented the man, claiming you’d never tried to represent his positions.

                      Maybe you really are dumb enough to think that writing slower will make it easier for people to understand….

                      Liked by 1 person

                    16. She has probably had more practice in public relations.

                      … dang, there really is no way to talk about a politician with that history and NOT sound like a double intender, is there?

                      Liked by 1 person

                  5. I will write slowly for you (and consolidate all replies here instead of piecemeal shotgunning all over the comments).
                    If. You. Accumulate. All. Human. Effect. On. The. Weather. Throught. History. And. Consolidate. It. Into. One. Event. It. Is. Still. Less. Effect. Than. One. Eruption. Of. Mount. Pinatubo.
                    Yes. If anthropogenic global climate change, whether warming, cooling, or turning purple and dancing the Tarantula while singing Weird Al’s “Couch Potato,” was real? It would be a tiny pimple of effect as compared to the massive leprosy that Earth, “mother gaia,” inflicts upon herself with regularity.
                    One single lightning-caused forest fire, inflicted by Gaia upon Gaia, can put more carbon and soot into the atmosphere than Hong Kong will in a decade. And there are usually dozens of them, every year, that burn unchecked through the vast wooded empty wildernesses of Alaska, Canada, and Russia.
                    A Krakatoa level eruption can cause global cooling by a tiny but measurable percentage of a degree.
                    An eruption like the Indonesian island that blew itself apart two or three years ago (I can’t remember the name, something odd) DID alter weather patterns. Barely.
                    Those eruptions put enough pollutants into the air to make China, India, all of Africa, and any and every other Third World nation blush in shame that, even combined, they cannot even reach half of the destruction of Mother Earth’s air in a year that she can do to herself in a day.
                    Forget nuclear winter from World War Three. Volcanic Winter is far stronger, and longer lasting than anything we can do.
                    And solar weather and cycles have a far greater effect on our climate than even volcanoes.
                    If you believe in anthropogenic climate change, you are a fool. And an ignorant fool to boot, who is proud of his ignorance and proclaiming it to be educated intelligence.

                    For the record, hydrogen power sounds good, but it’s explosive – literally. Nuclear would be excellent, but the Greenies keep killing it off, sometimes literally when it comes to terrorist ecomovements. I would have no issues whatsoever with small scale nuclear reactors, one per household, if we could get the Greenies out of the way.

                    But get it out of your head, this notion that we can somehow alter the Earth’s climate worse and more drastically than it can do to itself from within, or the sun can inflict from without.

                    Liked by 2 people

                  6. Believers in global warming included the not very communist John von Neumann and Jerry Pournelle. Pournelle wrote on the subject in Galaxy magazine in the early 70s.

                    If you’re going that, I expect to you to:

                    Explain CO2 forcing (the relevant theory behind that thinking) including the principal greenhouse gas in that theory (hint, it isn’t CO2).
                    How modern observations no longer support CO2 forcing.

                    Then you can lecture me by write slower for the hard of thinking.

                    If you can’t do that, a 500-word essay on “I should assume I know more than anybody about anything” along with a supplemental 500-word essay on “Why Miss Manners, Emily Post, Cherlynn Conetsco, and Anna Hart would find my approach so rude for a guest to be expelled from civil society” will be appropriate.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  8. Here is, from his own website, what Dr. Pournelle thought:

                    https://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/global.html#Warming

                    I will quote his list, folks can go there for context.

                    There are several issues here, all twisted together. Those whose funding depends on the “consensus” that leads to the Kyoto conventions find it expedient to wrap them all together into one issue — Do You Care About Preserving The Earth or Are You a Monster — but that isn’t a very useful thing to do.

                    First issue: is Earth warming? … Yes. Earth is warming.

                    Second issue: is this due to human causes? Not very likely.
                    …

                    Third Issue: is CO2 increasing? Yes. Is it having an effect on Global Warming? Probably, but it’s hard to see because the trend in warming from 1800 is so strong that a small addition from CO2 isn’t easily seen (if at all; there’s some controversy on whether the effect has been observed, but no one seriously contends that it is large yet).
                    …

                    Fourth Issue: is Global Warming likely to continue? Surprisingly, we don’t know.
                    …

                    Fifth Issue: what should we do? Note that this is policy, not science. My recommendation is that we spend as much as we must to obtain an understanding of what’s going on and what we face: should we be preparing for Global Warming or a New Ice Age? Or nothing at all? Clearly the different courses of action are mutually exclusive, and except for the “do nothing” alternative are likely to be expensive.

                    Liked by 1 person

                  9. Funny how all these environmental “crises” call for the exact same prescription: more government, more authoritarianism, more socialism.

                    Yet take any “environmental doom” treatise from the 70s or 80s and compare their predictions to what actually happened. Why does nobody ever consider how they got things so blatantly wrong?

                    Maybe that should be a cautionary tale suggesting the value of casting a skeptical eye on the latest round of doomsaying.

                    But no, it’s the next round of men with their sandwich signs reading “The End is Near”. This time for sure, of course.

                    Here’s the thing. I am a scientist. It’s literally my day job. And if it can’t be questioned, if it’s immune to criticism, and if you ignore any counter-argumemts or contradictory evidence, then it’s not science.

                    (Apologize for any typos–I’m not great at typing on my phone.)

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Yep. What we have here isn’t science; it’s a sciency-looking doomsday cult run by sociopaths on a scale that would make L. Ron Hubbard blush for shame.

                      Like

                    2. One thing they have completely thrown away is falsifiability:

                      Warmer than normal? Global warming*
                      Colder than normal? Global warming
                      More rain than normal? Global warming
                      Less rain than normal? Global warming.
                      Earthquake? Global warming (really?)
                      Volcano? Global warming (again, really?)
                      Reduced arctic ice coverage? Global warming
                      Increased arctic ice coverage? Global warming
                      Particularly severe hurricane hits New Orleans? Global warming
                      Perfectly ordinary hurricane following a perfectly ordinary track up the eastern seaboard? Global warming.

                      Anything, anything at all, that happens can be attributed to “global warming.” Scientific theories have to be restrictive. There are things that, if the theory is true must happen and other things that cannot happen. That’s how you test theories. And no theory is ever immune from the possibility of falsification. A new observation can come along which (once validated and experimental/observational error eliminated) can throw a monkey wrench into the most well-established theory. But there’s nothing, no observation in the “real world” that the priests of the global warming cult will admit challenges the dogma of global warming.

                      *I use the term “global warming” here even though they’ve changed the labels from time to time–climate change, climate disruption–without any change in the underlying “theory”. As Thomas Sowell is wont to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr: “Think things, not words.” Changing the label, the words, doesn’t change the underlying thing.

                      Liked by 1 person

                  10. Unfortunately, you have fallen into the rather common trap of believing what you were taught in school. For the last 50 years schools have been scaring children with impending Ice Age Global Warming Glacial melting will cause massive coastal flooding Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Climate Catastrophe!
                    In all that time the climate models have never predicted actual temperature trends. In Science when testing the hypothesis shows negative results you don’t double down on the hypothesis – you follow the data. Maybe you form a new hypothesis consistent with that data. Instead “Climate Science Inc.” keeps doubling down on CO2 as a temperature knob.
                    Ice core data shows throughout thousands of years increasing CO2 levels are always a lagging indicator of temperature increases.
                    The climate continually changes due to a number of factors, the greatest of which is variation in insolation, i.e. the sun’s output.

                    And all that ignores the resource argument. It’s easier & far cheaper to adjust to a changing climate than to try to prevent it – especially when one is not at all sure of how the climate will change.

                    Like

            4. Okay, I just came back to the beginning of your nonsense, and I see where you’re actually arguing from.
              You want a carbon tax.
              Anything and everything you’ve said after this is an attempt to support and justify that.
              You are not arguing from a position of intellectual honesty. In fact, I don’t think I even believe you actually want more nuclear, but that you’re throwing it out there as something we can agree with, to make your laughable tax more palatable in accompaniment.

              Like

                1. Deficit spending is impoverishing the US. FICA taxes are hitting the working class.

                  Replacing labor taxes with excise taxes on coal and oil takes us back towards the system envisioned by the Founding Fathers and away from the system started by Woodrow Wilson.

                  The original Constitution authorizes tariffs and excises, not labor taxes or income taxes.

                  I guess you will next tell me that the Founding Fathers were communists or some such BS.

                  Like

                  1. Oh, yeah? Ask the Euros how they like their VATs. And you want to tax energy? Taxing energy is taxing transportation is taxing food. And then, if the taxes ‘work’ and people start using less energy, the government gets less in energy taxes and has to make up the ‘shortfall’ with — MORE taxes.

                    Don’t believe it? See the impending Kalifornia ‘mileage tax’ enacted to compensate for the ‘loss’ of gasoline taxes caused by electric cars. Do you believe a majority of the people in Kalifornia actually want to pay ‘mileage taxes’? Or is this Yet Another tyrannical imposition by the corrupt politicians that represent only themselves and the tiny minority of union bosses, hedge funds and PAC’s that keep them in office?
                    ———————————
                    A politician is worse than a toilet. They’re both full of shit — but at least you can flush the toilet.

                    Liked by 1 person

              3. Not just a carbon tax. A carbon tax to replace payroll taxes. Now, I’m all for phasing out Social Security taxes, letting people opt out of them at least (so long as we enforce them never receiving ANY SS money whatever) but replacing it willy nilly with a CARBON TAX is just dumb. Talk about your unfunded liabilities.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Replace payroll taxes. Suuuuuure. Augment payroll taxes, more like. “Oh, oops. Turns out we can’t eliminate the payroll taxes because then people will dieeeeeeeee without SS and Medicare help. It’s just a little bit more off the top. For the children.” cue overly-melancholy music and picture of quietly weeping orphan ‘Shopped into lethally-sappy SPCA ad

                  Liked by 1 person

    3. The “dooms” are speeding up. Every month lately, since WuFlu, there’s a new “DOOOOOOOOM!!!!!” in the news. Germs, Middle East War, more germs, Ukraine!!!!!, RussiaRussiaRussia, OH NO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!!!!!, ChinaChinaChina, Immigration, Crime, Spies, more crime, #LetsGoBrandon, men in dresses advertising beer.

      Of all those, the men in dresses on the beer can got the biggest pushback from Normies.

      Which puts things in perspective for me.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Now you’ve reached the age you are, your demise can not be far, happy birthday(ugh)! Happy Birthday!

          Like

    1. Hope this makes your day:

      Bring back the maypole ribbon dancing. Use a tall post on top of a gallows suspending communists. Red white and blue ribbons.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I’ve died so many times since I was born (just after the fall of Saigon, for reference) I lost count.

    Nuclear war (several times), global cooling, global warming, ozone depletion, Peak Oil, expiration of the 1994 AWB without renewal, net neutrality…

    Really, it seems like the only way to not be jaded by all the proclamations of TEOTWAWKI is to live in a cave with no internet connection, no newspaper access, and actively eschew human contact… and I wouldn’t care to bet money on even that being enough. :P

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, I forgot that, even though I mentioned it elsewhere on teh intarwebz when the doomsday prediction subject came up.

        In my defense, though, that wasn’t intended to be an all-inclusive list. ;)

        Like

      2. For what it’s worth, acid rain really did happen (I was just thinking about it on the drive home today, actually). But it turned out to be fairly limited both in scope and effect. IIRC, the main issue that one could point to about it was that much of the rain caused by US pollution ended up falling in Canada. Which I’m sure the Canadians didn’t appreciate to the extent that individual Canadians were even aware of it.

        There’s a reason why it’s not brandished anymore by the watermelons.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. “…fairly limited both in scope and effect.”

          IIRC that was also the case for the infamous dreaded Ozone Hole. I attribute this (the hype) mostly to the “if it bleeds it leads” obsession in the media; gotta get them ratings, y’know.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. I was 12 when the “grandpa, what were trees?” commercial ran during the Reagan/Mondale debate.

      I was insulted even back then.

      I was pursuing a degree in Geology when the AGW scare started up. And the guy who wrote the definitive paper about how tree rings were a poor proxy for paleotemperature, did a study doing exactly that, leveraging the weaknesses he had previously identified (and much more) to create a scary chart for politicians to use. He became wealthy and powerful as a result. (But my professors who pointed out the inconsistencies were purged from the university a few years later.)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Joni Mitchell wrote and performed a lot of great storytelling songs – unfortunately including Big Yellow Taxi which spread the meme of “tree museums” far & wide.

        Those of us living in the midwest (well, technically where I lived was “western reserve”) could see with our own eyes that was hogwash. Apart from the victims of dutch elm disease the trees were doing fine and the countryside kept slowly getting more, not less, forested.

        To me it looks like the Left has used story well in furtherance of its aims, and the youth have been so indoctrinated in the schools by their stories that you can no longer convince most of them with facts. We need to weave the facts into compelling stories to counteract the Left’s stories.

        Like

        1. There are more forest in the PNW now than there was when the pioneers got here. Once the pioneers got here the valleys were no longer burned. So trees have moved in. Big forest fires, which the natives just moved out of the way of, were no longer allowed to burn. Not after the Tillamook, Oxbow, and other big fires. NE forests have been replenished after marginal farmland the pioneers eked out was abandoned or no longer farmed.

          Liked by 2 people

    3. Going back to the ’60s, Rachel [spit] Carson and the “dangers” of DDT. That [redacted] probably got more people killed than Mao and Stalin.

      Don’t forget nuclear winter. The implied “cure” was surrender to the commies. Yawn. I’m not sure of all the reasons why Carl Sagan was known as “Butthead Astronomer”, but that has to be one of them…

      Oh yeah, major illnesses from living by 60 Hz power lines. The high voltage lines were supposedly ultra fatal to be in the neighborhood, but the “victims” never seemed to note any possible effects of weed control in the corridors. Might have been a bit of herbicide over-application at times.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ms. Carson’s poorly researched book did a lot more harm than good. But it had a powerful story and good stories convince people who aren’t skeptical enough to double check stories that sound too good.
        Peak oil never rang true to anyone who looked at the proven oil reserve stats that kept increasing year after year – but a lot of people would rather read dystopian stories rather than look at statistics
        As to EM radiation, the tomatoes in our yard that grew best were the ones at the base of my tri-band vertical ham (I got a license at 13) antenna – and the same held true at my “Elmer”‘s home. Who woulda thunk it?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “Peak OIl” as an idea was based on the book Hubbert’s Peak, written by geologist Kenneth Deffeyes. Deffeyes had worked with M. King Hubbert, who in 1956 correctly predicted the peak of U.S. oil production which occurred in 1970 and was not surpassed until about 5 years ago. Hubbert extrapolated from known oil reserves, estimated discoveries, and combined those with the fact that wells produce less over time as the oil is pumped out of the ground. Deffeyes applied the same technique to worldwide oil production. Hubbert’s Peak was published in 2001 and predicted that a peak in world oil production was imminent and irreversible.

          Deffeyes was wrong for a variety of reasons. In particular:

          OPEC was artificially limiting oil production in order to keep the price higher. They were able to increase production if they chose to.
          New discoveries were underestimated. Some of this discrepancy was due to economics. When oil prices are higher there is greater incentive to find more of it. Low prices do not fund exploration.
          Oil companies improved their ability to get oil out of the ground. Again, there is an economic incentive. Drilling a well into a rich oil field and simply pumping it up is not as costly as other alternatives. When prices are high enough more expensive methods become profitable, like fracking. High oil prices fund the development of improved technology. Fracking was known for about 50 years when Hubbert’s Peak was published, but the technology improved afterward. This pushed the relative expense (cost per barrel) downward and made this method economically viable.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I currently reside in Midland, TX in the heart of U.S. oil production territory. A local tourism spot, the Petroleum museum, has one room papered in nothing except reprints of articles and scientific studies claiming the U.S. would be out of oil soon dating back to the late 1800’s and running up to the present day, including USGS studies from the late 1800’s concluding that the U.S. oil supply would be exhausted in ten years.

            Re: our hostess’ main theme, much the same experience. I fully expected to die in an all out thermonuclear exchange by the time I was 30. I weary of Climate Panic (when I tell people about the Ice Age, I’m assured that no one took that seriously, and all I can do is sigh and say “I was there, cupcake”).

            “Note to teens: finish that math homework. Somehow, the world never seems to end before the assignment is due” — P.J. O’Rourke

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I’ve had the same experience, especially from academics in non-climate fields: “No professionals believed that; it was all hype by the media!”

              Citing references to peer-reviewed journal papers by climatologists published in the ’70s has zero effect; they know what they know. I don’t bother any more; climate religion fanatics are immune to logic and facts.

              Like

            1. My view of this is influenced by the fact that I purchased and read Deffeyes’ book 20 years ago. He wasn’t the first to make an attempt at forecasting a peak in oil production, and neither was Hubbert who inspired him. Hubbert did make a correct forecast about US oil, and that might have been the first successful forecast of this type. It also may have been a lucky one, in the sense that nothing happened between 1956 and 1970 to seriously alter any of his assumptions.

              Oil production and price has enormous economic and strategic importance. The decline of US oil production after 1970 and the consequences of that shook things up, and not just in the US. A natural follow-up question would be “When does world oil production peak?”. So far nobody has called that one correctly.

              Like

      2. Let’s not forget the Downwinders. Most of whom lived hundreds of miles upwind from the nuclear testing that so grievously damaged their health.

        There’s very little like somebody living on flood basalts at over 3,000 above sea level ranting about how EEEEVIL nuclear tests and nuclear power are the only sources of radiation.
        Do you even science, bro?

        Like

        1. My mother was one of those Downwinders and died with (not necessarily of) a lymphoma of the kind most associated with nuclear testing.

          Like

          1. It’s certainly possible that there were people legitimately affected.

            I’ve just ever met one. (shrug) There are an awful lot of people who want to claim victimization. (And since it was an area with a lot of background radiation, cancers were significantly more common than baseline.)
            At least they didn’t chop their dicks off.

            (Seriously, we were hundreds of miles to the N-NW. The Wind has never blown that direction in hundreds of thousands of years.)

            Like

            1. She grew up a few hundred miles to the E-SE, during the period when atmospheric testing was being done, and I think she applied for and got some compensation. Not nearly what the cancer treatment cost, or so I was given to understand.

              Like

  6. The Reader has never believed in the left’s endless predictions of doom (he was old enough to laugh at the excuse for modeling and math in The Limits to Growth in 1972). He does believe (and fears) the left working themselves up to ‘hold my beer’ at Communism’s 20th century body count

    Liked by 1 person

  7. We’ve been doomed for as long as I can remember. Also, those who said we were doomed unless we did such and such still haven’t done such and such themselves. Snooze, let me know when they’re done,

    I’ve got my own problems bigger than any doomsayers obsession. I’ve got six inches of water in the basement because the 4 solid days of bloody rain overwhelmed my pump with more bloody rain coming. I don’t think we lost much and anyway it’s only things, but it’s been a very stressful couple of days, what with the banking crisis accelerating and all. What a bunch of stupid, corrupt clowns they all are.

    I feel in my gut that something big is going to break and my gut has a pretty good batting average. I think this is the worst I’ve felt since pre Diamond Princess WuFlu when I didn’t know what was going on. Not doom, doom would be easy. Nope, just the same stupidity over and over. The wife says I’m an in-control freak. I have no interest in controlling anyone else, but I get very stressed when I don’t know what I must do. I have no idea how to play all this other than buckle down and wait. I hate waiting.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. I found it notable that almost every STEM person I know is extraordinarily skeptical about at least one if not more of the “dooms du jour” and several of the proposed solutions (e.g. wind power, masking for wuflu). In most cases all it takes is to actually read the “science” that the doom is based on and do some basic arithmetic. Most of the scientific papers are at best cherry-picking data and misusing statistics if not something more nefarious. For sure even if not intentionally working back from the desired answer to the data the are biased because their entire incentive structure is based on their being a doom story. If they publish a paper saying “global warming, no biggie, never mind” (or whatever the doom story is) they and all their fellows in the field are out of a job

    The majority of doomsters on the other hand are non-scientists who have never learned even arithmetic properly and have no clue of the sense of scale or potential lies with statistics. They are aided in their doom propheizing by grifters who see these things as a way to suck subsidies from the government teat and others who see them as a great way to get power over others.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Worse, if they write a paper saying “global warming, no biggie, never mind”, they won’t get published. One of the things that I remember reading about the East Anglia e-mail leak (remember that?) was discussions about how they were shutting down dissent on the topic of global warming by literally capturing the editorial boards (i.e. the people who choose what to publish) of certain scientific publications. Get one guy on the board, he works to bring in a fellow, and the two of them bring in a third, etc… until they have a majority of the board. Then they move onto the next publication. And once they had enough publications, any other publication that didn’t play ball could be accused of “bad science”, or something similar, and the number of (captured) publications making the accusation would give the accusation weight.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yep. Which is why the skeptical climate science tends to be published in non-major climate science journals – either journals in other fields or more minor open access ones.

        The problem the gatekeepers now face is that the reputation of top journals is fading thanks to the reproducibility challenge and the clear statements of political bias made by editors etc. My expectation is that the general failures of wuflu “science” is going to hit that reputation even harder

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I remember wading through about a hundred of those e-mails. Ugh. Between the conspiracy and the pettiness it pretty much put a stake in the heart of any illusions I might still have had about academia.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. May be selection bias, if the STEM types you hang around are mostly of a subset of STEM types paid to be skeptical about their specialty, they may also tend to be skeptical about other areas.

      I had a bit of an essay attack me earlier today.

      A chunk of the economy makes its bread and butter by being extremely suspicious of this stats data, that mathematical program, and the other technical widget.

      Another chunk of the economy makes its bread and butter by spending time on nothing of the sort.

      Fundamentally, some of the heated disputes have to do with various groups of people with world views shaped by wildly different ‘ways of knowing’.

      Liked by 2 people

    3. This is why I keep saying that there IS no “Science”. There’s Engineering, Speculation, and Superstition. Until you understand a phenomenon well enough to put it to useful work, you’re in the realms of Speculation or Superstition.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Science is the method and process for turning Wild Speculation into Useable Knowledge which can then be applied to Engineering. Without Science you’re stuck with Random Trial And Error — mostly Error.

        Elon Musk is using the methods of Science to improve his rocket designs, to wit:

        1. Experiment — shoot off a rocket

        2. Collect data — even if that just means picking up the pieces

        5. Form a Theory — what went wrong?

        4. Modify the hardware — try to improve the rocket design

        5. Repeat the Experiment — and hope it doesn’t blow up again

        Liked by 1 person

      2. There are three schools of magic. One: State a tautology, then ring the changes on its corollaries; that’s philosophy. Two: Record many facts. Try to see a pattern. Then make a wrong guess at the next fact; that’s science. Three: Awareness that you live in a malevolent universe controlled by Murphy’s Law, sometimes offset in part by Brewster’s Factor: that’s engineering.” Robert Heinlein, The Number of the Beast.

        Liked by 1 person

    4. Equally bad is the expert* in one particular field who believes that because his degree is Piled Higher and Deeper, all the yokels must take his word as an expert on every other field.

      (*) Making the rash assumption that said person actually really does know his purported specialty. I’ve had one or to Hmm encounters in my years.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. And it is interesting the number of kids who seem to have simply vanished from school during the lockdowns. Sure some of them moved, a bunch of them homeschooled, and some more went to private schools, but there’s also a pretty hard to pin down number who seem to have vanished into the ether, almost as though they never were there in the first place…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Gee, just like a whole lot of Democrat voters when the ballots get recounted. I guess they can only be raised from their graves once per election…
      ———————————
      “It’s all of our dead voters! They’ve risen from their graves and they’re pissed!“

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I believe it was Sundance from CTH who was saying that the fraudsters are now generating bogus ballots after the fact to “confirm” the electronic BS numbers.

        Like

    2. My beloved, the accountant, said a lot of kids also vanished into the ether when you had to start listing their social security numbers on your tax return.

      Liked by 2 people

          2. They might have genuinely meant it at the time.

            Subsequent generations of legislators didn’t care.

            Like

          3. I do see the IRS’ point on this one. Start with, “We think a lot of people are claiming imaginary kids to lower their tax bill. How do we prove it?” Well, the kids are supposed to have SSNs, so have the SSNs listed on the return.

            Now you get divorced couples who swap the kids’ SSNs back and forth every year and take turns getting the advantage. And the occasional fight when spouse A claims the kids as dependents when spouse B has kept them all year. (Often discovered when spouse B files her return and it gets rejected because the kids have already been claimed on another return).

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Working in customer service (insurance, in a sense) I got a call from a man who was furious that his children’s vet bills weren’t being paid.

              Yes, vet bills. He had 3 or 4 “children: listed, all with his last name, birth dates and social security numbers. But they’re family…

              I told him not to push it.

              Liked by 1 person

                1. Closest we come to that is my service dog expenses (vet and care) do count on taxes as medical. Which counts as exactly nothing on federal as even with that our total is less than 7% of our gross income. State however, since SS doesn’t count toward income, combined medical did count for 2022, but not before then (mine didn’t count until the year I turned 66). We get audited I do have a medical letter stating a medical alert SD is recommended for the chronic condition. Whether the state auditor accepts that? Who knows? Luckily according to the tax program we use, our odds are < 2%.

                  Liked by 1 person

        2. The same thing that happened to “The top tax bracket will be 1%, and only the wealthiest will pay it.” Also see “We only want equal rights under the law” and “We only want common sense gun control.”

          “Cigarettes are good for you.” Trust the science!

          Liked by 2 people

              1. Correct.

                Mushrooms include varieties which have many wonderful properties when it comes to recreational substance use and harm minimization.

                Amanita phalloides, Amanita abrupta, Amanita verna, Amanita virosa, Cortinarius orellanus, Galerina marginata, and Pholiotina rugosa all show great promise for recreational use.

                Liked by 1 person

                2. On the recreational front, as a general rule of thumb, drinkers get rowdy, weed heads sit and giggle for a couple of hours. Socially, weed smokers -generally- don’t make trouble the way drinkers do. (Generalizations are meant to be general, average run of events, not absolute or exclusive.)

                  Mushroom users are known to do more than sit and giggle. They act pretty weird, usually. I’ve never been excited to try the shrooms. I’m weird enough already, thanks very much.

                  Like

            3. And now Hochul is trying to get tobacco banned in NY State, while pushing weed.

              You just can’t make this…stuff…up.

              Like

                  1. Me too. Still praying for not walking through blood up to my ankles. Sometimes losing hope and becoming despondent.
                    The good people we’ll lose on both sides.
                    (No seriously. A lot of my friends are left because they’re busy, and trust mass media.)

                    Like

                    2. Unfortunately it’s usually the innocent and the clueless who get hurt the worst, one of the main reasons I don’t want to see it start. But some things are even worse.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    5. If it could be kept retail instead of wholesale I wouldn’t object too strongly. My sole objection would be the abandonment of the rule of law, but when that’s effectively already the case… :-(

                      Brandeis’ (Robert Jackson’s? Lincoln’s?) comment that “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” also applies to the rule of law in general, IMHO; following the rule of law when your opponents don’t may be moral and ethical, but it’s not very practical if one wishes to survive and, more important, to ensure the survival of society. Sort of like “Gun Free Zone” (or as I prefer to call them, “Target Rich Environment”) signs; they are a “feel-good”, but have an effect opposite to intent.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    6. They have an effect opposite to the declared intent. I can’t help wondering about undeclared intentions — but then I have a cynical and suspicious nature. Which I come by honestly.

                      Like

                    7. I don’t think most of them are that clever; it’s like imagining all of them as Auric Goldfinger without his idiotic need to pontificate to Bond instead of just killing him. I believe most of them think their ideas will work (“This time we’ll do it right!”), and they really can’t understand why none of their idiocies ever gain traction with rational people – drag shows for toddlers, dozens (hundreds?) of genders, infanticide on demand, “gender affirming” surgery, forbidding self-defense, and the list goes on and on. These are not rational individuals. The slime at the very top (no, not FICUS) may be capable of greater cleverness, but the bulk of their apologists? No way.

                      Liked by 1 person

          2. “We tried ‘reasonable gun control’ and it didn’t work! Gun violence got worse! That means we must impose unreasonable gun control!”

            One of my characters after getting SWATed under a ‘red flag’ law: “They tell me they got an ‘anonymous complaint’ but I don’t believe that for a second. Some piece-of-shit bureaucrat made up a fake ‘complaint’ just to harass me. But I don’t even have the right to prove it.”

            Liked by 1 person

        4. Hmm, in the early 1970s, U of Redacted used our SSNs for the student ID number. Prominently posted on the ID cards. Ah, the days before I realized that the paranoids really did have people after them…

          Liked by 1 person

          1. It was only in the early 2000s that several states moved from SSN as drivers license number to something else. I still can’t remember my “new” number twenty some years later.

            Like

          2. I just moved to a new state. I was told I needed documentation of my social security number. I was fully prepared to show a document issued by the government in 1972 with my SSN. It was my draft card. When I showed up they confirmed my SSN electronically with out the need for an original document. As I was looking at my documents I found my college ID and yes it had my SSN.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. early 1970s, U of Redacted used our SSNs for the student ID number
            ………………

            By 1974 Redacted State U had changed over to not using SSN’s for student Id. OTOH presenting our student id required us to also present state driver’s license/id to do anything. Guess that was to prevent any duplication. (Have my Oregon driver’s license # memorized, which was reissued with same # when we came back to Oregon. Never did memorize the Washington state driver’s license.)

            Like

  12. When I was a kid I fell for the doomtasophe stuff. By the time I got to high school and we were transitioning from acid rain to the ozone layer I had already started spotting problems with their suspect claims and remedies. It wasn’t so much that there was no evidence for this or that problem, but that their extrapolations were terribly overblown. Every article about our future was straight out of a Clive Cussler novel, or so it seemed. And it’s just gotten worse for predictions since.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. …”straight out of a Clive Cussler novel…”

      Sure it wasn’t from Vonnegut? Or Martin Caidin? ;-)

      Like

        1. I’ll agree to the “hopeless vibe” part, at least as the lefties want us to feel, but boring (which I think Kafka is) it’s not.

          Like

          1. More the ‘WTF, O?’ nothing-makes-sense vibe. WTF just happened? How could anybody, no matter how stupid, how detached from reality they are, do that?

            Why does Soros spend umpteen millions of dollars to install prosecutors that don’t prosecute? What is the payoff? Why do Leftroids tell such blatant, transparently obvious lies? And then repeat them after they’re proven to be lies? Why is Fauxi still trying to continue ‘gain of function’ experiments, and why haven’t there been criminal charges? Why aren’t the communist Chinese being held to account for the most egregious act of biological terrorism in all of history? We should be instituting a new round of Nuremberg trials for crimes against humanity!

            Instead of doing…nothing.

            Like

            1. I think all of your questions have essentially the same answer, that they see it as a way to get (or increase) and keep power, and the way they see to do it is to do everything they can to destroy the only society that can resist.

              It won’t work long-term, of course; they rely on the same technology and social structures they’re destroying. They’re too stupid (in a practical sense), ignorant and self-centered to keep the world engine running, but they’ll cause a lot of damage before they destroy themselves.

              Like

              1. Maybe they’re following the Baron Harkonnen plan: put puppet A in, to make things really bad, then send Puppet B in as a “savior. “

                Like

                  1. Me, too, especially if only those were negatively affected (fat chance). “What could possibly go wrong?” and/or “Watch this! Hold my beer!” seem to be ingrained in certain mindsets (if “mind” isn’t too generous).

                    Like

  13. My response is simple. Euthanize Leftists.

    Is there overpopulation? Disposing of the Left solves it. Pollution? Same solution. Ozone? As much hair spray as Leftist members of the Propaganda Press use, getting rid of them solves the problem right there. Rain on your picnic? You’ll cheer up knowing there are fewer Leftists in the world. Problems with your giant rocket blasting the launch pad? Leftists are cheap shielding…and there’s quite a supply.

    Help save the world. For the children.

    Like

      1. I love my cats, but “meow” outside the bedroom door at 5am is not my favorite sound.

        Like

            1. Way better than that sound ON YOUR BED at 3 am.
              Been there. changed the bed while cursing in seven languages, while Dan pleads “But we could make them outdoor caaaats.” (which lasts till morning, when I say “So we’re putting them out?” and he goes “noooo. Babies.”)

              Like

          1. And better than having a Tom singing a song of unappeasable yearning outside the door…while your kitty is still groggy from being spayed. My beloved looked at Sadie and translated her body language as, ” Where were you when I NEEDED you?”

            Liked by 1 person

  15. From American Enterprise Institution’s web site
    https://www.aei.org/
    50 failed doomsday apocalyptic predictions. (I have sorted them by year: the site has links)

    1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
    1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
    1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
    1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989
    1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
    1970: Ice Age By 2000
    1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
    1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
    1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
    1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
    1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
    1970s: Killer Bees!
    1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade
    1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
    1972: New Ice Age By 2070
    1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
    1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
    1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
    1974: Another Ice Age?
    1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
    1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
    1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
    1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
    1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
    1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
    1980: Peak Oil In 2000
    1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
    1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
    1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
    1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
    1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
    1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019
    1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
    1996: Peak Oil in 2020
    2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
    2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
    2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
    2002: Peak Oil in 2010
    2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
    2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
    2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
    2006: Super Hurricanes!
    2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
    2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
    2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
    2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
    2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
    2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter
    2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
    2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’

    And that’s not counting global thermonuclear war, about six kinds of viral or disease pandemics, invasive species, overpopulation, and at least three versions of social-economic collapse.
    Quack, quack, quack. My panic button isn’t working anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

      2. Apparently, smog. Behind a paywall, but that particular prediction was by Paul Ehrlich, and merely burnishes his already well established credentials as a quack.

        Liked by 2 people

          2. Good. Purely by accident, I’m sure. Some people should be offended, and often, and by someone who knows how. Telling the plain unvarnished truth is usually sufficient.

            Liked by 1 person

  16. It’s not the end of the world as we know it, but as they know it.
    And they know so very little, and so much that just aint so, that I’m sure it’s got to feel very apocalyptic, in the revealing sense, when a new fact hits them. Or propaganda.

    Asteroids. Bees. Climate change. DDT. Extinctions of species.’Frankenfood’ GMOs. Hunger.

    If you follow enough news, I think I’m on my 3rd catastrophe of the day, and it’s not clear if things will ever be the same again, whatever that means.

    Of course, Chicken Little is perfectly welcome on the right as well, with a (mostly) different list of complaints: THEY, a division of Environmentalists/Freemasons/Globalists/Humanists/Illuminati, have been perfectly coordinating conspiracy since 1971/1945/1916/1895/1860/1789… people who can’t predict tomorrow’s weather, next quarter’s stock returns, a 5 year plan. No plan survives contact with reality, especially when everyone gets a choice of what to do next. The only way for that to work is to take leave of reality for whatever fiction is playing in you head – THEY can always get away with it their, and we’re DOOOMED, I tell you, DOOOMED.

    Until reality intrudes again, as it always does, continually, in ways no one can foresee perfectly, while utopias and nightmares melt away.

    A big thanks to whoever recommended John Adams’ RISK in one of last week’s threads.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Funny how all the Chicken Littles keep running around outside instead of seeking shelter themselves. That tells everything.

      Global warming and oceans rising and you’re buying beachfront property. I see where their money is… and it ain’t where their mouth is.

      So, they appear in this image:

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The only people I’ve seen complaining about Free Masons recently are my parents who are not AMerican and REALLY not young.
      As for all the rest, the environmentalists and the internationalists REALLY are out to get us.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. The people who claim that the Freemasons run the world generally also claim that you don’t get invited to the Global Conspiracy Meetings until the thirty-third degree, so folksy small-town Freemasons need not apply.

          /facetious

          Like

        2. My dad was a Mason all his life. Somehow, he never got invited to any of the Sooper Seekrit Global Conspiracy Meetings. :-)
          ………….

          Yours either? Grandpa, Dad, Uncle, all Masons. Dad is (even in death) is a Shriner. Mom is still involved with a number of the women groups associated with the Masonic family. No invites to “Sooper Seekrit Global Conspiracy Meetings”. :-)

          Like

          1. [Cue spooky music].That’s what they wanted you to think!

            Just curious; did they carry neuralizers? :-)

            Like

      2. Masonic conspiracy theories perennially make the rounds of certain stripes of fundamentalists, usually accompanied by a parade of usual suspects – Illuminati, Rosicrucians, Satanists, Catholics, atheists, the Dutch. Ok, I made the last one up, haven’t actually seen that in the wild. It’s a dice throw which group will be claimed to be behind it all.

        I don’t disagree that there are groups out to get us, just that they’ve perfectly executed things they’ve been planning for generations.

        Like

      3. I complain, often and loudly, about freemasons, in the person of my BIL. But I think most of his behavior has more to do with being a power hungry idiot.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. The funny bit is that “climate change” is not only a reality. It is inevitable. At one point most of the U.S. was under two miles of ice. Now it isn’t. It could be again.

    The idea that people can lockdown the climate of an entire planet; freeze it in place forever is mind-bogglingly dumb. Loony tunes.

    TTTO “If you’re happy and you know it”

    If they’re telling you to panic
    It’s a scam
    If their solutions all sound manic
    It’s a scam

    If the world is always ending
    In the messages they’re sending
    So your will you must be bending

    If they’re telling you to panic
    It’s a scam.

    Anyone want to do verse two “whatever they recommend” “It’s trap!”

    “If you’

    Liked by 2 people

    2. Yup. One of the things that caught my attention about the game Total War: Attila (which tries to have at least a reasonably historical basis) is that the game quietly emulated a mini-cold spell. You’re not informed of it beforehand, but the northernmost regions of the game gradually get less and less able to grow crops because the ground is freezing for longer. There was apparently a cooling period that started around 536 AD, and this is how the game implements that.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The end of the Late Roman Warm Period. Climate got cold for about 600 years, warmed up again, then dropped into the Little Ice Age in the 1500’s.

        Accurate thermometers did not exist until the early 1600’s. All previous temperature records are no more than guesses. The earliest well-documented temperatures were measured during the Little Ice Age — which the Climate Alarmist Chicken Littles are using as their baseline. Sample bias, much?

        Liked by 2 people

  18. I pulled a book off my bookshelf this morning. I have read it many times, but this time…

    First page, a paean in favor of centralization, overpopulation, massive urbanization, and world disarmament early in the 21st century which allowed the rest of the world to catch up with Russia’s space program. Huh?!

    Liked by 1 person

      2. Anne McCaffrey, The Rowan. All the “Talent” books follow that pattern, but I don’t think I had read the introduction before.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Odd. That book came out in 1990, and the space race was long over (spoiler – the Soviets lost). Communism was nearly over, as well, as the Warsaw Pact had collapsed the previous year.

          Again, odd.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. The Intro mentions that the whole “disarmament lets the Western world catch up to the Soviet space program” thing happened in the 70s and 80s, so I suspect that this was McCaffrey’s way of saying, “Yeah, I know that the history I presented in To Ride Pegasus* turned out to be BS, but this takes place in the same universe, so we’re just going to go with it.”

            = Note that it’s been twenty years since I read To Ride Pegasus, so I don’t actually remember if anything like this happened in this book, but I don’t care enough to reread Pegasus in order to find out.

            Like

            1. Oh, right. I forgot Rowan was a return to the earlier Pegasus setting. That explanation makes sense.

              Like

              1. McCaffrey just didn’t handle warfare well. The Talent series ended with the Federation more or less planning to spray all the alien (insectile, but “Bugs,” has a certain connotation) with pheromones to shut down the queens’ uncontrolled reproduction and produce stable, sustainable populations. Pesticide is just not thinkable.
                But then, I’m still irritated at the last purely Anne McCaffrey Pern novel, where an utterly useless and murderous Lord Holder is merely dropped off on an uninhabited island because executing him would be, “unkind.”

                Liked by 1 person

                1. I thought there was a subtext there of “here’s your preindustrial society that YOU now get to work, asshole. Let’s see how you like it.” Which, you know, suits my sense of justice just fine.

                  Liked by 1 person

          3. The Rowan isn’t the first book in the series is why. The very first books were written in the 70s (“To Ride Pegasus” is the title of one of the first collections), so a lot of the worldbuilding was already there. And while published in 1990, could have been written significantly earlier.

            The first book has a precog guy hooked up to an EEG machine after a car accident when he has an “episode” about his nurse (that he would marry her). So they had “scientific proof” of the psi phenomenon. Later short stories are about “Jerhattan” because New York City and New Jersey had merged due to population pressure, etc. They are VERY 70s stories.

            Like

    3. I was reading Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen and noticing that “armament makers are the cause of war” thing.

      Like

  19. If they tell you “save the planet” it’s a scam.
    If they claim you must act now, it’s a scam.
    If they bring out the quotations from celebrities and big names,
    Then you already know that it’s a scam.

    Liked by 1 person

    2. If they say it’s for the children, it’s a scam.
      If they say “if it saves just one life”, it’s a scam.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. OTOH, I have also noted that those who sneer about “Think of the children!” in any given case are also up to no good. . . .

        Like

      2. Yeah, I remember MaligNancy’s creepy repetition of “For The Children. For The Children. For The Children.”

        No mention of exactly how that particular pork-barrel abomination was supposed to benefit The Children, just that vacuous repetition.

        Like

  20. A scared populace is a controlled populace. So be uncontrollable – live fearlessly.

    Or as Solzhenitsyn said, live not by lies. The lie stops at me.

    Like

  21. “Reasoninigbeings,”

    “We face imminent disaster. We must Do Something.”

    “In just no more than four or five billion years, accumulating helium ash in Sol’s core will reach a crisis point, ignite in a runaway “triple alpha” fusion “helium flash” and cause Sol to become a Red Giant, incinerating Earth.”

    “The foolish individualists scream their plans to waste precious resources on ‘starship research’ instead of the needed collectivism that will guide us to a Radiant Future.”

    CRASH! Thud!

    “What is this? A gold painted sphere, marked ‘for the collectivist’, and smoking.”

    BOOM!

    Transcript of the Fifteenth (and blessedly Final) International. Eris Day 2093
    see also the children’s book “Why are toilets marked with a Hammer and Sickle?”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That reminds me. My dad encountered urinals of a restaurant restroom that were decorated with photos of Joe Biden.

      Liked by 2 people

  22. Yes, we’re all doomed. All going to die, the end is nigh, hasta la vista, baby. Doom and destruction all over TV, radio, streaming. Films, music, books. Yer gonna die.

    Well, unless you listen to Korean pop idols. K-Pop is making HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY internationally by being sweet bubbly candy with cute girls and fun dancing that kids can actually -do- while they sing along. Lots of blown kisses and making your hands into heart symbols.

    Leaving aside the fan armies and social media dramatics of K-Pop, their business model is to sell entertainment to kids.

    No one (that I know of) is doing this in the USA/Britain/Canada right now. The closest you get is Trance, where there’s no singing and you just zone-out while moving your feet. There’s no “Positive Message” in Western music right now, the best you can hope for is “never mind, just drop some molly and dance until you puke.”

    Being a geezer I can’t pretend to an encyclopedic knowledge of trendy trends for 2023, but if you look at the -wasteland- of modern entertainment the only shiny spots are in Asia. Japan, Korea, and weirdly, China.

    That, my friends, smacks of an Arrangement.

    We know for sure, given Sad Puppies, that dead-tree publishing is rigged to favor grimdark grey goo. Books, comics, all the same. Goo.

    We know for sure it isn’t selling because bookstores (the few that are still open) are filled with manga now. Western SF/F, one bookcase. Manga, three -aisles- of book cases.

    So they are deliberately doing what they KNOW doesn’t work. They know it. For sure. The proof is in the sales numbers. But there they are, persisting. So wtf are they doing?

    Well, where else do we see this? Gun control, one example. I know -for sure- it doesn’t work to accomplish the stated purpose of reducing violent crime. Everybody knows it doesn’t work. It is exquisitely obvious that it doesn’t work. But they still do it.

    Renewable energy, another example. Windmills and solar can’t supply the electrical grid with reliable power. Everyone knows this. Self evidently, solar doesn’t make power when the sun goes down. Windmills don’t make power when there’s no wind. But what are they doing? Putting up windmills and solar. Which don’t work. For sure.

    There are many other examples like recycling, veganism, electric cars, carbon taxes, paper masks for the flu etc. Waste motion, all of it.

    So I look at all that, the steady diet of grimdark, the waste of resources, the oppression of individuals at every turn, and it occurs to me I don’t really care any more why they’re doing it. It doesn’t matter why, even if I knew it wouldn’t help.

    I’m pretty well done trying to figure out their motivation, and I’m done trying to convince by sweet reason. Where I’m at now is actively subverting their actions by simply saying the truth.

    Recycling, sacred cow of Enviros, is a lie. Gun control, sacred cow of the Perennially Concerned and Caring, is a lie. Renewable energy, lie.

    Grimdark literature, sacred cow of the Cognoscenti, is worse than a mere lie. It is a mind poison aimed at harming the people who read it.

    K-Pop. Manga. Anime. That’s the thing.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. There’s…not really a shortage of grimdark or disturbing anime. (Or Bollywood, which was my preferred Asian entertainment for a while). What there is, is a variety of choices, which Hollywood deprives us of.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not saying EVERYTHING from Asia is all sparkly and fabulous, because that’s clearly not so. But as you say, Asia at least has a range of offerings. Sparkly upbeat fun is an option.

        Here the mass media has one choice: black, like Henry Ford.

        Like

          1. I think he means ‘like the Model T’ which was available in any color you wanted as long as it was black. Using only one color of paint drastically simplified the production line, reducing cost.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Yes, Ford was widely quoted as saying “you can have any colour you want, as long as it’s black.”

              Which is fine if you’re Henry Ford. He was a car company, not the -only- car company.

              Like

    2. I’d argue that there is a sub-genre of metal (“positive metal” for lack of a better term) that does encourage and entertain. However, it is aimed at older teens and adults, not kids. Freedom Call, Sabaton, Twilight Force, those are the ones I’d put into that category. There are probably others.

      But yes, they are not huge commercial successes with lots and lots of followers and copycats.

      Liked by 2 people

          1. Ah, not Nightwish, at least for me. Some of their lyrics get really close to “humans are lousy,” and some of the anti-church lyrics are less than positive. In my opinion. Almost all their melodies are great, and the music overall is fantastic, but … The themes in Once turn me off. And so does a chunk of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

            That’s just me.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. My favorite by them, and the one on which I based my comment, is “Last Ride of the Day”. The lyrics are definitely not downbeat. IMHO, of course.

              Like

              1. That song, and some others, are definitely inspiring and uplifting. I was thinking about overall. There are some other groups that in general I have some doubts about, but specific songs or albums are great.

                Like

                1. I think that’s true of almost any group or individual singer and in any genre. Well, almost any; rap in general, and gangsta rap in particular, I avoid like the plague. Of course, that’s assuming they’re considered music at all… :-) .

                  I just avoid the numbers I don’t like.

                  Like

      2. Those guys survive despite everything the media can do to them. Selling CDs out of the back of the tour bus. They’re the suppressed grass-roots reaction to the music industry mainstream.

        Like

    3. Liberals are all miserable, misery indeed loves company. So, for liberals to do anything other than make others miserable, they wouldn’t be liberals. They can’t help it. Its also why people can’t stand to be around them for long, and they can’t stand any rejection which just feeds their misery. I don’t hate them, I pity them, and want to stay as far away from the miserable little creeps as I can.

      Like

    4. Gospel and Christian Contemporary can be rather Positive.

      Christian Metal can be.

      I am occasionally surprised at bright nuggets found in genres that run dark.

      Liked by 1 person

    5. I invite you to check out a little anime called ‘My Dress-Up Darling’ (Sono Bisque Doll wa Koi o Suru). It is unbearably cute and should be preceded by a full-screen diabetes warning. There is very little point to it but feel-good entertainment, which is executed brilliantly. Boy meets girl, boy…makes girl’s cosplay outfits?

      It was one of the biggest hits of 2022. There is demand for cotton-candy feel-good entertainment.

      Liked by 1 person

    6. Windmills also have to be locked down when the wind blows too hard or they tear themselves apart. There are videos. Some of us haven’t forgotten the Big Texas Windmill Freeze (despite devious attempts to memory-hole it).

      “But the wind is free!”

      So is running water, until some ‘Green’ assholes tear down the hydroelectric dams.

      Windmills are finicky, unstable, high-maintenance, low-yield energy sources. One power plant burning those dreaded Fossil Fuels generates more electricity than thousands of windmills AND is reliable.
      ———————————
      The government can mandate stupidity, but they can’t make it not be stupid.

      Liked by 2 people

        2. Courts have already said that endangered birds killed by windmills don’t count. Neither do bats. The Supremes disagreed, but they didn’t rule on “all birds are birds” but on disparate penalties.

          Like

  23. Bernie Sanders spoke at my HS graduation in ’87. He ranted for 20 min about how we were doomed to die in “noocleah” fire. Gen X has been told the world was ending our entire lives. After a bit, you realize its a cynical ploy to take more power and make us recycle (speaking of scams). The world isn’t ending. It is just the left running out of ideas.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I got a US Representative who later went so far ’round the bend she had to be institutionalized. She told us that we had a debt to society for the privilege of going to college. The students who worked their way through were growling by the time she finished. And the rest of us wondered, “If we have a debt to society, what does that mean for the guys in jail and the pen who officially have ‘a debt to society’?” I was sooo glad to get off campus and away.

        Like

  24. LOL. LMAO. I was a Sixties kid. In a major city. I still have the little metal dog tag they gave us in Kindergarten – because metal doesn’t burn in the firestorm, and after the nukes stopped going boom, there might be a chance of confirming I was dead.

    I stopped worrying about this sh&t a long time ago. I figure my whole adult life has been a bonus, and I’m not going to whimper about sh&t I can’t control. And I’m sure as Hell not buying any form of government (especially the Commies) as a savior. They can’t even pave the d@mned roads, and they’re going to prevent / stop / save us from anything. B1tch, Please.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “I still have the little metal dog tag they gave us in Kindergarten”

      What city? Was that a public school? Was that common in public schools nationwide?
      I don’t remember anything of the sort, but I went to a small kindergarten and elementary school that operated outside the city-run system.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We got similar metal dog tags for Id “in case we got separated from our parents”, anywhere. Got them when I was 7. Younger sisters would have been 6, and 3. Wore them at least into middle school, but dumped it by HS. Oregon, same area we live in now.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Interesting. Midwest for me. I’ll ask a few of my Wisconsin/Illinois/Indiana/Minnesota friends what they remember.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If it helps, the tags were 1963 or ’64.

            And yes. We did have bomb drills, hiding under the desk, and moving to the bomb shelter, which was our grade school cafeteria. Half basement concrete walls, under the main school building (school offices, couple of classrooms, nursing station, library, and gym).

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I remember those air raid drills. Also the “how to build a home fallout shelter” pamphlets.
              And, by the way, there were nuke-armed Nike antiaircraft missile batteries in or the city or suburban outskirts.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Backyard Fallout shelters, in our area, especially underground ones, were/are rare in our area, for the same reason underground basements are. Oh the hill areas have split levels, and walkout basements. But the valley? Not so much. When the ground water is mere feet from the surface … Basements are not advised.

                Liked by 1 person

        2. Minor digression, but literal dog tags– from the engraving kiosks, like five bucks– are great to put on little kids’ coats, both for ID of child and ID of coat.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. little kids’ coats, both for ID of child and ID of coat.
            ……………..

            OMG Yes! Wish I’d thought of that. You probably know how many times we went over to the school to dig through the “orphaned coat & lunch box” piles. We only had one kid in school. I swear.

            Liked by 1 person

              1. To be fair. We only had one kid for the two of to keep track of.

                We did put our 14 month toddler on a harness in Yellowstone NP when in geyser bason and Yellowstone Grand Canyon.

                Liked by 2 people

  25. Decades ago I noticed that no doom prediction known to the public — ever came true. Big upheavals that did happen, like the fall of the USSR and 9/11, were never predicted. My interest in predictions of the future will resurrect when they start printing tomorrow’s winning lottery numbers today.

    Like

    1. China has maybe 20 years left, 10 if Trump gets a second term followed by any non-RINO republican.

      The implosion will be
      … bad.

      Like

      1. I’d be real surprised if Trump hasn’t called up DeSantis: “We have to think strategically. If you run next year, and win, and then get a second term, you’re out in 2033. If I run next year, and win, and you win in 2028 and get a second term, we keep the White House until 2037. I don’t really have the time to wait until 2028. So, support me next year and I’ll back you in ’28. Deal?”

        Like

  26. I can’t wait for some Democrat to admit that Trump really did win the 2020 election and then argue that he is therefore ineligible to run for a third term in 2024.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I can’t wait for some Democrat to admit that Trump really did win the 2020 election and then argue that he is therefore ineligible to run for a third term in 2024.
      ……………..

      Some wit nitwit will pull this. Just wait for it. President Trump’s comeback will be epic and much beyond “I told you”.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The 22nd Amendment does say ‘No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…’ It doesn’t say anything about serving two terms. Queue the lawfare in 3, 2, 1…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Saw an article that the actual interpretation should be that Trump has already run twice and been elected once, so that applies. If I relocate the link I’ll post it.

        Like

        1. No, Trump was elected twice. He was just prevented from taking office by massive election fraud.
          ———————————
          There’s statistically improbable, and then there’s ‘violates the fundamental principles of the universe’ improbable.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. I don’t quite see how they could do that without losing everything. But if they do, the media will turn on a dime from saying that there was no election fraud, of course there was election fraud, and here’s why it was a good thing. And ignore the four years they mocked the very idea.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. ignore the four years they mocked the very idea.
          ………………

          And they are very good at this.

          Like

Comments are closed.