Is it my imagination of have more nut jobs coming up from their Mom’s basements to be “activists” since Trump was elected President?

FoxNews.com reports that

The retail holiday saw protests in a long list of countries — including France, Germany, the United States — with some activists entering stores and others holding mock funerals. Near Paris, climate demonstrators blocked a shopping mall and gathered in from of Amazon’s headquarters to protest over-production they say is killing the planet.

To many activists, Black Friday is the epitome of this shift, a purely commercial event designed to boost U.S. retailers ahead of the Christmas holidays, the symbol of capitalism run amok.

“We are living in a system of endless consumerism,” the group Extinction Rebellion NYC tweeted on Friday. “Earth cannot sustain that, especially as we accelerate towards climate and ecological catastrophe.”

The group posted photos and videos purportedly showing activists protesting the holiday.

Protesters also reportedly shut down streets in Vancouver, Canada for a mock funeral procession.

The Sunrise Movement, a group that’s helped promote the Green New Deal, swarmed the large Water Tower Place shopping mall in Chicago.

In Washington, D.C., actress Jane Fonda led yet another protest as part of a series called “Fire Drill Fridays.” In a post retweeted by Fonda, the group cliamed that “38 people were arrested demanding food justice.” Activists also reportedly planned to hold a “Black Friday Funeral for the Future” on Capitol Hill in order to “eulogize and mourn all that has been lost and all that is threatened by the climate crisis.

Climate change protests seemed to intensify in the fall with thousands skipping school during September’s climate strike. Activist Greta Thunberg also appeared at a United Nations meeting where she vehemently denounced politicians for inaction on climate change.

And last week, nearly 260 groups sent a letter requesting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Ill., pursue policies like the Green New Deal instead of “incremental or isolated policy tweaks.”

According to The Washington Post, the group Extinction Rebellion held a hunger strike in an attempt to force the speaker into a video-recorded meeting. When they realized she was planning to leave D.C., the protesters attempted to storm past her office’s entrance and into a broader room where her chief of staff sat.

Also last week, climate protesters delayed a Harvard-Yale football game when they occupied the field and demanded the Ivy League schools divest from the fossil fuel industry.

The disruptions will likely continue as the United Nations meets to discuss the issue in Madrid on Monday.

The United Nations offered what it called “bleak” findings Tuesday as it warned that the world was headed toward global “extinction” and would need to increase its efforts “fivefold” if nations wanted to reach the temperature reduction goal outlined in the Paris climate agreement.

The United States recently filed paperwork to officially remove itself from the multilateral agreement. Conservatives, meanwhile, have warned about economic consequences of large-scale reform and pointed to failed, historical climate predictions as reasons for avoiding drastic change.

So, who is “Extinction Rebellion” and where are they getting their funding?

According to westernwire.net,

Started by two British activists in October 2018, Extinction Rebellion has caused mayhem across the U.K. and recently brought their tactics to the United States with the financial support of wealthy Americans.

The New York Times story profiles three individuals who have provided the bulk of financial and logistical support for the group, Aileen Getty, Rory Kennedy and Trevor Neilson. Getty is the granddaughter of the late oil billionaire J. Paul Getty. Kennedy is daughter of the late-U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy. Neilson is a consultant whose clients include Hollywood celebrities using philanthropy to burnish their images, has provided public relations guidance.

The three set up the Climate Emergency Fund to support disruptive activists and channeled huge financial resources to Extinction Rebellion. Getty made a $600,000 contribution earlier this year and other fundraising efforts have collected more than $1 million.

So, it’s a bunch of rich Liberals who believe that they can “change the climate”.

Have you ever wondered why Far Left Nut Jobs, like Jane Fonda, are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals’ personal mantras, they still believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal…

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do the Dems continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science birthed by the P.T. Barnum of our time, Al Gore, an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1. Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama and Hillary. They are easily fooled. For a visual reference, watch Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. The Democrats are perpetuating it because they have political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Dems continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recalled, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost, and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Planet will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public next, with Trump having proclaimed in 2017 that “Climate Change” never was the “National Security Threat” that Obama claimed it to be?

How will they continue to distract from the immature, absurd, and corrupt nature of their ongoing National Temper Tantrum over the lost of the 2016 Presidential Election?

Will they start reshowing “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

By the way, have you noticed that they didn’t try disrupting Black Friday in Flyover Country where us “Deplorables” live?

It’s because they know that they would get knocked down on their butts by masses of bargain-hunting Walmart Shoppers.

I’m just sayin’.

Until He Comes,

KJ