Message to Mellenials

Jordan B. Peterson:

The "Trust Gap", "social licence" and the rule of law

Giant PR firm, Edelman, does a global annual survey to gauge of the "trust" the public has in its institutions: 1) Government 2) Business 3) Media, and 4) NGOs.

The people surveyed are categorized into three groups:
1) Informed Public 2) General On-line Population, and 3) Mass Population (all population excluding Informed Public)

The results are published in the "Edelman Trust Baraometer".

2016 Edelman Trust Barometer  Widening Trust Gap
2017 Edelman Trust Barometer   An Implosion in Trust! (Brexit, Trump, immigration/refugee crisis?)

Interesting, considering recent events but one does wonder about the validity of the results as a measure of "trust". If it isn't trust that's actually being measured, what is it? It's worth reading this bit of skepticism: "Can You Trust The Data On Trust?"

The surveys show that the "Informed Public", which includes the elites that control the four institutions, have much higher "trust" in those institution than the general public (ie the definition of the "trust gap"). Hardly a surprising result.

With the advent of Internet, the general public is in a position to be better informed and less subject to control of the message by the elites (especially the legacy MSM).  A widening "trust gap" might be a natural consequence of this.  However, a potentially serious downside is a diminishing respect for the rule of law and the constitution.  For example, certain of the elites (Justin Trudeau for one) have been pushing the fuzzy notion of "social license" ("governments issue permits, communities grant permission").  In the case of pipeline approvals this suggests that decisions by lawfully appointed and mandated regulatory bodies (like the NEB) are subject to being overruled by vocal interest groups ("communities") who have no legal status. Mob rule is "permitted" to supplant the rule of law.  Not good!

CBC Watch

Graeme Gordon at "Raving Canuck" has been doing a great job keeping a close eye (and ear) on that bloated, massively government funded, Liberal-(and farther left)-cheer-leading, propaganda outlet known as the CBC.  Teasers from Graeme's two most recent posts:

CBC Bungles Upcoming Rollout of Opinion Section By Publishing Liberal MP’s Staffer’s Spin Piece

If anyone still thought CBC’s decision to launch an “Opinion site” next month was a good idea, an op-ed published by the CBC today should set her/him sober.The hit piece—and yes, I’m aware this response is a hit piece as well, but at least it is published on my own independent blog, not paid for by taxpayers—entitled “Canadian Taxpayers Federation has 5 members—why should we care what they think?” was written by Dougald Lamont, a senior policy advisor for Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette. ...

Dear CBC: Colin Kaepernick’s Socks Rock The Socks Off Justin Trudeau’s Socks

Dear CBC Execs,Let me start off by saying you are doing an exceptional job on covering the heroic saga of Colin Kaepernick’s Rosa Parks moments of bravery. But driving home today, while faithfully tuning in to CBC Radio One, I found it tremendously problematic that your news updates about Kaepernick didn’t mention his most recent act of daring valour: his wearing of socks covered in white pig cops.  ... 

Fact checking "10 Lies You Were Told About Islam"

Part 1:

Part 2

[via]

NOAA hypes "extreme weather" agitprop

For climate alarmists, “extreme” weather events are considered irrefutable evidence of AGW and its harmful effects.  They hype extreme weather agitprop relentlessly.  Even the once reputable National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been subverted for the purpose.  However NOAA’s “explanations”, come riddled with disclaimers, speculation, contradiction and uncertainty:

... I would be a lot more impressed if NOAA could explain the extreme events of 2016, rather than trying to retrofit alarmist explanations to events they have no skill to predict. Starting with an assumption that an anthropogenic effect is playing a substantial role is not the same as demonstrating that this is the case.    

Propaganda from the UN climate change bureaucracy

Ramping up the propaganda leading up to the December 2015 UN summit in Paris, UN climate bureaucrat, Christiana Figueres, in today's National Post, addressed Canada's role in the global effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the first words were:

... [human] emissions have been scientifically proved beyond any reasonable doubt to cause global warming, and if unchecked will have calamitous and costly consequences for Canada and the world.

By itself, the statement that "[human] emissions have scientifically proved beyond any reasonable doubt to cause global warming" is true.  However, combined with the second part "if unchecked will have calamitous and costly consequences ..."  and the subsequent blather about the urgency of reducing global emissions, Figueres is saying that it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that human emissions are the dominant cause of global warming. and that is flat-out false.

There is a great deal of reasonable doubt about the extent of the human contribution to global warming.  One notable expression of that reasonable doubt comes from Judith Curry, Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology.  She recently gave testimony at the US Congressional Hearings into the President's UN climate pledge. The lead-in paragraphs of her testimony:

"The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability that are caused by variations from the sun, volcanic eruptions, and large-scale ocean circulations.

Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change.  .... "

More BS about polar bears

This week the media have been dutifully spreading more alarmist misinformation about declining polar bear numbers.  WUWT, via a Canadian expert,  supplies the true story:

Dr Susan Crockford, a Canadian zoologist and professor with more than 35 years experience, has been highly critical of these stories, claiming that they are misleading the public.

Responding to the claims in the media, Dr Crockford said:

“The main story of this study is the remarkable recovery of the polar bear population by 2010 which has likely continued since then. To suggest that polar bear populations have been declining is hugely misleading.
“The authors have also acknowledged that the cause of the 2004-2006 decline was heavy spring ice conditions. They found no correlation for the decline with summer sea ice conditions.”

 Would it be too much to ask the so-called "professional" journalists of the mainstream media to do some basic fact checking before reporting these stories?  Probably, they're more interested in promoting climate alarmism than in science.

CBC's oil sands porn

" ... you cannot trust a word that the CBC says, or even a photo that they publish ..."

CBC climate propaganda (aka lies)

CBC "News" edits CBC's Ghomeshi interview with Neil Young:

The shoddy science of sceptic-bashing

Ben Pile of Climate Resistance in an interesting essay at spiked, "The pathologising of climate scepticism", dissects a controversial paper by psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky:

A recent study by Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist at the University of Western Australia, aimed to identify climate change sceptics’ tendency towards conspiracy theories.

... It seems fairly obvious that Lewandowsky was at best mistaken. The data simply do not support his conclusions.

... Lewandowsky worked from his prejudice — that all sceptics are, a priori, wrong. His objective was to expose the ‘motivated reasoning’ that lies behind climate scepticism. But in doing so, he managed only to expose his own bad faith. ...

concluding:

... A culture of intransigence has developed in the shadow of the compact between politics and science, which can be seen in the Lewandowsky affair in microcosm. Lewandowsky’s work unwittingly demonstrates that what is passed off as peer reviewed and published ‘science’, even in today’s world, is no more scientific than the worst ramblings of the least qualified and nuttiest climate change denier on the internet.

... The consequence of this should be alarming to everyone who takes an interest in the climate and other scientific debates, no matter what their view on climate change.  ...

A tad long, but worth the read.

Climate alarmist witch hunt

Ezra Levant with Marc Morano and Tom Harris:



 

A phony poll to boost a fraud's image

Ezra Levant shows how a poll manipulated by a PR flack at Angus Reid got David Suzuki to the top of a "most admired" list:



Update: Ezra's column.

More boreal bullcrap (on the front page, above the fold)

Vancouver Sun, this morning - Huge swaths of Canada's boreal forest under threat

At least half of Canada's vast boreal forest should be strictly protected from any kind of development and the rest should be carefully managed to preserve or restore its ecological integrity ...

... The International Boreal Conservation Science Panel ... is sounding the alarm about Canada's 5.8-million square kilometre expanse of northern woods and wetlands ...

... Report co-author Jeff Wells, science adviser to the U.S.-based Pew Charitable Trusts, said in a statement that because of the "mounting pressures on boreal regions of Canada," ...

This is more anti-development propaganda brought to you by the same eco-radical ENGO bullies, thugs and shakedown artists who intimidated forest companies into signing the Canadian Boreal Forest "Agreement". [Recall that one company, Resolute Forest Products, located it's spine and sued for defamation.]

Neither forests nor forest wildlife are under any credibly realistic "threat".  Those most threatened (by eco-blackmailers) are people who make their living in the forests.  Eco-radicals brook no love for people.

Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government

Former CIA operations officer, Clare Lopez, traces the origins and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood leading to their success in penetrating the U.S. government:

... it should be noted that massive financial support from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf sheikhdoms has always played a central and deeply important role in the ability of the Brotherhood to fund its global expansion,

... The first task was to maneuver Muslim Brothers into positions of trust with key U.S. government ...

... The U.S. executive branch, from the president to the NSC and key Cabinet Departments, had been effectively neutered at the very start of the Global War on Terror. This is how President Bush could stand on 17 September 2001 inside the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., flanked by Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR (the U.S. branch of HAMAS), and in all sincerity, declare that "Islam is peace."

The George W. Bush administration was targeted with a multifaceted, sophisticated information operation designed to deceive national security officials about the true nature of the Islamic jihadist enemy that attacked the homeland on 9/11. Surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood voices which told him true Islam had been "hijacked" by a "tiny minority of extremists," ... President Bush ... was successfully deterred from investigating the belief system that inspired those hijackers by a blanket of Muslim Brotherhood taqiyya that successfully smothered inquiry about the very Islamic doctrine that al-Qa'eda and the hijackers themselves declared to be their motivation. Although few realize it to this day, the crippling of the Bush administration's GWOT response marked a crucial turning point in the U.S. ability to defend itself against Islamic jihad. ...
　

... As bad as these developments were, things became immeasurably worse for American national security under the administration of Barack Obama. Whereas President Bush and most of his administration insiders remained largely unaware that they had been manipulated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and his close advisors proactively chose to reach out to the Brotherhood, its affiliates, and supporters for advice, training, and even administration appointments. ...

That's just a small sample from Ms. Lopez's paper. A fascinating read.

[Via Blazing Catfur]

Climate-Alarmist-in-Chief pushes bogus 'consensus'

Barack Obama's tweets often promote climate alarmist themes, for example encouraging his groupies to "call out deniers".  In this tweet Obama pushed the bogus notion of scientific 'consensus':

Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://OFA.BO/gJsdFp 

The linked web-page references the "Cook" paper on scientific consensus.  However, a closer inspection of that study reveals that Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97%:

“The Cook et al paper is very misleading as described in major media. The breakdown of the survey results are not described up front,” says Ken Gregory, Director of Friends of Science. “The Cook study claims that any paper that mentions CO2 as a possible cause of some warming is part of a ‘consensus’. That is simply not true. Further, this survey does not assess ‘danger’.” 

The Cook et al study data base has seven categories of rated abstracts.
1. 65     explicit endorse, [greater than]50% warming caused by man
2. 934 explicit endorse
3. 2933 implicit endorse
4. 8261 no position
5. 53     implicit reject
6. 15     explicit reject
7. 10     explicit reject, [less than]50% caused by man

Papers in the third category which Cook alleges, “implicit endorse,” in reality make no comment on whether humans have caused warming. This category includes papers about mitigation policies.

Including category 2 the so-called "consensus" rises to a whopping 8%.

Conclusions:

(1) there is miniscule support for notion of dangerous man-made global warming
(2) there is no consensus supporting man-made global warming
(3) Obama is a warm-monger
(4) warm-mongers are liars
(5) Twitter is an effective propaganda tool.

The new three Rs - racism, reproduction and recycling

George Will:

The three R’s — formerly reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic — now are racism, reproduction and recycling. Especially racism. ... “instruction” synonymous with “propaganda,” which in the patois of progressivism is called “consciousness-raising.”

...tens of millions could be diverted from progressive gestures to academic purposes by abolishing on every ... campus every administrative position whose title contains the words “diversity,” “equity,” “race,” “ethnicity,” “sustainability,” “green,” “gender,” “inclusion,” “identity,” “interconnectivity,” “globalization,” “climate,” “campus climate,” “cross-cultural” or “multiculturalism.”

Check out the comment thread to Will's column at the WaPo. It's loaded with nasty reaction from  progressives.

Matt Damon's anti-fracking propaganda flick reviewed

A review by Phelim McAleer:

... Damon and Krasinski have produced a flawed movie not because they don’t understand movie-making but because they don’t understand Americans.

... a bigger reason why “Promised Land” fails in the second half. Damon and Krasinski don’t really like or trust most Americans, and it comes across. The residents are either good (and thus on the side of the environmental movement) or stupid and greedy, people who’d sell their grandmother for money.

... Damon and Krasinski believe that renting your property to a regulated and insured American company is the equivalent of selling your daughter to a whorehouse.

Middle America will probably respond to these attitudes by staying away from “Promised Land”; Tinseltown may well respond with multiple Oscars.

Also, Damon denies knowing that the Arab Emirates funded his film:

ABC science show host equates climate skepticism with pedophilia

Graham Young - Paedophilia, climate science and the ABC:

In today’s Science Show Robyn Williams smears climate change sceptics by comparing scepticism of the IPCC view that the world faces catastrophic climate change because of CO2 emissions with support for paedophilia, use of asbestos to treat asthma, and use of crack cocaine by teenagers....

... The government, via the Australian Research Council is involved in suppressing dissent. 

Williams’ comments are part of an interview he conducted with Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor of psychology who has received over $2 million worth of ARC funding to support his efforts to equate climate change scepticism with mental disorder. ...

... Heads must roll over this, including Williams’. But the problem is obviously more widespread and involves the University of Western Australia, where Lewandowsky holds his chair, the ARC, the ABC, and possibly even the government.

Jo Nova - Skeptics equated to pedophiles ... Time to protest.

Anthony Watts - Climate Ugliness goes nuclear

Lubos Motl - Climate propaganda in Australia

Orwellian thought control at Oregon State University

Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University:

In theory at least Oregon State University (OSU) seems to be a bastion of academic freedom, diversity, and tolerance. ... But it is all a fairy tale, because OSU operates under a politically correct regimen that dictates what is acceptable to say and what is not. Transgressors who dare to be different are eventually weeded out so that the campus maintains its ideological purity.

... We learned over the weekend that chemist Nickolas Drapela, PhD has been summarily fired from his position as a “Senior Instructor” in the Department of Chemistry. The department chairman Richard Carter told him that he was fired but would not provide any reason. Subsequent attempts to extract a reason from the OSU administration have been stonewalled.

... Five years ago, Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor went around quietly saying that he was not a believer. Then Governor Ted Kulongoski and many faculty at OSU including Dr. Jane Lubchenco made life impossible for Taylor, and he retired. (Lubchenco is now head of NOAA in the Obama administration.) Under those currently in charge, OSU climate research has grown to be a huge business, reportedly $90 million per year with no real deliverables beyond solid academic support for climate hysteria.

[...]

Obama iconography

That video was made in 2009.  The logo is still here:

And so are these: