How DARE they?!

UN official at WEF: ‘We own the science & we think that the world should know it’ so ‘we partnered with Google’ to ensure only UN climate results appear

“Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary for Global Communications at the United Nations at WEF ‘Disinformation’ event: “We partnered with Google,” said Fleming, adding, “for example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.”

During the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Sustainable Development Impact Meetings last week, the unelected globalists held a panel on “Tackling Disinformation” where participants from the UN, CNN, and Brown University discussed how to best control narratives.

Fleming also highlighted that the UN worked with TikTok on a project called “Team Halo” to boost COVID messaging coming from medical and scientific communities on the Chinese-owned video sharing platform. “We had another trusted messenger project, which was called ‘Team Halo’ where we trained scientists around the world and some doctors on TikTok, and we had TikTok working with us,” she said.”

Dr. “I am science” Fauci is said to be preparing to sue the UN over trademark violation, nonpayment of royalties, tortious interference (intentional meddling with contractual relations – in this case the potential effect on searches containing ‘COVID,’ ‘MASKS,’ and ‘VACCINE’) with his partner Google, and attempted slavery – arguing that “climate change” is a yet another public health issue and only he can best advance medicalized authoritarianism.

Fauci strenuously emphasized that he was not owned by any political entity, and preempted a followup question by noting that Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance is an NGO (a non-governmental organization).

When asked if the trademark dispute was over the word ‘science’ or the word ‘weasels,’ the good doctor had no comment.

Asked who would liaise with the UN on climate issues, TikTok replied that the China Coal Transport and Distribution Association, the CCP politburo entity controlling Chinese coal*, would be adding Ashley Biden to its board of directors, commenting that her brother, Hunter’s, “usefulness as an energy company board member seemed to be at an end.”

*Fresh off record production in 2021.

The new heretics

In G.K. Chesterton’s day, it was not necessary to qualify the word “Liberal” with “Classical.”

Culture and political designations have changed. Verities, by definition, have not.

Five score and seventeen years after it was published, this resonates. It requires a careful reading:

“Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the scepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape. We who are Liberals once held Liberalism lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith. We who believe in patriotism once thought patriotism to be reasonable, and thought little more about it. Now we know it to be unreasonable, and know it to be right. We who are Christians never knew the great philosophic common sense which inheres in that mystery until the anti-Christian writers pointed it out to us. The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.”

G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, 1905

It is indeed strange that by 2022 courage is required contend that 2+2 is 4. The idea has been declared racist and patriarchal. We’re told simple arithmetic is an artifact of white privilege.

One may speculate that the hue of the impossible grass has been excluded from Progressive contempt only because that color is ‘green.’ And/or because neither white nor asian heterosexual males have mentioned it lately.

As to strange courage… How can it require courage to oppose those who declare men to be women?

Why is courage needed to suggest government profligacy tends toward inflation?

From whence could courage be summoned to contest those who think human life begins only after a full 9 months gestation?

In what reality does the idea that self-defense is a natural right become a courageous position?

What’s even stranger… these ideas have public support. In ‘safe’ districts hoary politicians run on these these ideas. Their wannabe successors echo the themes. Many of them are elected in spite of it. In fact, because of it.

What we can conclude is that our practice of democracy has proved Tocqueville right, and Benjamin Franklin’s fears accurate.

National Strategery

Elizabeth Nickson’s post on Substack generated this post. Read first:
Net Zero is Predator Class Policy
Using it, they will monetize air, land and water for themselves, in perpetuity

After reading it, I jumped sideways to a previous wondering: Why has Bill Gates become the largest farmland owner in the United States. What will he do with a quarter million acres? Is he thinking about establishing a competitor to Archer Daniels Midland? Is he going to build solar panel deserts over the grazing lands, or vast windmill excrescences where ethanol precursors once grew (that precursor is corn, if it wasn’t obvious)?

Could he be thinking about taking hundreds of thousands of acres of American farmland out of production simply to reduce cow farts and fertilizer use?

If that last seems like an insane idea, first consider that Bill Gates is not like you. The cost of this farmland is not going to affect his lifestyle. He can indulge an expensive, virtuous whim.

Second, there is the fact that there is a well established model for strategically buying lots of land for environmental purposes. For example, The Nature Conservancy.

My uncle was the driving force behind The Nature Conservancy, and I trusted it because he was a consummate and dedicated outdoorsman. He would unquestionably preserve human use of the land for fishing and hunting – for people who could hike to the sites.

Possibly “ableist” problematic today.

And Federal cash wasn’t showering upon him; limiting any vast ambitions to, mostly, the ultra-wealthy private citizens he could convince to donate.

Of course, trusting man for long term institutional probity is a fundamental mistake.

The Nature Conservancy PR is up to that challenge. One of their goals by 2030:

We will partner with communities around the globe to conserve 650 million hectares (about 1.6 billion acres) of land. Together we will restore and improve management of working lands, support the leadership of Indigenous Peoples as land stewards, and conserve critical forests, grasslands and other habitats rich in carbon and biodiversity.

The Nature Conservancy is a non-profit, giving them instant credibility with people who don’t know that ‘non-profit’ does not mean noble. Everyone wants to preserve natural beauty, no one wants pollution. This mission sounds wonderful, though that interpretation does depend on exactly what restrictions they decide to apply to the particular real estate they manage to control.

Balanced human well being is not a concept ecostatist organizations readily acknowledge. Spotted owls and snail darters are more important. We need people who argue this position to keep us conscientious. We definitely do not need them in control.

Less charitable interpretations can be applied depending on the definitions of “steward,” critical,” and especially “conserve.” All those things can be read to mean “the benefits of removing the land entirely from human use.” Could The Nature Conservancy be motivated by that idea? Well, they have arguably gone there in the past.

Third, consider efforts by the Federal government to prevent human activity on 30% of American land and water by 2030. The Nature Conservancy is onboard with the 30×30 project, to conserve 30% of US land and water by 2030. ‘Conserve’ here is reasonably read to mean excluding human activity. No crops, no livestock, no vehicles, no windmills, no solar panels, no resource extraction, etc..

An example:

While Congress was passing the Inflation Reduction Act (Inflation Act) last month that included $20 Billion for the climate crisis conservation programs, the radical left was rolling out the next targeted phase of their attack to achieve 30×30 (permanently protect 30 percent of our lands and oceans by 2030). This one is focused on the western federal lands.

An article entitled “Rewilding the American West,” (Rewild) was strategically released in several progressive publications, and then quickly reprinted and cited by others around the time the Inflation Act was passed. The Oxford Academia Journal Bio-Science was first, followed by recreational publications such as Outside Magazine, and then the international World Economic Forum.

The plan is to remove livestock grazing, mining, oil and gas, timber production and eventually recreation, from the western federal lands, and prioritize these areas for wolves and beavers. They have identified 11, 5000 square-kilometer reserves that total approximately 13.5 million acres. These reserves are to be connected, with additional federal land acquisitions and conservation easements on private lands, to create continuous wildlife corridors from Mexico to Canada…

We can thank Bill Gates for saving the green agenda. He is taking credit for convincing Senator Manchin (D-WV) to pass the lighter version. It should be no surprise then, that livestock grazing is first on the chopping block. After all, Gates has significant investments in plant-based meat companies and funds efforts to convince people to stop eating beef. Just like the Robber Barons of the Industrial Age, Bill Gates is bankrolling the environmental movement to drive out the competition.

And the Biden Administration is upping the ante with an executive order it calls a ‘New National Strategy’. As Nickson points out this is monetizing the air and water:
A New National Strategy to Reflect Natural Assets on America’s Balance Sheet

Fourth, the mention of the World Economic Forum in that quote is intriguing. This group has inspired a number of conspiracy theories with its “Great Reset” proposal. Dire and hazy speculations abound, but we need not consider those fever dreams given what the WEF has to say about themselves.

The magic words are ‘stakeholder capitalism’, a concept that WEF chairman Klaus Schwab has been hammering for decades and which occupies pride of place in the WEF’s Great Reset plan from June 2020. The idea is that global capitalism should be transformed so that corporations no longer focus solely on serving shareholders but become custodians of society by creating value for customers, suppliers, employees, communities and other ‘stakeholders’. The way the WEF sees stakeholder capitalism being carried out is through a range of ‘multi-stakeholder partnerships’ bringing together the private sector, governments and civil society across all areas of global governance.

The idea of stakeholder capitalism and multi-stakeholder partnerships might sound warm and fuzzy, until we dig deeper and realise that this actually means giving corporations more power over society, and democratic institutions less.

The plan from which the Great Reset originated was called the Global Redesign Initiative. Drafted by the WEF after the 2008 economic crisis, the initiative contains a 600-page report on transforming global governance. In the WEF’s vision, “the government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter.” Governments would be just one stakeholder in a multi-stakeholder model of global governance. Harris Gleckman, senior fellow at the University of Massachusetts, describes the report as “the most comprehensive proposal for re-designing global governance since the formulation of the United Nations during World War II.”

Stakeholder capitalism is just a way to give equal weight to the opinions of those who have no skin in the game. It’s the origin of ESG. If you don’t like the TV show, change the channel. If you don’t think the company is virtuous enough, don’t invest.

The WEF is also the author of this little gem. Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better

One implication is that you won’t be happy if you don’t move to a city. WEF doesn’t much like rural attitudes, which tend toward self reliance.

We could, of course, have a national strategy called laissez faire, and it would not involve redistribution of assets according to the distilled expertise of our betters.

A National Strategy does not have to be a government plan to seize assets. But it always is. Without that, how would our legislators manipluate insider information into profitable trades? From whence would come the extra-legal regulatory creep keeping unelected, faceless bureaucrats employed?

Somebody messed with his migrants

In his first week in office President Biden revoked President Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy.

In April he tried to stop the application of Title 42, under which DHS has the authority to expel migrants during a pandemic. It remains in place only through court order.

Biden’s fellow Democrats at all levels deny there is any problem at the southern border. Vice President Kamala Harris calls it “secure.” As does Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

These political signals invite would be immigrants to cross the border illegally. Placing themselves in great danger in so doing.

Having enticed millions of migrants to cross the border, where processing capacity and housing facilities are catastrophically inadequate. In order to avoid pictures of kids in cages For compassionate reasons, the Biden administration was forced relocate tens of thousands of them away from the border. This was a mostly surreptitious effort conducted at night to avoid public scrutiny.

In addition, hundreds of thousands of them have moved on on their own. Secretary Mayorkas admits we have no idea where they are.

I an effort to assist the President, the governors of Texas and Florida have moved a few hundred migrants, who volunteered, to ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions in other parts of the United States.

Fifty (50) of these were recently flown to Martha’s Vineyard, provoking primal NIMBYism from wealthy Progressive residents at whose behest the “sanctuary” label became their community credo. They’ll need new slogans.

The President is unhappy anyone dares to move a few migrants to places well situated to care for them. Places, until confronted with reality, advertising a deep desire to care for the displaced.

He is apparently not unhappy about this, though: More than 250,000 migrants have arrived this year alone in Yuma, Arizona – population ~100,000. It’s easily possible that 100,000 of those have gone off the radar on their own, of course, so Federal authorities no longer need worry about them. It’s a solution of sorts.

Yuma’s job is to take care of Biden’s future voters. Martha’s Vineyard’s job is to donate to Democrat election campaigns. Don’t mix them up.

So, the President’s anger is unappeased. Somebody messed with his migrants.
Biden condemns Republicans for using migrants as ‘props’

“Republicans are playing politics with human beings, using them as props. What they’re doing is simply wrong, it’s un-American, it’s reckless,” Biden said Thursday evening.

“And we have a process in place to manage migrants at the border. We’re working to make sure it’s safe and orderly and humane,” Biden continued. “Republican officials should not interfere with that process by waging these political stunts.”

Never mind that Biden’s open border policy is using migrants as props to force passage of some form of amnesty, while cynically salivating over the prospect of millions of new Democrat voters and denying there is any crisis in Yuma, for example.

Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott are the ones playing politics.

If there were evidence for the Democrat claim that Desantis’ and Abbott’s efforts are making the lives of the migrants worse, there might be room to discuss the practice. As it is, here’s how Biden’s “process” is working out (This isn’t a story the US corporate media wants to touch. We have to turn to the Brits.):
Apocalyptic El Paso: Shocking photos show 1,000 migrants sleeping on border city’s streets which now resemble ‘a third-world country’ with no sanitation

Sounds a lot like the paradise of downtown San Francisco and the streets of Los Angeles. Except Frisco and LA asked for it.

What is the collective noun…

… for Progressives.

You know, as in a “Murder of Crows”, a “Confusion of Weasels”, a “Cackle of Hyenas”, an “Infestation of Mosquitos”, a “Plague of Rats.”

I know a “Collective of Progressives” is self nominating, but I reject it because it is a tautology. “Hive-mind” would do better, but if Progs liked it (and why would they not?), it would just generate a bunch of new Hymenoptera based pronouns.

Let me suggest a “Diversity of Progressives.” Progressives already embrace it. And it encapsulates the natural hypocrisy of a group that worships D I V E R S I T Y so long as diversity does not involve any divergent thought.

Exploits

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently flew two plane loads of illegal immigrants (a bare smattering of those flown into Florida in the dead of night by Joe Biden) to Martha’s Vineyard. One of the most affluent places in the US1.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren was not pleased. She had this to say on Twitter:

Exploiting vulnerable people for political stunts is repulsive and cruel. Massachusetts is fully capable of handling asylum seekers, and I’ll keep working with local, state, and federal partners to ensure we have the necessary resources to care for people with dignity.

Senator, Governors Desantis and Abbott are providing your constituents with what they voted for when they elected you. DeSantis handed you an opportunity to renew your compassionate commitment to ‘asylum seekers’. And you did. What’s not to like?

Your compassion and the Vineyard’s wealth can now be brought to bear directly on healing the trauma of the volunteers DeSantis accepted from the random people foisted on his state by the leader of your party.

Asylum seekers. Enticed by President Biden’s open borders invitation, exploited by the hives of scum and villainy from which they fled, by the Coyotes who smuggled them to the border, and by random perverts, thieves, and killers they met along the way. There’s nothing DeSantis could do to worsen the conditions they escaped. In fact, he’s bidding to do quite the opposite by commending them to your wealthy and compassionate hands. What I don’t get is why you haven’t been demanding these poor and downtrodden souls to be given into your care immediately upon crossing the border.

Desantis and Abbott are sending exploited people to wealthy places where immigration enforcement is called fascist and border control officers are equated with Auschwitz guards. Certainly that’s Martha’s Vineyard*.*

As someone with Native American heritage, like Senator Warren, will deeply appreciate – Martha’s Vineyard is properly called Noepe in the Wampanoag language of the Algonquian’s. That’s what you should say in your paleface land acknowledgement rituals.

But also Chicago, Washington DC, New York City (where non-citizens can even vote), California (where they are eligible for free health care), and…

Oh, wait. Not California. Coal to Newcastle and all that.

These Governors are performing a public service. And besides, as I always say, “If you are going to exploit vulnerable people for personal or political gain, it’s best not to fake anything.”


Giving sanctuary cities an opportunity to actually exercise the virtue they signal is a creative approach to satisfying a demand by someone who has an excess supply. It is charity to the vulnerable and to the pious.

Here’s a brief portrait of that piety in action from Wikipedia. I know, I know, but Wikipedia’s leftist slant makes this all the more credible to Progs not named Elizabeth Warren.
1

Since the 19th century, the island has had a sizable community of Portuguese-Americans, concentrated primarily in the three down-Island towns of Oak Bluffs, Tisbury, and Edgartown; they have traditionally worked alongside other island residents in whaling and fishing. It also has a large community of Brazilian immigrants who work mainly in the maintenance of the island’s vacation facilities.[98]

The island’s permanent residents were profiled in a London Telegraph article showing “the dark side of Martha’s Vineyard”.[99] In the same month an article titled “Edgartown’s Darker Side” appeared in the Boston Globe detailing the extremely poor working conditions suffered by Irish and Serbian students in a newly built private members club in Edgartown.[100] Concerns over munitions that may be buried on Martha’s Vineyard, most from World War II,[101] have led to an 8.1 million dollar project to remove and rebuild part of a privately owned barrier beach off the Tisbury Great Pond.[102]

The year-round working population of Martha’s Vineyard earns 30 percent less on average than other residents of the state while keeping up with a cost of living that is 60 percent higher than average.[103] Many people are moving to more affordable areas.[citation needed] Schools have seen a successive drop in enrollment over the past few years.[citation needed] Typically home to artists, musicians, and other creative types, the Island has many residents who manage by working several jobs in the summer and taking some time off in the winter.[citation needed] The lack of affordable housing on the island has forced many families to move off-island.[citation needed]

Many high-profile residents, movie stars, politicians, writers, and artists contribute to fundraisers and benefits that raise awareness of the fragile ecosystem of the Vineyard and support community organizations and services. The largest of these is the annual Possible Dreams Auction.[104]

There are, then, acceptable immigrants on Martha’s Vineyard.

Just not any who haven’t had a background employment check. Those are being exploited.

The Electric Firetruck Acid Test

From the Toronto Sun, a note on a new fire truck in Vancouver. It’s electric.

“… the new e-truck will cost $300,000 more than a comparable diesel model, pump 40 per cent less water and have such a short range (30 km) because of its enormous weight that it will have to have backup diesel power in case it runs out of juice on the way to a blaze.”

It seems like an incredibly stupid purchase, guaranteed to get you booted out of office. Let’s see if it’s accurate. A “fact check” if you will.

The central question is, “Is it likely purchases of this nature will contribute significantly to saving us from the coming climate horror, or is it a vanity bonfire fueled by virtue signaling public officials?” We’re provisionally accepting the assumption of CO2 precipitated planetary catastrophe here, because it is a religious tenet for a goodly majority of Vancouverites… who elected the people who bought the truck. The virtue Vancouver public officials are signaling is sacrosanct.

Still, some questions naturally follow (though I doubt Vancouver asked them).

How much emitted CO2 will it prevent? Is there data about life cycle carbon emissions for EV vs ICE (internal combustion engines)?

There is, and Bjorn Lomborg references a comprehensive set of data at the International Energy Agency in a WSJ article. Policies Pushing Electric Vehicles Show Why Few People Want One:

Making batteries for electric cars also requires a massive amount of energy, mostly from burning coal in China. Add it all up and the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car emits a little less than half as much CO2 as a gasoline-powered one.

The climate effect of our electric-car efforts in the 2020s will be trivial. If every country achieved its stated ambitious electric-vehicle targets by 2030, the world would save 231 million tons of CO2 emissions. Plugging these savings into the standard United Nations Climate Panel model, that comes to a reduction of 0.0002 degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

Vehicle electrification is having a very small impact on future climate. And an electric firetruck’s contribution to CO2 reduction is proportionally much less than a car’s. A firetruck is driven very few miles compared to a car, and since driving is where the emissions are actually saved an electric firetruck is CO2 reduction theater. A better use of well over a million dollars would have have been replacement of every city car with an EV. Well, except for public safety vehicles like police cars. They’d have to be hybrids if they were appropriate to their mission.

As the article alludes, the firetruck needs diesel backup. Unsurprisingly, it’s an OEM option. If we look at the truck specs we can see whether that’s really optional; get some indication about whether the range is only 30 kilometers; and gain some insight into how well the truck can pump water once it gets to the fire.

The truck is an Austrian made Rosenbauer RT, and there is a claim here that it can go 100 kilometers, round trip. That would be 60 miles.

“The system is set to be recharged incredibly quickly and can power the truck for 100 km of driving; Moore notes that in Vancouver they usually only drive five to 10 km, and never anywhere near 100 km. And if they do need power for an extended period of time there is a range extender, a 350 hp diesel engine from BMW which can refill the batteries faster than driving depletes them. Using that it can go another 300 to 400 km.”

No word on what ‘incredibly quickly’ means, but with a dedicated 350 HP Beamer diesel, it doesn’t matter. Of course, that makes it a hybrid, not an EV.

The range discrepancy might be explained by the fact that there are options for 1 or 2 50KW hour battery packs, and how far it can go/how long it can pump will vary depending on the outside temperature.

On the pumping question we have this:

With the battery packs at 100% of charge, the water pump can work continuously for one hour at 528 gpm until the charge falls to 20%. When the turbodiesel engine kicks in, the truck can keep pumping water for five hours more.

With 2 battery packs then, it can pump for an hour. Let’s assume 80% of that is available given the need to drive to and from the fire. That’s 48 minutes. That’s maybe 24 minutes with a single battery pack.

It seems that each truck would have to be equipped with the Beamer diesel in order to fulfill a mission of public safety. Practically, that means it’s a hybrid, not an EV. The carbon emissions it does save? At best, that’s for an hour of operation per fire. But then it has to be recharged…

Beyond the base emission scenario there are carbon questions related to a firetruck’s job.

Are the batteries in Vancouver’s new truck kept up solely by a combination of dedicated windmills, solar panels, and hydro power? If not, there is a carbon cost to having it sit in the firehouse.

Is there additional carbon generated by fires that will burn longer, or spread, with less water being delivered? Is the cost of increased property damage considered? What about increased danger to life and limb?

The laser focus on CO2 emissions is the same error similar myopic apparatchiks made with the CCP virus. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE MATTERS but flattening the curve. Pathetic.

So, right in line with the logic behind mandating electric vehicles before we have the means of powering them. Ref: California, where internal combustion engine vehicles were banned by 2035 just a few days before EV owners were asked not to charge their EVs due to threats of rolling blackouts.

Get back to me when you have affordable electricity infrastructure in place. You’ll need nukes.