WATCH: Eco-radicals from Extinction Rebellion literally bury their heads in the sand
Extinction Rebellion has made waves in recent weeks due to their constant environmentalist activism that aims to disrupt the day-to-day lives of average citizens. This is all done in hopes of forcing those in power to take more firm stances on the issue of climate change so that new policies can be implemented.
Known for such “progressive” tactics as supergluing themselves to bridges and government buildings, staging “die-ins” in front of statues in New York, and blocking traffic by setting up camping compounds in the middle of streets, Extinction Rebellion has now reached new heights of wokeness in their climate crusade. New footage tweeted by Human Events’ Ian Miles Cheong shows Extinction Rebellion quite literally burying their heads in the sand.
One might think that this ostrich-like behaviour is a meme or tribute to a popular South Park episode which depicts citizens doing the same (as Cheong pointed out). But this is 2019. The wokeness is real.
As for Extinction Rebellion, how driving their cars from Australian cities to a dreary, windy beach in order to dig holes to bury their heads in will save the environment is yet to be determined.
A group of young Ontarians is launching a lawsuit against Doug Ford due to the Progressive Conservative’s inaction on climate change. The youths are arguing that Ford has violated their charter rights by reducing their climate targets, according to the CBC.
The group is claiming that the Ford government’s climate policy will lead to widespread death, which if correct, would understandably violate section 7 of the charter: protection for life, liberty, and security of the person.
The group is also demanding that the Ontario government creates more ambitious legislation for tackling climate change, such as limiting global warming to 1.5 C.
The group is composed of young Ontarians, ranging from the age of 12 to 24. They are being represented by Stockwoods LLP and Ecojustice, which is a group dedicated to stopping climate change through legal action.
This form of climate action is becoming increasingly more common. Earlier this year, for example, another group of young people launched a lawsuit against Trudeau’s federal government. There have been similar lawsuits in the United States and the Netherlands.
Having said this, this is the first lawsuit filed against a provincial government for climate inaction.
America’s favourite Saturday afternoon activity, college football has now officially become a part of the culture wars. Today’s big match-up between Ivy League rivals Yale and Harvard has been disrupted by a large group of angry student protestors demanding action on the “climate crisis.”
The protestors unfurled large banners that read “NOBODY WINS: YALE & HARVARD ARE COMPLICIT IN CLIMATE INJUSTICE” in a surreal scene that Barstool Sports referred to as “peak 2019.”
Football fans all over social media were not pleased to say the least. But some saw the humour in the situation.
The protest lasted for 48 minutes. ESPN reports that many of the protestors asked to be arrested.
In April, 2014, the Globe and Mail published an article, “Climate change and health: Extreme heat a ‘silent killer.’” In it, the reporter cites the claim of an alleged expert from a non-profit, Clean Air Partnership (CAP), that maximum temperatures in Toronto could be expected to rise 7 C by 2045.
The reporter did not query the figure in her write-up, and her editor apparently didn’t take a good look at what she had written, or else he or she would have reared back and yelled, WTF? A predicted rise of 23 C in a single century? Get hold of that guy and check that you got the right figure.
Imagine if some alleged expert on health care had told the same Globe reporter that Ontario would require a budget of a trillion dollars to cover coming claims on the provincial health services. She would have gasped and challenged him. When it comes to climate alarmism, most media people have simply muted their powers of critical thinking, because they see themselves as conduits for alarmism Kool-Aid, not independent observers.
Thankfully, not all journalists march in lockstep on the issue. In an article for the American Thinker, Canadian researcher Sierra Rayne poured scorn on it: “To say [the 7 C theory] is insanely large would be an understatement.”
Rayne pointed out that a cursory perusal of the Environment Canada Adjusted and Homogenized Canadian Climate Data database would illustrate that the daily summer maximum temperatures in Toronto showed no upward trend whatsoever. She further noted that a database for the WMO-certified Pearson Airport site demonstrated there was “absolutely no temporal correlation” for extreme July or August maximum temperatures between 1938 (when the database was initiated) and 2012.
In fact, there was no source in Canada then—and still isn’t—from which CAP could have plucked that ludicrous figure. University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick had at that time just created his invaluable site, yourenvironment.ca, which sets out a complete temporal record of officially recorded air and pollution levels everywhere in Canada. The data for the site is culled from provincial environment and natural resources ministries, or from Environment Canada. Over many decades, no matter where you look in Canada, the graph trends remain resolutely horizontal with tiny upward and downward spikes indicating extreme weather blips.
Every layperson who identifies as an alarmism skeptic has his or her own pivotal moment, and that idiotic “news” story in the Globe was mine. When reporters and editors act like deer in the headlights in the reception and dissemination of demonstrably impossible “information,” it’s clear evidence that they have been gripped by a socially contagious virus. These are the people who in the 19th century would have believed tulip bulb prices were never going to peak, even if every single family on the planet had enough tulip bulbs to fill a half-acre garden.
The late writer Michael Crichton, author of the best-selling 2004 techno-thriller, “State of Fear,” was one of the first independent students of environmentalism to define environmentalism as a “religion,” and to observe that its principal characteristic was to cater to the state of alarm he believed is an inherent human need. Its dogmatists act as though they have been appointed Morals Police. And they do not take kindly to dissent.
Al Gore, whose 2006 documentary film An Inconvenient Truth was received with uncritical awe, (one of my friends, normally very brainy, described it as a “religious experience”) was later found by a UK court to contain “nine key scientific errors.” It was deemed rife with “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush” and the judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented made it not an impartial scientific analysis, but a “political film.” He continues to hector the world as though that never happened from the depths of a home whose electricity kilowatt hours exceed twenty times the national average.
In 2007, environmental guru David Suzuki stormed out of a Toronto radio station interview when the host suggested global warming was not yet a “totally settled issue.” The incident revealed the mindset of the enviro-ayatollahs. (We see its 16-year-old version in little Pied Piper leader of the Children’s Crusade Greta “how-dare-you” Thunberg.) Suzuki perceived the radio host as a blasphemer, unworthy of his rational rebuttal. Suzuki actually felt enviro-infidels should be literally suppressed, and even opined that politicians who aren’t on board with his views should go to prison. You’d think a guy that far down the rabbit hole would be minding his own enviro P’s and Q’s, but like Al Gore, his real estate portfolio is humongous and his carbon footprint immense.
Ordinary Canadians were afraid to criticize Suzuki, but he got his comeuppance in 2013 in Australia when, speaking to an audience of actual scientist who knew their stuff, he revealed his ignorance about actual climate data. I confess to a very satisfying hour of Schadenfreude in watching him make him a fool of himself on camera. Thankfully, hopefully feeling a bit chastened, he retired from the scene in 2014.
Hard to believe, but we’re now marking the tenth anniversary of what journalist James Delingpole dubbed Climategate. The astonishing truths of the climate-change religion’s seamy underbelly revealed in the masses of internal communications by supposedly authoritative and honest alpha climatologists might have acted as a therapeutic purgative to the credulous masses, but the collusive rush to exculpation by the usual suspects put paid to any such hopes.
Let me offer a word of advice to my fellow non-scientists who think they do not deserve to have a voice in this discussion for lack of credentials. Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by those who wield the scimitar of “authority” to speak on this issue because you are not a “peer-reviewed” PhD or because you don’t cite “primary sources.” You’ll notice they don’t scold Greta Thunberg for her reliance on others.
You have a working brain. You have the ability to read and assess the argumentation of those who have been researching climate change at the primary-source level for many years. You have a pretty good understanding of the difference between actual facts and “projections.” As time passes and prediction after prediction fails to come true, you have a right to question where scientific objectivity ends and ideology begins. It’s your tax dollars that are gushing forth in the service of a policy that is very likely based on false assumptions, and which could be better spent in fighting pollution and human misery. You have a right to interrogate the premises that are turning the spigot.
Keep reading. There are many excellent websites and books that lay out evidence-based skeptics’ position. For a one-stop enlightening, comprehensive, reader-friendly and entertaining overview, I recommend the above-mentioned journalist James Delingpole’s 2012 book “Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colours.” In the seven years since it was published, Delingpole told me, nothing has happened to change his mind. If anything, the passage of time has confirmed his challenges to alarmism.
A Teen Vogue article from October has re-surfaced online in the last couple of days.
The headline “10 Best Vibrators for Beginners: How to Pick Your First” has made jaws drop—including mine.
This is a magazine targeting teenagers. That basically means children: 13 and 14-year-olds. And let’s face it, there are probably 12-year-olds out there reading too.
The article starts off, “As young people, it’s important to learn what feels good for us and what doesn’t, and masturbation is nothing to shy away from. In fact, we should all be doing it!. .. plus, it releases endorphins that make us feel happier and less stressed.”
Not only is this article encouraging sexual activity, but the article is listed on the “Gift Guide 2019,” so now your kid can get her and her bestie $200 vibrators.
Apparently, Teen Vogue thinks kids should be using sex toys and that vibrators make great gifts for the holidays.
Encouraging teens to be sexual is sexualizing teenagers.
Even as I type I can’t help but cringe and feel weird just writing about how … well, weird it is.
Why would a teen need a list of 10 different types of vibrators?
As if she knows what she likes sexually. As if she is ready and comfortable enough to experiment sexually.
And really, I shouldn’t even be using female pronouns because Teen Vogue has an entire online section named Identity with many articles about sexual and gender identity like transgenderism and non-binarism.
This section also includes articles like, “How to Masturbate If You Have a Penis: 9 Tips and Techniques” and “Anal Sex: Safety, How to’s, Tips, and More.”
Teenagers are much more children than they are adults. Let children be children and teens be teens.
Let teens live in the awkward stage where their bodies grow and change and they start to get shy around the opposite sex.
Let teens be slightly uncomfortable in their own skin—like when you don’t know what to do with your arms when you’re just standing around.
It’s all a part of growing up. And everyone grows up in their own time, naturally.
Let teens be inexperienced and uncomfortable with their sexuality. After all, this isn’t activity we should take lightly—or should I say casually?
At some point, society stopped letting kids be kids. Progressives have forced kids to grow up so fast and bear the weight of the adult world on their small shoulders: kids like Greta Thunberg whose childhood was “stolen” from her and lives with fear and anger because adults made her believe the world will end in 12 years due to climate change, or James Younger whose mother manipulated him into thinking he was a girl and was almost pushed into making a huge, life-altering decision of transitioning.
Kids and teens shouldn’t be worried or involved in such mature and complicated issues like sex, masturbation, and sex toys.
Teen Vogue also has a Politics section which, you guessed it, is completely anti-conservative.
I remember reading magazines as a pre-teen and teenager. Whatever happened to articles about fun sleep-over ideas? Or quizzes to find out what kind of mystical forest creature you’d be?
I miss the old days when children were allowed to be children and not at risk of being coerced into a deeply politicized and sexualized world by cynical and malicious adults.