Senator Kamala Harris and California Gov Gavin Newsom took the opportunity to do a photo shoot on the property of a family who lost their home to the devastating wildfires.
This is what Trampas Patten, son of the owner, had to say:
“For the friends of mine that don’t recognize the fireplace in the background, that is what is left of my parents house! What has me really frustrated right now is the fact that these two politicians used my parents loss for a photo opportunity to push their political agenda! Political party wouldn’t have made a difference in this moment. Decent human beings that have character and class, wouldn’t air someone else’s misfortune on national television! Think about this when you go to the polls in a few weeks to vote. Look at this picture closely, imagine it is what is left of your hard work, hopes, dreams, place of sanctuary. Do you want this kind of leadership, using you and your loss for political gain?! For the record, my parents haven’t even been let back in yet themselves, to sort through what is left of their lives, but these two felt the need to go traipsing around my parents property without permission. I guess those property taxes my parents pay allow politicians to do this! Private property doesn’t exist in California anymore!“
His sister Bailee chimed in with:
“Dear Governor Newsom you don’t know me but I’m one of your CA citizens. That truck you are standing by is my dads work truck. He has had that thing for as long as I can remember. That land with all the rubble your standing next too, that’s my house I grew up in. You never got my parents permission to go on our property, nor did you ask if we needed help. What you did do is take my families loss and parade it all over social media and news networks to push your agenda. That agenda can wait, right now you should be caring about the families of this state. Thankfully this community is #mountainstrong and we will thrive.“
When it is all to push a climate change agenda in media approved Timberland boots, who cares about those affected? Facts don’t matter. Fashion and fashionable causes not supported by the facts do.
Wow. Scientific American has endorsed Joe Biden. This is the first time the magazine has backed a presidential candidate in 175 years. We think it may live to regret its move. The magazine has merely exposed the deep partisan bias and confirmed again how much of scientific academia and media leans left. Why?
The editors closed with,
“It’s time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.”
If we listened to Joe Biden’s ‘Moses and the 10 Commandments’ speech the other day, it was full of unsubstantiated hyperbole about the risks of higher incidences of floods, hurricanes and wildfires if Trump is reelected despite the fact that under the current administration, harmful GHG emissions have fallen by the largest absolute number ever in 2019 according to the IEA.
For a magazine that rests its laurels on “following the data” and “being guided by the science”, perhaps it missed the UNIPCC’s March 2018 report on weather extremes (with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming) which noted:
“…There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems…in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods…low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds.. low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons…low confidence in wave height projections…overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes…low confidence in projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.”
Perhaps the editors missed the questionnaire posted by the UN Interacademy Council committee on its website which invited interested parties to respond to the scientific processes at the IPCC during the compilation of the gold standard climate bibles? These were some of the responses;
“some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.” (p.16)
“There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter…we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent.” (p. 138)
“The whole process…[is] flawed by an excessive concern for geographical balance. All decisions are political before being scientific.” (p. 554)
“half of the authors are there for simply representing different parts of the world.” (p. 296)
Lest anyone think that people from less affluent countries were being unjustly stereotyped,
“The team members from the developing countries (including myself) were made to feel welcome and accepted as part of the team. In reality, we were out of our intellectual depth as meaningful contributors to the process.” (p.330)
The founders of Scientific American must be rolling over in their graves. If their scientific rigour is as sound as their endorsement then Trump has even more chances to secure reelection.
This should be seen as a rejection of Trump not an endorsement for Biden.
Can you spot the difference? Here is Joe Biden’s version.
The irony is that America, despite not being a signatory of the Paris Climate Accord, has recorded the largest falls in GHG emissions of any nation on an absolute basis ever under Trump. The IEA reported,
“The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt.”
An Oregon lady caught an arsonist in the act and exercised her second amendment rights to hold the individual under citizen’s arrest until the police arrived.
As Bernie Sanders and the left keep banging on about climate change being behind the bushfires, once again, arson is a large factor. Joe Biden gave a speech saying that the US risks being destroyed by fires, floods and hurricanes.
We wrote about the causes of bushfires during Australia’s recent disaster here.
In short, coronavirus has run its scaremongering course so it is now time to rachet up global warming again. We imagine Greta Thunberg will he invited on Zoom to do a town hall with Biden.
There are lies, more lies and then there are statistics. When the COVID-19 autopsy is finally published we will know that had credible biopsies been conducted, such ineptitude would never have led to the disastrous outcomes and misinformation we have faced today. The media have been willing accomplices, taking a morbid fascination with daily reporting to help arrest falling ad revenues and relevance.
It is worth pondering the slew of dud predictions made to date by so many activist medical academic bodies across the globe. These forecasts have been the very opinions by which so many poor policies have been forged by local, state and national governments. Even worse, these healthcare hacks have faced absolutely no accountability for those wildly inaccurate advisories.
Australian senior medical experts told the government the country risked 5,000,000 infections and a best case scenario of 50,000 deaths. The actual figures are 26,465 and 781 respectively. Consequences? Zero.
It is hard not to think of the actions of these whackademics as akin to the climate science cult which has portended doom for the longest time. How timely that the Dr Tedros, of the completely discredited World Health Organization, said, “In particular, the Covid-19 pandemic has given new impetus to the need to accelerate efforts to respond to climate change.” To think if we had eradicated fossil fuels that the pandemic wouldn’t have been worse than a spot of hay fever?
Speaking of fossil fuels, it is a perfect segue into the carbon criminals who attended Sturgis, South Dakota (SD) last month.
A recent report published by the Institute of Labor Economics (ILE) – which to the best of our knowledge is not in the healthcare sector – suggests that the 10-day Sturgis motorcycle rally during August 2020 was a super-spreader event leading to 260,000 infections, or 19% of the nation’s total during that period.
Medical experts warned that SD would have 10,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals because the state refused to lock down but it never exceeded 100 at the peak. SD has some of the lowest rates in absolute and relative terms. Governor Kristi Noem made a point to allow residents to exercise common sense and keep operating. What a surprise it is now the best performing state in the US. No wonder the media hates its narrative busting success.
The mainstream media wasted no time to heap scorn on 480,000 irresponsible two-wheeled outlaws who have now apparently burdened the taxpayer with another $12.2bn in unnecessary health costs. Even if that number was accurate, we shudder to think of the $ trillions in economic damages caused by largely Democrat-controlled states and cities which have forced their minions into lockdown. Never mind that the political elites – who exert control over them – have brazenly violated many of the rules they issue dire warnings over. We wrote about that here.
Then these doomsayers wonder why events like Sturgis happen? Could it be that people are growing tired of the hypocrisy and see right through the “rules for thee, but not for me” double standards.
Naturally journalists went into overdrive saying that SD had the highest spike in the rate of coronavirus cases in the nation after Sturgis. That was partly true. Note that is the “growth rate”, not the “absolute” number.
What many statisticians fail to account for is the law of incredibly low numbers to begin with in SD.
Note the relatively unchanged trajectory of deaths from COVID-19 (below), which the CDC admits is directly responsible for only 6% of the total. 94% are caused by co-morbidities.
Neighbouring Iowa and North Dakota were also pointed to as states which were affected by these renegades. Death rates have not moved much, if at all.
The divergent trends of coronavirus cases and deaths is an increasingly global phenomenon. Lockdown or no lockdown, better approaches to hygiene and more precautions taken by age groups more susceptible to the virus are no doubt a factor.
Yet governments are still ignoring hard evidence and blindly following inept medical advice in order to hold onto these new found powers so they can preach how virtuous they are to save a handful of lives but destroy 1,000s upon 1,000s of livelihoods. It is shameless and we hope voters punish them at the ballot box.
In closing, these two charts on SD more accurately reflect the media and medical activists. Infections marking the level of amplified hysteria and death rates depicting the lack of trust we should place in these institutions.
If Hollywood wasn’t cringeworthy enough at the best of times, the Oscars will require films meet two out of four inclusivity and diversity standards to be eligible for Best Picture from 2024.
Never mind that it is an industry which infamously turned a blind eye to serial sexual assault offenders because it suited their careers to say nothing for decades. Now it will all be about telling us how we should look at their efforts to combat systemic liberal privilege.
In order to be able to be selected for best picture category producers must prove diversity and equitable representation on screen and off, addressing gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity and disability.
Will that mean that movie makers may have to select actors that are less than suitable for a role just to hit woke targets as opposed to ability? Is that what movie goers pay for? These social justice warriors should be careful for what they wish for. Here are some examples.
Political correctness seems to dominate Hollywood of late. Whether complaints that not enough actors of colour were represented in Dunkirk or JK Rowling copping flak from LGBT activists because Albus Dumbledore wasn’t openly gay enough in the Fantastic Beasts film.
The ratings for the Oscars has plummeted over 40% over the last 5 years. The same goes for the Emmys and Golden Globes. People are tired of listening to the most out-of-touch people on the planet.
Halle Berry came out with some ridiculous comment about rejecting a role on the basis of transgender appropriation. Isn’t the whole point of acting to pretend?
Erasing history is another game Hollywood frequently plays. American pride soared with the iconic planting of the flag on the moon. In ‘First Man’ that scene was omitted. Wasn’t that the point of the movie? To celebrate American excellence?
Comedy is a forte too. One of the Golden Globe MCs stated a few years back that, “The only white people that thank Jesus are Republicans and ex-crackheads.” We challenged Hollywood – would they dare say “The only black people that thank Mohammed are Democrats and ex-crackheads”? After all it’s just comedy, right? Of course they are the very racists they condemn.
Or crass. Sarah Oh said at the Golden Globes, “Break out the tissues because you’re going to want to masturbate to all of them” when referring to the upcoming nominees.
At the Golden Globes, celebrities changed the menu to vegan to combat climate change as these same people arrived in individual limousines after returning from their lavish vacation islands on private jets. Joachim Phoenix promised us he would wear one tuxedo for the entire awards season. The selfless sacrifice! Who wouldn’t be inspired especially his speech which included, “We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable. Then we take her milk that’s intended for her calf and we put it in our coffee and our cereal.”
Many movies which have attempted to go woke have pretty much all flopped at the box office. Elizabeth Banks, producer of the remake of Charlie’s Angels, said,
“Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie, too. This movie has to make money. If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies.”
In Hollywoke it is clearly the audience’s fault for not watching rather than the unappealing content.
Cinema attendance in the domestic US market is back at 1993 levels. In the 1990s Hollywood made 400-500 films annually. It now pumps out more than 700. The average revenue per film continues to head south. The strategy seems to throw more at audiences and hope it sticks. Are the movies the industry rates itself on actually reflected in the box office? Out of touch with the audience?
It is interesting that $100m box offices were a cert for an Oscar Best Picture award til 2004 after which it has been hit and miss since. 10 films in the last 15 Best Pictures have failed to breach $75mn.
So instead of Hollywood being so preoccupied with espousing politics, perhaps it should look to the audience it ‘preaches’ to and starts ‘reaching’ them. We are quite sure that telling them they should accept a black lesbian as Hitler in a remake of The Bunker will draw them to the flicks.