What Climate Crisis?

Quote of the Day

We are constantly reminded that we are experiencing a climate crisis, but as a climate scientist, I can tell you that’s not what the science has shown us so far. Other than modest warming, there has been little change in any kind of severe weather that can be attributed to global greenhouse gas emissions.

You don’t have to take my word for it, despite my credentials. It’s the conclusion of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its most recent report concludes that, other than direct temperature-related effects, there have been virtually no changes in severe weather that we can confidently attribute to greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

And they do not anticipate that conclusion to change much, even by the end of this century.

Roy W. Spencer
The Heritage Foundation
October 10, 2024
Commentary: Climate change: The science doesn’t support the heated rhetoric

I suspect Spencer is correct, but I’m not going to commit on this as it is not my area of expertise. There is just too much emotion and money involved on the side of “global cooling!”, “global warming!”, “climate change!” for me to be anything but suspicious of them.

And besides, as hinted at in the article, increasing temperatures and rising sea levels are much better for everyone than entering another ice age. Which is easier to deal with? The sea rising a few feet and Canada getting a longer growing season for their crops? Or the corn belt hosting reindeer grazing the new tundra with glaciers a mile deep covering everything north from Seattle and New York City?

This is Just the Beginning

California man charged with smuggling greenhouse gases a US first, prosecutors say | Fox News

A Southern California man was arrested Monday on suspicion of smuggling refrigerants into the U.S. from Mexico and federal prosecutors said he’s the first person to be charged with violating regulations intended to curb the use of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

The indictment alleges Michael Hart, of San Diego, smuggled the ozone-depleting chemicals across the border concealed under a tarp and tools in his vehicle. He posted them for sale on the internet, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

“This is the first time the Department of Justice is prosecuting someone for illegally importing greenhouse gases, and it will not be the last,” U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath said in a statement.

Emphasis added.

I see a future where ordinary people are prosecuted for smuggling carbonated soft drinks into California.


* You knew the carbonation, CO2, is already considered a pollutant in some political jurisdictions, right?

Doomsday Cult Puzzled that the Earth Still Exists

Quote of the Day

The laws of thermodynamics dictate that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, but new research has found that atmospheric moisture has not increased as expected over arid and semi-arid regions of the world as the climate has warmed.

The findings are particularly puzzling because climate models have been predicting that the atmosphere will become more moist, even over dry regions. If the atmosphere is drier than anticipated, arid and semi-arid regions may be even more vulnerable to future wildfires and extreme heat than projected.

David Hosansky
January 17, 2024
Climate change isn’t producing expected increase in atmospheric moisture over dry regions: Study

After about the third paragraph I was laughing the rest of the way through the article.

There is no hint they would ever consider the possibility their climate heating models are flawed or that the mean global temperature is not increasing. It is like a doomsday cult predicting the end of the world on January 1, 2000 and when it doesn’t happen they don’t question the integrity of their prophet, but instead claim the destroyer gave them a second chance.

Read When Prophecy Fails: A Doomsday Cult on Alien Invasion for more insight on the behavior and psychology of these type of people. You might expect they would forsake their prophet when confronted with irrefutable evidence of the failure of the prophecies. But that is not what happens. Instead, most of the time, they will prophesize all the more vigorously.

I find the psychology absolutely fascinating.

And, of course, the same psychology exists within the gun grabber community.

Get Government out of Research

Quote of the Day

Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.

Judith Curry
August 10, 2023
Scientist admits the ‘overwhelming consensus’ on the climate change crisis is ‘manufactured’

This sort of thing happens in research about crime and guns too.

Getting government out of the funding of most research* is probably part of the solution. Biases will always exist. But at least none of the biased parties will be spending essentially unlimited public money to produce garbage.


* I can see research directed at military objectives as being constitutional and appropriate.

Unintended Consequences

The first sentence of this article is totally bogus. So who knows what to make of the following quote:

Climate Collapse Could Happen Fast

James Hansen, one of the early voices on climate, says that measures to mitigate the crisis may now, ironically, be contributing to it. He published a working paper this spring suggesting that a reduction in sulfate aerosol particles—or the air pollution associated with burning coal and the global shipping industry—has contributed to warmer temperatures. That’s because these particles cause water droplets to multiply, which brightens clouds and reflects solar heat away from the planet’s surface. Though the paper has not been peer-reviewed, Hansen predicts that environmentally minded policies to reduce these pollutants will likely cause temperatures to rise by 2 degrees Celsius by 2050.

Assuming it is true, I find it amusing that if we do have global warming problems we can blame it on the environmentalists and truthfully insist the cure is to crank up the coal fired power plants.

The problem is we are dealing with an incredible complex, non-linear, system with variables and values we not only don’t know about, but are unknowable, and interact with unknowable effects.

Arrest and Jail Those Men

Quote of the Day

This is serious. We’ve got about seven, eight years to cut ourselves in half of what we use of fossil fuels, and unfortunately, the people that have the least responsibility for it are hit the hardest — Global South, people on islands, poor people of color. It is a tragedy that we have to absolutely stop. We have to arrest and jail those men — they’re all men.

Jane Fonda
May 27, 2023
Jane Fonda blames ‘White men’ for climate crisis, calls to ‘arrest and jail’ them

Interesting viewpoint. Any idea what laws have “those men” have broken?

A better question is, did she stop taking her dementia meds?

Gun violence due to climate change

No. It’s not April 1st. And even if it had been I would not have been able to make this up:

New study finds tragic factor contributing to thousands of gun deaths nationwide

Gun violence is already a pressing public health concern in the U.S., and a new study has found a troubling link between it and the overheating of our planet.

As temperatures across the country soar and unseasonably warm days continue, the number of gun deaths across the country has gone up.

Nearly 8,000 gun shootings can be attributed to extreme temperatures, according to research published by JAMA Network.

The study analyzed 100 major U.S. cities with the highest proportion of gun violence between 2015 and 2020. It found that out of 116 ,511 shootings, roughly 6.85% (or 7,973) were attributable to above-average temperatures.

This means that if we successfully address global warming we can get rid of all the gun control laws.

I fear global cooling more than global warming

If humans actually have some control over the global temperature we should error on the side of making things too warm rather than too cold. It’s a lot easier to deal with a few feet of rise in the level of the ocean than it is to deal with a mile of ice over Seattle, Chicago, and New York and everything north of there.

You aren’t polluting—you are fertilizing

Well, duh!

Carbon Dioxide Seems to Be Making Trees Grow Faster, Scientists Say

Amid serious concerns about the climate effects of carbon dioxide, scientists have discovered something intriguing — that trees appear to be growing faster and larger as levels of the compound rise.

In a press release, environmental researchers at Ohio State University claimed that the rate and size at which forests are growing may already be counteracting the worst effects of climate change.

“Forests are taking carbon out of the atmosphere at a rate of about 13 percent of our gross emissions,” Brent Sohngen, co-author of the school’s study published recently in Nature Communications and OSU professor of environmental and resource economics, said. “While we’re putting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we’re actually taking much of it out just by letting our forests grow.”

I suspect farm and garden crop yields are also improving.

People who want CO2 emissions reduced want people to starve*.


* Yeah, it is an absurd statement. But, if gun owners insisting the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms not be infringed means we want school children murdered then environmentalist should be able to suck it up when they are accused of wanting people to starve.

The physics of heat transfer

When I was going to college thermodynamics was dreaded by many engineering students. Apparently, it involved concepts difficult for many to grasp. For some reason it made perfect sense to me. Compared to most of my other engineering classes it was easy. I got a very high A in the class. That was decades ago, and I have forgotten a lot of it but I do have a good recollection of heat transfer.

That bright engineering students find it challenging means it should come as no surprise that people with little or no training in the subject would have misconception about how certain thermodynamic related physical phenomena occur. There have been many times on this blog I have made statements, or linked to articles, which described perfectly obvious observations. Some commenters declared them obliviously false. I didn’t want to take the time to explain why they were in error. It was just too much work for that particular situation.

It is now time to attempt explain certain things to people in terms and examples that will help them understand the physics of heat transfer. There are other sources on the web as well. But I will include example directly applicable to material on this blog.

The three* classic methods of heat transfer are:

  1. Thermal conduction (also called diffusion).
  2. Thermal convection.
  3. Thermal radiation.

The first two are relatively well understood at an intuitive level by nearly all functional people. It is the thermal radiation that I most want to address because of the clear lack of understanding I see in the comments here. I will explain the items 1 and 2 first to make the distinction from thermal radiation clearer. Please either stick with me or skip ahead if excessive boredom occurs.

Thermal conduction occurs when two objects of different temperature touch. Your finger touching an ice cube initiates the transfer of heat from your finger to the ice. The ice warms and when it reaches the melting point it changes phase from solid to liquid water.

If your finger is in a glass of liquid water and an ice cube thermal convection occurs**. Via conduction your finger warms the water touching your finger and because the warm water is slightly less dense than cold water*** the warm water rises. If the warm water is rising, then the cold water must be sinking. This creates a loop of water flow in the glass. It is slow enough that you cannot easily see it or feel it. If you were to put a drop of food coloring in the water, you probably could. The coldest water is next to the ice cube and the warmest is next to your finger. The water leaving the ice cube is replaced by water that recently left your warm finger. The warm water touching the ice cube conducts heat to the ice cube. This warms and melts the ice and cools the water causing it to sink. Heat is thus transferred from your finger to the ice.

Thermal convection occurs in gases as well as liquids. If you open a hot oven door with your face over the opening, you will feel an almost blast of hot air. No similar blast occurs at the crack at the bottom of the oven because cool air is rushing in. The hot air rises near a wood stove and cool air near the floor replaces it and forms a slow-moving loop of air. Soaring birds “ride the thermals” when different portions of the earth absorb more energy from the sun that others (for example dirt versus plants). This creates an updraft of air over the hotter earth which allows the birds to stay aloft with greatly reduced effort.

Thermal radiation occurs at all temperatures above absolute zero (-273.15 C or –459.67 F). But in our normal earthly circumstances most people are unaware of it because conduction and convection tend to dominate everyday life thermal transfers. Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of particles in matter.

  • Thermal radiation occurs across empty space as in from the sun to the earth.
  • Thermal radiation occurs through gases as in from the sun to the surface of the earth.
  • Thermal radiation occurs though solids as in the sun through glass.

The sun is not some magical generator. Microwave ovens emit a very specific frequency of identical electromagnetic waves which also transfer heat. The difference is only in the means by which the EM waves are creates, not in the nature of the waves.

The leaves of plants will sometimes get colder than the nearby air because they radiate their heat into outer space on a cold clear night when the air is still. Hence the air may be 35 F but the plant leaf can lose heat and drop to below 32F and get frost damage.

Orchard owner sometimes protect their crops by “heaters” which produce smoke to block the thermal radiation. The heaters do not produce enough heat to significantly heat the air. Owners also sometimes use large fans which move warmer air over the leaves. Via conduction the warmer air restores the heat lost by radiation.

The temperature of the sun is extremely high, and the thermal radiation occurs at high levels across a broad spectrum which includes the visible spectrum. The visible spectrum is what we call light. At the low frequency end of light, we call this thermal radiation red and even lower infrared. At the high frequency of light, we call this thermal radiation blue and even higher is ultraviolet.

Glass is not a magical solid conductor of thermal radiation. When exposed to thermal radiation all substances will do the following three things in various degrees with the incoming thermal radiation

  1. Transmit it through to the other side.
  2. Absorb it.
  3. Reflect it.

The amount of transmission, absorption, and reflection depend on the substance and frequency of the thermal radiation. These differing amounts are each described by a number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusively. These numbers are called coefficients. The sum of all these numbers will always be equal to 1.0 (conservation of energy). Hence clear glass, for visible light, may have a transmission coefficient of 0.90. That is, 90% of the thermal radiation in the visible spectrum passes through the glass. The reflection coefficient may be 0.08 and the absorption coefficient 0.02 for a total of 1.0. Colored glass absorbs and/or reflects some energy at certain frequencies and transmits most of the energy at other frequencies.

Clean water has a high transmission coefficient for visible light but is highly absorbing of a certain frequency in the microwave region of the spectrum. This is why microwave ovens can heat a cup of water. The water absorbs nearly all the microwave frequency thermal radiation which the water intercepts.

Brick, wood, and other common house construction materials transmit thermal radiation at frequencies we know as radio waves. You can easily listen to your radio and make cell phone calls inside your brick building. At visible light frequencies and normal wall thickness there is no human perceptible transmission.

Thermal radiation is also why a vacuum is not a perfect insulator. Even in the hard vacuum of deep space, far from stars or any other object a warm object will radiate its heat into the surrounding empty space as lower and lower frequencies of electromagnetic radiation until it approaches a temperature of absolute zero.

This is also why the earth cools at night. It radiates heat into outer space. If it didn’t get rid of heat at the same average rate at it absorbed, it from the sun it would either get warmer or colder until the thermal radiation at night increased or decreased to match the visible light (as well as thermal) radiation absorbed from the sun.

Absorption and retransmission is where things get most obscure in our ordinary life and is where the commenters have been going astray.

Taking the example of an ordinary brick in the sunlight. It transmits none of the light, reflects some of the light in the red region of the spectrum and absorbs the rest. The absorbed the light causes the brick to warm. Some of that thermal energy is transferred to it’s surroundings via conduction and convection. But some of it is emitted as thermal radiation. This thermal radiation will be at various frequencies depending upon the exact chemical composition of the brick, but most will be in the infrared region of the spectrum.

This change of frequency is how certain gases get classified as “greenhouse gases”. This is how paint can actually cool the substance it is painted on below the ambient air temperature.

I’ll explain the paint first since it is simpler and has less emotional content.

The back side of the paint receives thermal energy via conduction. Suppose this paint is on a building at 75 F. It emits thermal radiation out into its exterior environment with the clear empty (sun and moon transmit their own thermal radiation) sky being a very cold (many degrees below zero) heat sink. Normal paints absorb significant light energy as well as conduction gains from the air. But what if the paint had very low conduction ability on the outside but high conduction ability on the inside, and the paint also reflecting almost all light? The outgoing thermal radiation would dominate the incoming heat transfer from the air and sunlight. Hence, the paint would literally cool the building it was painted on without the use of any external power source.

Now let’s consider the case of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is transparent to visible light. Clouds are condensation and/or ice. This water vapor transmits visible light to the earth which absorbs it and retransmits infrared thermal radiation just like our brick. The water vapor in the atmosphere, just like our colored glass, blocks the thermal radiation via reflection and absorption. If the incoming high frequency energy zips through the water vapor in the atmosphere and the retransmitted low frequency outgoing energy is reflected back to earth and/or absorbed, then the earth will get warmer.

That is the extremely simple version of greenhouse gases. Things get really complicated when you throw in things like clouds which reflect significant portions of visible light as well as whether they are clouds of ice crystals or water droplets and their presence during the day versus night, the latitude, the type of surface (earth, water, forest, ice, etc.) they are shading, and probably many other things. Does water vapor and/or CO2 really cause “global warming”? I don’t know. I am skeptical of manmade changes of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere causing heating and I think water vapor is complex enough that modeling it accurately is probably currently impossible.

Venus, almost for certain, is far hotter because of its mix of atmospheric gases than it would be if the composition were something like 80% nitrogen (earth) instead of about 3.5% nitrogen.and 96.5% CO2. So, I believe greenhouse gases can be a real thing.

Summary: Thermal radiation is not as well known by the general public as thermal conduction and convection. But it is real and easily observed if it is pointed out to you. Thermal radiation becomes the dominate heat transfer mechanism when long distances are involved. Thermal radiation exists at different frequencies. Substances have different absorption, reflective, and transmission characteristics at the different frequencies. Because of these different characteristics at different frequencies, it is possible to create one-way “heat valves”. Cooling paint and “greenhouse gases” are possible and exist because of these thermal dynamic “valves” utilizing thermal radiation.


* I won’t directly cover transfer of energy by phase changes or transfer of mass of differing chemical species.

** I’m not going to address the case of a zero-gravity environment.

*** Yes, I know, at temperatures between 0 and 4 C this is not true. Let’s not complicate things. But it is interesting to note this anomaly is why ice generally forms on the top of a body of water rather than on the bottom then floating to the surface.

Mother Nature deserves the credit

This is interesting:

On January 15th, 2022, Tonga’s Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted, spewing tons of gas and ash into the atmosphere. According to a Wednesday report by National Public Radio, the blast contained enough water vapor – notorious for its heat-trapping abilities – to temporarily raise Earth’s temperature.

“The massive amount of water vapor is roughly 10% of the normal amount of vapor found in the stratosphere, equaling more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools,” NPR wrote.

The chemicals “came from a volcano that’s more than 12 miles wide, with a caldera sitting roughly 500 feet below sea level. One day earlier, Tongan officials reported the volcano was in a continuous eruption, sending a 3-mile-wide plume of steam and ash into the sky. Then the big blast came, sending ash, gases and vapor as high as 35 miles — a record in the satellite era — into the atmosphere,” per NPR.

In a July paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists discovered that Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai “may be the first volcanic eruption observed to impact climate not through surface cooling caused by volcanic sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming.”

Water vapor lingers in the air, which contributes to its ability to retain heat.

“It normally takes around 2-3 years for sulfate aerosols from volcanoes to fall out of the stratosphere. But the water from the Jan. 15 eruption could take 5-10 years to fully dissipate,” NPR explained.

I initially wondered if the extra water could be responsible for the extraordinary wet spring we had this year. But I read elsewhere that the volcano put the water in the stratosphere and it will take a couple years for the water to move down into the troposphere and become rain.

Its sounds as if, for the next few years, we can expect warmer than normal weather. Don’t let the climate alarmist blame it on fossil fuels. Insist Mother Nature gets the appropriate credit.

No concept of overstating things

You have to wonder how they imagine people will take them seriously when they say things like this:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is a threat to the world

The Supreme Court spent recent weeks triggering political and legal earthquakes across America. But its latest audacious blow could affect the entire planet.

After advancing the Republican Party’s agenda by overturning the federal right to an abortion and loosening gun laws, the conservative court majority built by former President Donald Trump on Thursday limited the government’s capacity to fight climate change.

In a 6-3 ruling, the justices held that US law did not give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to set caps on planet-warming emissions from power plants.

The lies are so outrageous they are funny!

I regard the fact that the legacy media and the politicians they support get away with such extreme lies more of a threat than anything SCOTUS has the power to do.

Quote of the day—Dr. Jennifer Walker

The fact that we’re seeing an emergence of modern rates of rise at all of these individual study sites as well by the mid 20th century just further demonstrates the really significant influence of global sea-level rise especially in the last century. By delving into individual sites the better understanding we have of regional and local processes impacting sea-level rise will continue to improve our understanding for future impacts.

Dr. Jennifer Walker
Rutgers University professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
February 25, 2022
Burning coal has been driving sea level rise since the 19th century: study
[There are other things of interest in the article:

Utilizing a global database of geological sea level records from the past 2,000 years, the international team of researchers modeled global and site-specific sea level rise. They determined that in the United States, modern sea level rise can be discerned earliest in the Mid-Atlantic region somewhat later in the 19th century. By doing so, they hope to facilitate a better understanding of local processes driving variations in sea level changes.

This is not the first time I have seen stuff like this that I find bizarre. They appear to believe the ocean levels can change locally. Am I’m missing something? Or are they really that stupid?

How can you have local changes in the ocean level that do not become global within a day or less? There is a bulge of water than travels entirely around the globe in one day. It is due to gravity from the moon and sun. It is causes what are called tides, remember? Any local change in ocean level will spread out evenly around the entire earth, right? Why do these “scientists” claim there are local changes?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rebecca Leber

Climate advocates point to the polling, the greenwashing, and the policy implications as pressing reasons it’s important that everyone, especially the media, drop the natural gas label.

For Alan Levinovitz, the name natural gas is simply “too dangerous to have around.” Stopping calling it natural gas is the necessary first step for the world to move away from gas as a climate solution.

Rebecca Leber
February 10, 2022
The end of natural gas has to start with its name
[I find it very telling they claim certain words and phrases are “too dangerous to have around”. Isn’t that almost straight out of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four”?

The other thing about the article I find very telling is they write about how natural gas/methane is such a potent greenhouse gas then jump into how “natural gas” name has to be removed from our language. They don’t address the combustion products of natural gas versus the alternatives. It’s as if “natural gas is bad because it is methane” without addressing that natural gas isn’t deliberately released into the air. It is a product sold to customers who consume it. If they want express concerns about combustion products (or byproducts of using natural gas in things like plastics) I would consider that mostly fair. But that is not what they do.

They want to repress speech and are deliberately deceptive. That is all I need to know about them to be opposed to their agenda.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Daniel Epps

Some have argued that addressing the climate crisis may require rethinking society’s basic organizing principles, including capitalism itself. It may also increasingly lead many to question the fundamental tenets of the American constitutional order.

Daniel Epps
November 3, 2021
How the US supreme court could be a threat to climate action in the US
[It’s nice of them to essentially admit what has long been suspected. It’s not about the climate. It’s about the destruction of free society and the implementation of an authoritarian state.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Catherine Clifford @CATCLIFFORD

There have to be more people at different levels in the organization, in different parts of the organization, who are given the platform and the ability to initiate, to mobilize, to move things forward. It doesn’t only live at the C-Suite.

And ideally, if it’s done well, each person, no matter what part of the company you’re in, feels that they have a stake in this climate change response. Nobody is exempting themselves because they don’t know enough about climate. An effective response is one where everyone has something to add here and is a part of the response.

Catherine Clifford @CATCLIFFORD
September 26, 2021
Climate psychologist says neither gloom-and-doom nor extreme solution-obsessed optimism is the best way to discuss climate change productively
[I knew there were dog psychologists, horse psychologists, and I found out there are cat psychologists and even cow psychologists. But climate psychologists? Wow!

I wonder if she has a heavy client load. Are there a lot of climates in need of a shrink?

To be fair, I poked around a little bit I can can’t find where she claims she helps climates with their mental health issues.

I do wonder about her mental health some though. She seems to presume facts not in evidence. I’m fairly certain her claim that everyone should feel “they have a stake in the climate change response” is not true. For example, there are those who are more concerned about another ice age putting a sheet of ice a mile thick over southern Canada and the northern states than the possibility of a dozen feet of ocean rise. Hence, if we really think we can affect the climate then we should error on the side of keeping the earth warm rather than on keeping it cool.

Does she want those people to feel like they have a stake in the climate change response? Or is she is living in a delusional world where everyone agrees with her view of reality. In other words, is she a liar or delusional? It could be both, but I have insufficient evidence to conclusively determine which.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greta Thunberg

Unfortunately, we probably already know the outcome. World leaders are still trying to run away from their responsibilities but we have to make sure they cannot do that.

We will make sure that we put them against the wall and they will have to do their job to protect our futures.

Greta Thunberg
December 13, 2019
Greta Thunberg tells cheering crowd ‘we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall’ if they do not tackle global warming as she attends climate protest in Turin
[This is consistent with much of the political left throughout the 20th Century. But usually they do not publicly announce this until they have consolidated more political power than what this 16 year old has. I attribute the poor judgement to her youth.

It would appear that after saying this she received some coaching from someone wiser than her:

Yesterday I said we must hold our leaders accountable and unfortunately said “put them against the wall”. That’s Swenglish: “att ställa någon mot väggen” (to put someone against the wall) means to hold someone accountable. That’s what happens when you improvise speeches in a second language. But of course I apologise if anyone misunderstood this. I can not enough express the fact that I – as well as the entire school strike movement- are against any possible form of violence. It goes without saying but I say it anyway.

Any native Swedish speaker out there that can verify or refute this claim?—Joe]

Rebellion is about winning hearts and minds

Sean points out the failure of the Extinction Rebellion to convince people of the righteousness of their cause by disrupting their lives. Mob action is a form of direct democracy. Democracy has its dark side.

It’s easy to demonstrate Extinction Rebellion claims are almost for certain in error. But even being 100% correct in your facts, logic, and principles doesn’t guarantee success. If your position is only shared by one out of every 10,000 people your position isn’t getting adopted.

Get more people on your side. Take a new shooter to the range. Invite them to Boomershoot as a spectator. Encourage people to take a firearms class with a focus on personal protection.

Win the civil war without mob violence or firing a shot in anger.

Quote of the day—Melanie Phillips

What are witnessing is not the imminent extinction of the planet. It is the extinction of reason.

Melanie Phillips
September 20, 2019
The extinction of reason
[Reason is but a thin veneer over the emotional mind. It takes very little to pierce that veneer. The persistence of superstition, Marxism, and hundreds of other things both large and small is proof of it.

Stand up to those who advocate for the extinction of reason or prepare for the endarkenment.—Joe]