What an idiot

Why has Michael Bloomberg become an apologist for the Communist Party of China? Could he possible believe the things he is saying? For example: “The Communist Party wants to stay in power in China and they listen to the public. When the public says ‘I can’t breathe the air,’ Xi Jinping is not a dictator, he has to satisfy his constituents or he’s not going to survive.”

He was then asked, “He’s not a dictator?” to which he responded, “No, he has a constituency to answer to.” The interviewer counted with, “He doesn’t have a vote. He doesn’t have a democracy. He’s not held accountable by voters. Is the check on him just a revolution?” to which Bloomberg answered, “You’re not going to have a revolution. No government survives without the will of the majority of its people, okay?” Bloomberg then suggested that if the US would lead on climate change, the Chinese people “can go to the government and say, ‘if America can do it, why can’t we do it?'”

The interviewer pressed Bloomberg on the idea that the CPC is responsive to the people of China, saying, “the idea that the Chinese government is responsive to sort of a Democratic expression of fresh air, clean air … ” Bloomberg then interrupted saying, “Oh, come on, of course they are.” The interviewer then said, “I’m looking at the people in Hong Kong who are protesting…” when Bloomberg, ignoring the crackdown on the protesters, said, “Go back and read the press, the days when you have big pollution in Beijing and they’re doing something about it.”

So Michael Bloomberg actually believes that Xi Jinping is not a dictator and is answerable to the people of China. And that the only reason his regime stays in power is because it is the will of the majority (not because he controls the media and military). I suppose the Kim Jong Un regime stays in power because of the will of the majority too. Apparently Bloomberg also believes that moving factories away from the cities will decrease carbon emissions. That sure makes sense! The truth is, carbon emissions are increasing in China and decreasing in the US.

Tactics exposed

By pushing to hard and too fast, the left has now exposed their two primary tactics (for all who have eyes to see). The first is the Hitlerian model: If you tell a lie often enough, eventually people will believe it." The unspoken corollary is that they will not believe it because of any evidentiary support; they will believe it only because they have heard it so often. The left uses this tactic when the accusation cannot be disproved. Examples are: "Trump's a racist," "Trump's a white supremacist," and "The death of the Republican Party is near." Over the past three months I have heard these assertions numerous times in the mainstream media.

The left uses the second tactic when they wish to create a negative impression of a person, but there are facts that could potentially disprove or discredit the specific assertion. This is where they make an outlandish, unsupportable allegation, and the next day, in the midst of the blow back, apologize. This tactic has the effect of getting the wild accusation into the news for all to hear, but allows the accuser to exonerate himself by means of his "heart-felt apology." Examples are: Larry O’Donnell, “Trump had Russian billionaires as co-signers.” “Oops, sorry. Shouldn’t have said that.” Kim Campbell, “I hope the hurricane hits Mar-a-Lago” “Oops, sorry. Was just joking. Shouldn’t have said that.” And the latest and most egregious example of this tactic: the New York Times' attempt to once again smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh: "Oops, sorry. Yes, we did leave out many of the pertinent facts." Clearly the NYT is no longer a reporter of the news but a driver of the leftist agenda.

Because of their frequency and the number of their practitioners, there is no longer any doubt that these dishonest, deceitful, and disingenuous tactics are being deliberately employed in an attempt to poison the minds of the American public prior to the next election.

For what it's worth

Agreement on SCOTUS decisions by justices appointed by the same president:

Bush II -- Roberts and Alito agree in 90% of decisions.

Obama -- Sotomayor and Kagan agree in 96% of decisions.

Trump -- Gorsuch and Kavanaugh agree on 70% of decisions.

So much for monolithic, politics-driven, conservative judges. Turns out it's the other way around. It's the liberals who walk in lock-step.

Is there really a climate crisis?

In the United States, there has been no increase in flood magnitudes in any region since the 1920s, and no nationwide increase in drought since 1900 as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index. There has been no trend since 1900 in the strength or frequency of U.S. land-falling hurricanes, and none in hurricane-related damages once losses are adjusted for increases in population, wealth, and the consumer price index.

Globally, the total area burned by wildfires has decreased every decade since the 1940s, and NASA reports that the number of square kilometers burned fell by about 25 percent between 2003 and 2019. In addition, all major indicators of human health and well-being such as life expectancy, per capita income, and crop yields have improved dramatically during the era of global warming.

Finally, whatever effects global warming may be having on the weather since the 1920s, the individual risk of dying from extreme weather globally has decreased by 99 percent, and since 1990, the relative economic impact of extreme weather (measured as a percent of global GDP) has declined. Where is the real-world evidence that climate change is a crisis?

The recent National Climate Assessment claimed that global warming could reach 14°F and lop 10% off US GDP by century’s end. However, to get that alarming result, the assessment ran an ensemble of models that on average project twice as much warming over the past 40 years as actually occurred. Worse, the modelers used an inflated emissions scenario in which coal scales up rapidly to provide nearly half of all global energy by 2100 – a percentage not seen since 1940.

Even with that biased combo, warming hits 14°F in only 1% of model projections – a detail the assessment failed to mention. Clearly, the National Climate Assessment needs to be fixed.