wrong prediction

see alarmist

see gloom

see wrong analysis

sparked by morano rap rant at cop26 on falun gong TV

this node for denier myths but interesting to contrast to conservative pred fails eg

omg trio consistently, spectacularly and devastatingly WRONG! punditry at worst/lethal

jon chait

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/arthur-laffer-lawrence-kudlow-stephen-moore-public-health.html

no lnx

THE NATIONAL INTEREST APR. 25, 2020

The Fatal Calculations of the Economists Steering Our Public Health

By Jonathan Chait

One night in late March, President Trump, seized by one of his periodic bouts of dismay with his public-health officials, sought out a second opinion on how to handle the coronavirus pandemic. He called Arthur Laffer. After missing the president’s first three calls, the79-year-old Lafferfinally answered, and the two men connected for what Laffer described as “a very serious conversation,” shortly after which Trump tweeted, “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF.”

Trump gravitated back to his public-health advisers, but he is again lurching toward the opposite pole — one anchored by Laffer and his close allies: National Economic Council head Lawrence Kudlow and economic adviser Stephen Moore. They have seized on their historic role as the antagonists to the administration’s public-health wing because they have a particular competence of their own, honed over decades: persuading Republican officials to ignore experts.

Even before his current role, Laffer was perhaps the most successful policy entrepreneur in modern American history, at least if measured by political influence.In the 1970s, as an economics professor who had served in Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget, Laffer developed a friendship with Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jude Wanniski, whose job had previously included defending Richard Nixon’s conduct in the Watergate scandal. The two came to believe that Laffer had developed a blinding insight with world-historical ramifications. A tax rate of either zero or 100 would yield no tax revenue at all, Laffer posited. Drawing a sloping, sideways curve between those points, he further hypothesized that reducing tax rates might increase revenue.

The “Laffer curve,” which at one point Laffer drew on a cocktail napkin for an impressed Dick Cheney (the Smithsonian now claims to display the original), formed the basis of what became known as “supply-side economics.” The doctrine held not only that tax cuts could increase tax revenue, but that changes in tax rates were the primary driver of all economic events. Republican economist Herb Stein coined the name as a term of derision, intending to highlight the absurdity of building a model entirely on one side of the economy instead of considering both supply and demand. Economic experts mocked Laffer’s notion that reductions in tax rates at existing levels could produce anywhere close to enough new economic growth to pay for itself.

And the experts … were completely right. After supply-siders converted Ronald Reagan and promised his tax cuts would pay for themselves, revenue hemorrhaged. Reagan’s non-supply-side advisers prevailed upon him to sign a series of tax increases for the purpose of “reducing the size of the nation’s fiscal disaster,” his budget director later admitted. When Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, supply-siders insisted he would kill the recovery and reduce tax revenue. Instead, revenue soared far higher than anybody had forecast.

Kudlow and Moore began ascending in the 1980s, shuttling between right-wing think tanks and media — especially the Journal editorial page, which remained the high temple of the supply-side cult. I first came across Moore when he was writing Journal columns arguing that the supply-siders had been right to predict Bill Clinton’s tax hike would reduce revenue. (A hallmark of supply-side thought has been to refuse to concede any error or complication in its analysis.) The supply-siders went on to insist that George W. Bush’s tax cuts would produce untold prosperity. Moore wrote a book called Bullish on Bush, and Kudlow wrote the foreword to The Bush Boom and a series of columns dismissing “pessimistas” who detected economic turmoil. “There’s no recession coming. The pessimistas were wrong,” he wrote in December 2007.

In the spring of 2016, just after Trump had sewn up the nomination, Laffer, Kudlow, and Moore set out to meet the candidate at Trump Tower. Like many members of the conservative elite, they initially harbored reservations. But unlike foreign-policy hawks or social traditionalists, their concerns were devoid of any moral component, like a suspicion of dictators or philanderers. Their sole misgiving concerned Trump’s populist rhetoric and occasional campaign vows to raise his own taxes. The troika wanted to find out if he really meant it. To their relief, he didn’t. “He wanted tax cuts. He wanted to deregulate, he wanted to get the government out of the way,” Kudlow recounted in the foreword to Laffer and Moore’s laudatory book, Trumponomics. “The three of us saw Trump in a whole new light.”

We’ll come out of this soon, the economy will reopen, the economy will restart. It will, I hope, take care of itself. Markets will take care of themselves over time.

— Larry Kudlow, optimistic as oil prices tanked, on April 22

Kudlow joined the administration as Trump’s chief economic adviser. Trump announced he would nominate Moore for the Federal Reserve Board, but the Senate killed Moore’s bid over a combination of embarrassing ignorance of the subject — just two years before, he’d admitted on a panel, “I’m not an expert on monetary policy” — and years of sexist comments, including an obsessive hatred of women working as play-by-play commentators on basketball games. He and Laffer instead served as outside advisers and allies to Trump, who last summer bestowed a Presidential Medal of Freedom on Laffer.

Trump rewarded their confidence by implementing a large corporate tax cut, which was intended to encourage more corporate investment and therefore “would yield about the same revenue — and possibly more — than the current system,” Laffer and Moore wrote in Trumponomics. Naturally, it failed. Business owners got a windfall, but there was no corporate-investment boom and corporate-tax revenue fell by more than a third. Just as naturally, they acted as if events had proved them right.

And so, when the coronavirus struck, Trump had on hand a coterie of loyalists who would not hesitate to question legitimate experts.Kudlow forcefully endorsed Trump’s optimism that the virus would never spread. On February 25, Kudlow said it had been “contained … pretty close to airtight.” Even two weeks later, he was insisting, “I would still argue to you that this thing is contained.”

When public-health officials persuaded Trump to abandon his denialism, the supply-siders formed the resistance. Applying Laffer’s old dictum, “All economic problems are about removing impediments to supply, not demand,”they reasoned that the problem facing the economy was not a deadly pandemic but, as ever, bad incentives imposed by government — in this case, restrictions on business and excessively generous unemployment benefits that “discourage work.” If the government just stopped suppressing incentives, the economy would spring back to life.

The Journal editorial page published some of the first pushback against the wisdom of lockdowns. As early as mid-March, Moore denounced on Fox News the first closings, in California, as “a very dangerous, almost Orwellian situation.” Trump began repeating the supply-siders’ warnings that he had ceded too much authority to scientists (“If it was up to the doctors,” he mused, “they might say shut down the entire world”). Trump relented to his public-health experts but, by early April, was again listening to the supply-siders. Moore began proposing May 1 as a deadline to reopen the economy, a timeline Trump endorsed soon thereafter.

The supply-siders’ struggle to tug Trump away from his medical experts has both public and private facets. Laffer and Moore promoted a new administration task force to focus on economic reopening, a counterweight to the coronavirus task force led by doctors Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx. Moore encouraged anti-shutdown protests in several states to pressure governors to speed up their timetables for reopening businesses. “I call these people the modern-day Rosa Parks,” he explained, “They are protesting against injustice and a loss of liberties.”

In their book, Laffer and Moore fondly recall Kudlow’s instructing Trump to ignore budget forecasts that tax cuts would reduce revenue. “Don’t get stressed out by the phony numbers of Washington’s bean counters,” he said. “They are always wrong.” The message today is largely unchanged. The main difference is that the experts they are urging the president to dismiss are counting lives. We’re the beans.

This article appears in the April 27, 2020, issue of New York Magazine

---

WELL MEBBE JUST CONTEXT //

AHA GORE IS ROOT OF ALARMISM, SEA LEVEL RISE ETC?

MMA

Fox cheers Trump’s repeal of the EPA endangerment finding — a move that could cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars in health care costs | Media Matters for America

Fox cheers Trump’s repeal of the EPA endangerment finding — a move that could cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars in health care costs

Special ProgramsClimate & Energy

Written by Allison Fisher

Published 02/13/26

• On February 12, the Trump administration finalized repeal of the endangerment finding – the landmark legal determination that protected Americans by limiting greenhouse gases and carbon pollution from cars, power plants, and other industries. The Associated Press reported last year that the protections mandated by this finding were projected to “prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect.”

Ignoring these benefits, Fox News and Fox Businesses personalities celebrated the repeal while pushing climate denial talking points to bolster support for this huge rollback of pollution safeguards — including dismissing the overwhelming scientific evidence that underpins the endangerment finding, suggesting that cold weather in winter somehow disproves climate change, or outright calling climate science a “hoax.”

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin has referred to the endangerment finding as “the holy grail of the climate change religion,” while The New York Times reports that “dozens of conservative activists, lawyers, scientists and others had worked for years to prepare the case against the endangerment finding,” including a secretive campaign underwritten by The Heritage Foundation. As documented by Media Matters, this effort has also relied on a decades-long right-wing media campaign to undermine climate science.

• ## Pollution from the burning of fossil fuels is an unequivocal threat to human health and safety

• • In 2009, the EPA’s endangerment finding established that greenhouse gases must be regulated because they “cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Lisa Jackson, the agency’s first Black administrator, formally “announced an endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, setting the stage for EPA action on climate change. Under her leadership, EPA issued clean air standards designed to reduce emissions from large facilities without burdening small businesses, and a clean cars program.” Environmental Protection Agency, accessed [7/30/25, accessed 7/30/25]

• • The Trump administration’s proposed repeal of the endangerment finding, issued in July, was based on arguments made by a handpicked working group of climate contrarians. NBC News reported that “it’s not clear whether the final rule will rely on the same arguments or change its justifications in response to public comments,” while also pointing out that “a judge ruled last month that (Energy Secretary Chris) Wright and the Energy Department had violated transparency laws in the way it formed and operated the working group behind the report.” Media Matters, [7/31/25, 8/14/25; NBC News, 2/10/26]

• • EPA regulations reducing greenhouse gases, based on the agency’s own assessment, were projected to “prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect.” AP further noted that “experts say the numbers are conservative and that even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems.” The Associated Press, [6/5/25]

• • :{:{The Trump administration claims that repealing the endangerment finding will benefit the economy — including bringing down the cost of “light-duty cars, S.U.V.s and trucks” — are dubious. The New York Times reported the administration has declined to explain how it assessed the benefits of repealing the finding, with one expert noting, “‘It’s hard to find any math in their assessment that doesn’t seem, frankly, a little bit ridiculous.” On CNN News Central, correspondent Renee Marsh pointed out that by “the EPA’s own data” under the Clean Air Act, “between 1970 and 2023 combined emissions of six common pollutants dropped some 78% and that all happened while the U.S. economy continued to grow,” with a 321% increase in gross domestic product. }:

Marsh continued, “So it's not an either or — you don't have to pick dirty air in order to have a strong economy.” Later in the program, author and climate expert Porter Fox pointed out that “back when the endangerment finding was adopted in 2009, we were looking at a billion-dollar climate disaster roughly every month or so. Now it's every three weeks. So, you know, if Trump is going to claim that $1.3 trillion will be saved by easing these regulations, just do the math. In less than 10 years, we're already going into the red, and those billion-dollar disasters are getting more and more expensive and more and more frequent every year.” The New York Times, [2/12/26; CNN, CNN News Central, 2/12/26, 2/12/26]}:

• Video

Citation

From the February 12, 2026, edition of CNN News Central

• • The scientific evidence supporting the endangerment finding has only strengthened since 2009. As reported by Stanford University, “evidence for climate change’s damaging impacts – such as food insecurity, mass migration, and health problems – has only grown since the finding was established.” Meanwhile, the Earth just experienced its hottest decade ever recorded, “the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide – as well as methane and nitrous oxide – are at the highest levels in the last 800,000 years,” and in the U.S. alone there were “two dozen billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2025, causing at least 276 fatalities and costing a total of $115 billion in damages.” Stanford Report, [9/19/25; AccuWeather, 3/19/25; ABC News, 1/8/26]

• ## Right-wing media personalities celebrated Trump’s ending of the endangerment finding and pushed climate denial talking points to justify scrapping regulation of greenhouse gas pollutants

• • Fox Business host Stuart Varney celebrated news that the Trump administration would end the endangerment finding: “Wave goodbye to the Green New Deal — the energy policies of Obama and Biden are going, going, gone.” Varney said, “If you questioned that finding, the climate crowd called you a denier as if you were denying the Holocaust — the science is in, they said, the argument is over. Not so fast.” Fox Business, *Varney & Co.*, [2/10/26]

• Video

Citation

From the February 10, 2026, edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co.

• • :{On Fox Business’The Evening Edit, the :{Federalist}:’s Brianna Lyman said: “All we’ve been doing for the past 15 years or so is saddling American consumers and businesses with these regulatory burdens that are expensive and ineffective in the grand scheme of things.” She claimed, “China is responsible for a third of the world's global emissions and a third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The United States on its own accounts for about 10% of CO2 emissions, 10% of greenhouse gases, which means 90% of these emissions are coming from other countries. So at the end of the day, no matter what we do here, it is ultimately negligible until countries like China, and India and Russia abide by the same set of standards that we are abiding by, and they don't.”

The argument that the U.S. shouldn’t act to regulate pollution because of the emissions output of other countries has been employed by climate deniers for more than a decade. It discounts the domestic benefits of climate action and the role of U.S. leadership in driving solutions, and also falsely suggests that other countries are not taking action. For example, according to a new analysis, China’s emissions fell by 1% in the last three months of 2025, and the drop “extends the ‘flat or falling’ trend in China’s CO2 emissions that began in March 2024 and has now lasted for nearly two years.” Fox Business, *The Evening Edit*, [2/10/26; Newsweek, 12/1/23; Carbon Brief, 12/2/26]}:

• • The Bottom Linehost Dagen McDowell called the endangerment finding “an Obama-era rule — shocker — that has been used for years as the foundation to push its climate religion up our wazoo.” McDowell said: “Oh, this is so delicious — the Trump administration about to mark its most sweeping rollback yet. Get 'er done. An Obama-era rule — shocker — that has been used for years as the foundation to push its climate religion up our wazoo.” Fox Business, *The Bottom Line*, [2/10/26]

• • Fox Business host and former Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow: “The whole climate change crowd never proved their case” behind the endangerment finding. Kudlow said, “We can argue till we are blue in the face but I will say the whole climate change crowd never proved their case. Or let me put it to you this way. It never proved the existential risk, what I would call the extremist case. I’m not denying that there’s emissions in the air. The question is how much and how bad is it for your everyday health.” Fox Business, T*he Big Money Show*, [2/10/26]

• Video

Citation

From the February 11, 2026, edition of Fox Business' The Big Money Show

• • In the same segment about President Donald Trump’s end to the endangerment finding, Fox Business host Jackie DeAngelis claimed: “There is no global warming here. Maybe the president is right.” She said, “This idea that the climate is changing — it was negative 8 degrees here on Sunday. There is no global warming here. Maybe the president is right that this is moving, this is the climate doing what it does and that it goes in cycles.” Fox Business, *The Big Money Show*, [2/10/26]

• • Describing the endangerment finding as “a regulatory wet blanket on the economy,” Fox contributor Marc Thiessen said, “We've got to recognize climate change isn’t an existential crisis. It is a problem that can be managed. … AI will help us find lots of ways to adapt to a warming climate so we can live with it.”Thiessen: “First of all, the regulations were a regulatory wet blanket on the economy that’s now being taken off, which is good for Trump and good for Americans. … We've got to recognize climate change isn’t an existential crisis. It is a problem that can be managed. And the answer is adaptation. … Air conditioning is cheaper than heat. AI will help us find lots of ways to adapt to a warming climate so we can live with it. Because we can't destroy the free market economy in order to stop the planet from warming.” Fox News, *Special Report with Bret Baier,* [2/12/26]

• • New York Post columnist Miranda Devine cheered Trump’s repeal of the endangerment finding as “the final nail in the coffin of the climate hoax that we’ve all been laboring under all around the world.” Devine: “Look, it’s absolutely huge. This is really the final nail in the coffin of the climate hoax that we’ve all been laboring under all around the world since at least 20 years ago when Al Gore brought out that piece of propaganda, that apocalyptic movie An Inconvenient Truth that scared, you know, a generation of kids to thinking that really planet would be all burned up by now. You know, their deadlines have kept on have come and gone and nothing has changed. So I think people are now waking up to the fact that it was a hoax.” Fox Business, *Kudlow*, [2/12/26]

• Video file

Video

Citation

From the February 12, 2026, edition of Fox Business' Kudlow

• • Fox & Friendsco-host Brian Kilmeade said the rollback is “really going to be jet fuel for the economy,” adding, “You will be surprised about the impact because they can't back up the science when it comes to the new green mania.”Kilmeade: “It’s really going to be jet fuel for the economy. Cover of the New York Post, cars will cost $2,400 less. You will be surprised about the impact because they can't back up the science when it comes to the new green mania.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [2/13/26]

//

1. ### The Trump administration launches assault on the EPA’s endangerment finding following decades-long right-wing media campaign

08/14/25 2:26 PM EDT

2. ### Fox News shields EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin as he promotes the most destructive climate rollback in EPA history

07/31/25 12:45 PM EDT

3. ### Right-wing media hyped a supposed “shovel” attack against ICE. Prosecutors just dropped the charges.

02/13/26

---

{{ NEWSMAX

see ruddy ceo

see greg kellypow

see grift 3

Griner

12 22 mma

In 2013, Fox News dropped Dick Morris after he confidently predicted that Mitt Romney would win in a “landslide,” among other comical prognostications. Newsmax has so little respect for its viewers that it’s now airing Morris’ hopium, including his wildly inaccurate predictions that Republicans would win the midterms in a “wipeout” and cause “the extinction” of the Democratic Party.

Morris is the host of the weekend Newsmax program Dick Morris Democracy and the network’s supposed elections expert. The right-wing network hired him despite his reputation as an unethical commentator who is widely known for being so bad at his job that not even Fox News wanted his pro-Republican commentaries. (Newsmax’s business model is partly predicated on hiring other disgraced or washed-up former Fox News commentators, including Eric Bolling, James Rosen, and Greg Kelly.)

During the 2012 election cycle, Morris predicted Romney would win in a “landslide”; wrote that “it’s very possible” that President Barack Obama would drop out of the race; and told viewers Republicans would “win 10 seats” in the Senate (Democrats actually gained two seats).

While his venue has changed, Morris’ wildly inaccurate prognostication has remained the same. Now that the 2022 election is officially over with Sen. Raphael Warnock’s (D-GA) victory — Morris called GOP nominee Herschel Walker “an excellent candidate,” something Walker’s own staff didn’t believe — here are some examples of Morris’ midterm forecasts for Newsmax in the lead-up to the November election:

Morris on October 17 said Walker “evolved into an excellent candidate.”

Morris on October 22 spoke about expected Republican gains with the chyron “The Red Wave Is Coming.”

Morris on October 28: “I'm predicting something more than a tsunami, more than a tidal wave, more than an earthquake. … Do you remember, in the history books, how the theory is that a meteorite hit the Earth right around where the Caribbean Sea is and that the resulting dust killed all the dinosaurs and made them extinct? Well, that's the magnitude of what I think is going to happen.”

Morris added: “I think they may go up to 270. … I think they may pick up 60 seats. That's why I likened it to that prehistoric event because what I think you're really dealing with, to a certain extent, is the extinction of an entire generation of Democratic wannabees, Democratic candidates, where they're basically going to lose their whole freshman and sophomore class.”

Morris on November 1: “We have most likely Arizona, and Georgia, and Nevada as victories, and possibly New Hampshire, and possibly some others. So I see a minimum at this point of 53 Republican senators.”

Morris on November 2: “I think there's going to be a wipeout, I think Republicans will win something in the neighborhood of 60 seats in the House, I think that they will win the Senate.”

Morris on November 3: “I think the Democrats will lose all 60. … I think the [Republicans] are going to win a solid 60 seats in the House.”

Morris on November 7: “I do feel that in Pennsylvania, [GOP Senate nominee Mehmet] Oz is going to win.… I believe that the Republicans are going to end tomorrow night with somewhere between 52-55 seats in the Senate.”

===}}

DDT

21st Century Science & Technology'smanaging editor, Marjorie Mazel Hecht, called the campaign against DDT the "'mother' of all the environmental hoaxes".^[101] Other articlescompared anti-DDT campaignerRachel Carson to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.^[101] 21st century, which is produced by LaRouche supporters,^[102] has published papers by entomologist J. Gordon Edwards, including one that urged the return of the insecticide DDT because he said it has "saved more millions of lives than any other man-made chemical".^[103] Rogelio (Roger) Maduro, an associate editor, wrote that theban on DDT was part of a plan to reduce the population and had caused the deaths of 40 million people via a resurgence of malaria.^[104]

Ozone hole

LaRouche was part of what was called the "ozone backlash".^{[105][106][107]} 21st Century Science & Technology, which conducted what has been called "a very effective campaign of misinformation on the issue of ozone depletion",^[108] published The Holes in the Ozone Scare in 1992.^[109][110] The book, by LaRouche followers Rogelio Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer, said that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were not destroying the ozone layerand opposed the proposal to ban them. It asserted that most chlorine in the atmosphere came from oceans, volcanoes, or other natural sources, and that CFCs were too heavy to reach the ozone layer.^{[102][107][108]} It went on to say that even if the ozone layer were depleted there would not be any harmful effects from additional ultraviolet radiation.^[111] 

It predicted that a ban would result in an additional 20 to 40 million deaths due to food spoilage.^[112] Lewis DuPont Smith, an heir to the DuPont Chemical fortune and a LaRouche follower, told Maduro that the DuPont Company had schemed to ban CFCs, which they had invented but which had become generic, in order to replace them with more expensive proprietary compounds.^[113][114] It has been called "probably the best known and most widely quoted text aimed at debunking the concept of ozone depletion".^[115] Its assertions were repeated by Dixie Lee Ray in her 1993 book Environmental Overkill, by Rush Limbaugh, and by Ronald Bailey.^[107][115] Some atmospheric scientists have said that it is based on poor research.^[107]

At a 1994 shareholder's meeting, Smith called on Dupont to continue producing CFCs, saying there was no evidence of their harmfulness and that "This is nothing less than genocide".^[116] By 1995 LaRouche was noted as calling the ozone hole a "myth".^[117] Maduro's writings were the basis for the Arizona legislature's passage of a 1995 bill to allow the production of CFCs in the state despite federal and international prohibitions.^[118]

Global warming

The "Greenhouse effect" hoax: a world federalist plot, another book by Maduro, says that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a plot by the British royal family and communists to undermine the U.S.^[119][120] It was cited by science writer David Bellamy.^[121]

LaRouche followers have promoted the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle and attacked Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, infiltrating showings to promote their viewpoints.^[122][123] They have stood on street corners proclaiming the falsity of global warming,^[124] and have protested Gore's appearances.^[125]

21st Century Science & Technologyhas published papers by climate change contrarians including Zbigniew Jaworowski, **Nils-Axel Mörner**, Hugh Ellsaesser, and Robert E. Stevenson. A 2007 article by LaRouche science advisor Laurence Hecht suggested that the varying levels of cosmic rays, whose change is dependent on Earth's motion through the galaxy, has a larger effect on the climate than local factors such as greenhouse gases or solar and orbital cycles.^[126] 

Christopher Monckton was praised as the leading spokesman of the "global warming swindle" in the introduction to an Executive Intelligence Review interview with him in 2009, but he was also considered to have a relatively limited view of the cabal behind the hoax.^[127] A movement newsletter says that environmental groups seek to "force ... CO2 emissions agreements down the throats of governments as a way of finishing off the nation-state system" on behalf of synarchist networks.^[99]

...

==

eg

ggl alert 5 22

https://thenewamerican.com/report-links-climate-change-to-a-future-increase-in-pandemics/

james murphy new am may 4

study published on April 28 in the scientific journal Nature makes the claim that so-called climate change may greatly increase the odds that species-jumping viruses such as Covid-19, which may have moved from bats to humans, could become pandemics.

The study, **Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk**, makes the highly speculative point that space competition driven by climate change will cause humans to interact with different species, thus increasing the risk of another coronavirus-type pandemic in the near future. The abstract of the study states:

At least 10,000 virus species have the capacity to infect humans, but at present, the vast majority are circulating silently in wild mammals. However, climate and land use change will produce novel opportunities for viral sharing among previously geographically-isolated species of wildlife. In some cases, this will facilitate zoonotic spillover—a mechanistic link between global environmental change and disease emergence.

The study speculates that new incidents of “viral sharing” between humans and animals will increase due to climate change, particularly in “biodiversity hotspots” and in areas of high human population density, such as Africa and Asia.

Climate change-driven geography shifts may promote “more than 300,000 first encounters” between humans and possible carrier species, the study claims.

“We are probably well into those changes. We are not keeping a close eye on them and they make pandemic risk everyone’s problem,” said the study’s lead author, Colin Carlson of Georgetown University.

“Our study shows that unequivocally, in every simulation we do, climate change is creating innumerable hotspots of future and present-day zoonotic risk right in our backyard,” he said.

According to Carlson, wet markets such as the one in Wuhan, China, are especially ripe for this type of risk, as unhealthy animals are often distributed in such places.

“We worry about markets because bringing unhealthy animals together in unnatural combinations creates opportunities for this stepwise process of emergence — like how SARS jumped from bats to civets, then civets to people. But markets aren’t special anymore; in a changing climate, that kind of process will be the reality in nature just about everywhere,” he said.

As Carlson pointed out, researchers believe that the process is already underway, even though the planet has not yet reached the 1.5° Celsius global temperature increase that the United Nations Paris climate agreement calls for the world’s nations to stay under by switching from fossil fuels to so-called renewable energy sources.

“Even now, this process has likely been taking place, mostly unobserved and below the surface,” said co-author of the study Gregory Albery, a postdoctoral fellow in biology at Georgetown.

Great, yet another “unobserved” consequence of climate change that we just need to take on faith is occurring.

“This is happening. It is not preventable, even in the best-case climate change scenarios. And we need to put measures in place to build health infrastructure to protect animal and human populations,” Albery claimed.

It’s yet more bad news driven by climate change: “This mechanism adds yet another layer to how climate change will threaten human and animal health,” he noted.

But according to Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, it’s just another way to sell climate fear to the masses.

“The climate movement is now merging their focus on linking viruses to ‘climate change’ and thus making fighting climate change a part of fighting deadly viruses. Global warming promoters know that they should never let a crisis go to waste.They are pouncing on any opportunity toinjectclimate change into the COVID-19 issue,” Morano said. He explained:

They want to keep both climate and COVID fears humming along to push their so-called solutions, so what better way than to merge the two issues? Worried about COVID-19, then support theUN Paris climate pact, theGreen New Deal, carbon taxes, etc., or else you are a gramma killer!

The same globalist political entities have spent decades warning us of overpopulation, global cooling, the supposed hole in the ozone layer, and global warming and its rebranding, climate change. To date, their success in generating fear has yielded sparse results.

As Morano points out: “Theclimate establishment spent decades trying to scare us about overpopulation, global cooling, the amazon [sic] rainforest (allegedly disappearing), and finally, climate change and they utterly failed. A virus came along in 2020 and they realized that this cut across ideologies, cut across political affiliation and they were able todeclare an emergency and suspend normal democracy. They were able to achieve their one-party state with an unelected bureaucracy.”

Climatistas have long envied the terrorizing effect that the Covid-19 pandemic had on the planet’s population, with millions of people ready and willing to give up their freedom for theillusory safety of masks, social distancing, and risky, under-tested vaccines. Now it seems that theclimate hystericswish to join the virus-scare bandwagon and make it their own.[do not mention 1m dead US, new study 15m in world?]

----

yahoo may 5

the end of last year was nearly15 million—triple the amount previously thought, according to new estimates by the World Health Organization.

The new 14.9 million figure is calculated based on the number of excess deaths, or the difference between the average death rate recorded before the pandemic and the number of deaths that occurred during.

Excess mortality includes deaths directly linked to COVID-19 through infection of the disease and indirectly from the pandemic’s impact on health care systems and society.

Previous estimations by the WHO reported only 5.4 million people deaths.

toxic ten

ccdh

RT.com is part of a Russian state-controlled news network. Founded in April 2005 as Russia Today, RT is “publicly

financed from the budget of the Russian Federation”, with additional revenue from advertising and sponsored

content.93 Sputnik.com was founded in November 2014 “by the Russian media group Rossiya Segodnya”, another

state-funded broadcaster.94

According to a 2020 report from the Oxford Internet Institute, RT.com “is one of the most important organizations

in the global political economy of disinformation.”95 A 2016 NATO report alleged that Sputnik spread a “fake story”

regarding asylum seekers in Germany.96

Disinformation campaigns waged by RT.com include coverage ahead of the US 2020 election that “amplified voices

of chaos” with headlines such as “The term ‘American democracy’ needs to be retired” and “election teeters on

the verge of chaos”.97 RT has also propagated so much vaccine misinformation that YouTube took the rare step of

suspending RT’s German account following its posting of anti-vaccine misinformation.98 According to King’s College

London research, both RT and Sputnik played an instrumental role in spreading misinformation about the poisoning

of Sergei Skripal, incorporating the views of a “parallel commentariat” and amplifying Russian government sources.99[screengrab]

This Russia Today article claims that the pandemic provided a convenient

opportunity for professional “doom-mongers” to spread fear by linking the

virus to climate change and overpopulation. It calls on people to not pay

attention to the “alarmist predictions for the planet.”100 Articles on RT.com

carry digital ads from Taboola, a “discovery platform” that typically promotes

content at the bottom of news articles and that states it has a commitment

to “minimizing [its] environmental impact”.101

August 26, 2016

Doug Domenech appeared on the Bill Martinez show where he talked about global warming and environmentalism. Domenech’s talk was titled “Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?” [23], [24]

“The essence of the way environmental people think, when you really boil it down, is that the way we can protect our kids is not to have them in the first place,” Domenech told Martinez.[23]

Referring to professor Travis N. Rieder from John Hopkins University, Domenech said Rieder was lecturing students and claiming that “for us to protect ourselves from global warming, and especially to protect kids and people in Africa, that we should have fewer kids in America.”

Domenech said this was “a complete turning over of the principle that people are our most important resource.” [23]

Bill Martinez went on to discuss abortion, which said was eliminating “some 56 million plus of our labour force [..] because of the eugenics movement, Margaret Sanger, and Planned Parenthood.”  Martinez asks, “Is this the same type of philosophy, just in a different shape and form?” to which Domenech replies: [23]

“Well, it is. And you might remember Paul Ehrlich, he’s a noted environmental guy, wrote The Population Bomb. And as well as Margaret Sanger and her eugenics. And Lester Brown is another name—he’s just written a book called Full Planet, Empty Plate. […] The essence of the philosophy of these people is that we need to return the Earth to its pre-human state, and that’s the only thing that’s going to satisfy them.”  [23]

Domenech lumps global warming in with a list of supposed non-problems, including global cooling, mass starvation, resource depletion, and species extinctions: [23]

“Back in the 70s, one of the great failed environmental predictions wasglobal cooling,” he said.  “In the mid 1700s we were still in the midst of alittle ice age, and cooling was a very significant problem, and it remains a big problem. And, of course, that led us to talking about overpopulation—that has not really been a problem.” [23]

He says another “non-problem” is mass starvation, as “our food production is bigger than ever.” [23]

Talking about resource depletion, Domenech pointed to fracking as the reason why “we’ve got more oil and gas than ever.” [23]

“Mass extinction of species – and that has really not happened,” he said. [23]

“That, of course, leads us to global warming, where we are today. These are all these big constructs that we need to worry about, and this is just the latest.” [23]

Domenech had written an article covering similar issues a day prior in RealClear Energy titled “Your Damn Children are Killing the Planet.” [25]