A book intended to fight intolerance
An author entirely committed to fighting any attempt to distort history

Welcome Page

Outline

Resume

Author

References

Download

Blog

Archive

Contact us

Disclaimer

Get the book
P1709P1707P1706P1702P1701P1105BP1105AP1009
P1706
WHAT ABOUT MAMMOTHS? BLAME TRUMP!


June 3, 201
7

It is quite obvious that the world is living an age of continuous terror attacks, from London to Kabul, from Istanbul to Manila. Nonetheless, just a few people would like to wage a serious war on terrorist organizations, which are systematically killing Planet Earth by murdering its people and destroying its cultural heritage (see, e.g., Palmyra). Similarly, just a few people believe that the White House should develop a strong alliance with Russia (which could provide valuable help in fighting that war). There are different interests: the vast majority of world leaders,
the most politically-correct citizens and their friendly news outlets continue to present Donald Trump as major threat to the planet. An example is given by the terrifying headline in the picture above
[cf. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/opinions/america-loses-credibility-opinion-andelman/index.html].

The message is really scaring... and I suddenly had a thought I'd never had before: what about mammoths?, or dinosaurs?, or pterodactyls?, or the Neanderthal Man? The most natural answer was obvious: blame Trump! No matter that climate changes are relatively frequent and hardly related to Trump's policies! Forget the Great Lakes! Pretend to ignore that they began to form at the end of the last glacial age, some 14,000 years ago! Don't you dare to say that ice melting was much worse and much more impressive at that time than it is today!

Well, I probably went a little bit too far.
In actual fact, I must acknowledge that no scientist has ever blamed Trump for killing mammoths or dinosaurs. Nonetheless, if we really believe that the point of view of certain scientists is absolute truth, we often come to funny conclusions. For instance, this happens in the case of the deep analysis of an expert in the fields of "climate change and social justice", who recently wrote at least a couple of articles about the current climate drama. The first one starts with the following optimistic statement: "Donald Trump's decision on Thursday to abandon the Paris Agreement is apocalyptic" [cf. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/sutter-paris-trump-ignore-facts/index.html]; as for the second one, it is optimistically  titled "We have 20 years -- at the very most -- to prevent mass extinction" [cf. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/27/opinions/sutter-wwf-sixth-extinction/]. And here comes the trouble...

Even though the CNN expert clarifies that the "next mass extinction" will be "the first caused by people" (so that Donald Trump is not really responsible for the fate of Neanderthals), he certainly fails to achieve the desired effect when he claims that "we have 20 years -- at the very most". Indeed, if he is right, he is definitely talking about a problem which is already out of control—and, mind you, NOT because of Trump, BUT because of the naive leaders (including forward-looking former President Barack Obama) who signed the Paris Deal. As a matter of fact, the Paris Climate Agreement is expected to come into force in 2020 and the dire consequence is obvious: even if President Trump had not withdrawn the United States from the Paris accord, the fate of Planet Earth would have been sealed anyway. There's no doubt, because RIGHT NOW "we have 20 years -- at the very most", but in 2020 (AFTER WASTING THREE MORE YEARS) we won't have 17 years left: just think of the domino effect of THREE MORE FRIGHTENING YEARS without enforcing the Paris accords and
the negative impact due to the increment of the world population!

Incidentally, does anybody think that the worst problem of mankind is likely to be the extremely high birth rate, especially in poor countries? Does anybody think that the Earth resources are limited—i.e., unsuitable for a population whose number tends to infinity? Does anybody think that a most dramatic difference between today and the past is that nowadays the entire world population exceeds seven billion people? Does anybody think that the most dangerous killers of the planet (apart from terrorists) are millions/billions of people who drop garbage wherever they want, instead of behaving like the average inhabitants of Singapore or Zurich or Kyoto?

Coming back to the article concerned with the "next mass extinction", I fully agree that we should not fill the oceans with plastic, and I was quite impressed when I came across a sentence about "researchers", who turned out to be the authors of a report published by a nonprofit foundation. Their bone-chilling analysis is definitely frightening, since they "expect the ocean to be equal parts fish and plastic, by weight, as soon as 2050". In a sense, I felt a bit confused and I started wondering if the Paris Deal would eventually succeed in cleaning a good number of beaches in India, Indonesia, Senegal and other countries within a reasonable time. A few moments later, however, I was left completely puzzled. You see, I went on reading and (WOW!) a few lines below I found the harrowing conclusions of a report from an "environmental advocacy group": apparently, there have been "58% declines in certain vertebrate animal populations since 1970" and the ecosystem is so compromised that "if trends continue, then two-thirds of all these individual birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals will be gone by 2020." It is not very clear who those "certain vertebrate animal populations" are exactly and I do not know if the authors of this report are Paris enthusiasts, but it is crystal clear that they are talking about a problem which is beyond remedy, because even the Paris Agreement does not plan to give any significant contribution before 2020! Therefore, things can only get worse and worse, while we are waiting for something to happen one day or another.       

Perhaps, it might be wiser to accept the idea that climate changes do happen, but it is not necessary to predict the end of the world and blame mankind as the main cause of those changes. After all, according to data from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, climate change is happening even on Trump-free "Mars, where an ice age is coming to an end" [cf.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-on-mars-20160523-snap-story.html]. I am not joking! This is not fake news from a White House press official: you can find some details even on the website of a well-known politically-correct daily newspaper, whose Editorial Board did not hesitate (April 2, 2017) to give clear evidence of its politically-correct sentiments (as shown in the picture on the right, which refers to an honest dissertation on President Trump).
[cf.
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-our-dishonest-president/]

And while we are here, let's dive into some more specifics. I assume that institutions like the Los Angeles Times do hail creative statesmen like the Chinese President or the French President or the Indian Prime Minister: brilliant politicians, who either signed the Paris Agreement or gave their unconditional support to the promises that were made in that document. What a difference between Donald Trump and these new Saviors of the World, who are certainly prepared to take the reins of an ailing planet and fix its problems! Of course, it goes without saying that their credentials are well known and well founded, as often pointed out by the most politically-correct, honest news outlets.

This is no kidding matter: we are talking about caring leaders whose major cities are often mentioned for their valuable contribution to the health of Planet Earth. Again, I am not talking about fake news from a White House press official. Once more, I am proud to quote articles that can be found in the website of an honest, politically-correct daily newspaper:
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-beijing-smog-off-charts-20151202-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-pollution-new-delhi-cars-20160104-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-france-paris-smog-20150323-story.html

Right now, however, I do not want to bore you with too many words and details. After all, pictures are better than words. Their message is much more immediate. So, let's have a look at the headlines below, just in case you missed something about Beijing or Delhi or Paris—just in case you missed the subtle difference between the concept of climate change (which might also be caused by human activity, despite the examples of Mars and the Great Lakes) and the concept of tangible pollution (which is certainly caused by man and should be harshly punished at all levels and in all places: oceans, rivers, mountains, prairies, urban areas and so on).



 
No doubt, billions of people and scores of scientists are ready to blast me for suggesting that mankind may not be "the main cause" of climate changes. For instance, the article about the "apocalyptic" decision to step away from the Paris Agreement states that "more than 97% of climate scientists agree. It's peer-reviewed science." What can I say? Okay, we've got to talk about science. Let's go ahead. Science is the keyword and I must focus on this subject. I will try my best. Just for a change, after doing propaganda for a politically-correct news channel and a politically-correct newspaper, I will make some remarks with the help of the website of a politically-correct magazine, which (surprise!, surprise!) appears to be scared by Donald Trump's nightmarish initiatives, as proven by a recent article whose headline goes straight to the point: "Trump's Anti-Climate Crusade Can Still Be Stopped" [cf. http://time.com/4713767/trump-climate-clean-power/].

Here, however, I do not intend to discuss Trump's crusade. I will deal with a different topic, which was recently addressed on the Time website (and drew the attention of many more news outlets from around the world). I am referring to the gripping statement by an eminent and distinguished scientist. The Time article, dated May 4, 2017 [cf.
http://time.com/4767595/stephen-hawking-100-years-new-planet/] is quite interesting and here is the headline: "Stephen Hawking Says Humans Have 100 Years to Move to Another Planet". To tell the truth, Stephen Hawking already discussed this issue some time before. However, as reported in the article, the initial theory was a bit more optimistic: "the chance of a disaster on Earth adds up over time, so that it's a 'near certainty' in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years, but the human race will survive if it expands into outer space." At this stage, given the fact that Stephen Hawking certainly is a more prominent and renown scientist than the (unidentified) individuals who represent "more than 97% of climate scientists", I am inclined to stand my ground: our authorities should crack down on people who drop garbage wherever they want and we've got to hope that the forthcoming natural events are less catastrophic than expected, because the situation is already out of control, if certain scientists are right. By now, nothing can be done. It's too late. On one side, even the Paris Agreement is doomed to fail since "we have 20 years -- at the very most", RIGHT NOW, and the Earth's conditions are deteriorating by the minute, while the most enlightened world leaders have just made promises that might be (partially) implemented in 2020. On the other side, we should colonize a new planet within 100 years, but the only planet within reach seems to be Mars—and Mars, alas!, is another place shaken up by the plague of global warming and climate change, since "an ice age is coming to an end"!


Even though the topic of climate change is not explicitly discussed in
Jihad Al-Kuffar, there are some paragraphs which somehow deal with this theme. An example can be found in Chapter 12, when a far-left activist gives vent to his feelings about the future of the planet:


We’ve got to destroy the errors of the past in order to create the culture of the future. Our mission is to form a third-worldist conscience against the weapons of the West, against its toxic substances, against global warming. Few corporations can’t be allowed to exploit the Earth resources. We need to cut their profits. They must give their money to the state, and the state must give it to popular masses, as happens in Cuba and North Korea, where all citizens feel like living in an earthly paradise.



COMMENTS

Remark by   M. A. Rome   on   06/07/2017
Subject: Jeremy Corbyn
Content: Thanks for your comment, Nick. Believe me, that passage is mine. By the way, when I wrote it, I did not know anything about Jeremy Corbyn. And I would have never imagined that a politician like this would become the leader of a British party some day in the future!


Remark by   Nick H.N., UK   on   06/06/2017   at   09:21:41 PM
Subject: Jeremy Corbyn
C
ontent: Is the passage from your book really yours? To me, it looks like a cluster of sentences that can be found in a speech by Jeremy Corbyn!

Remark by  Samuel, MN   on  06/04/2017    at  11:13:18 AM
SubjectClimate change and SARS
ContentI think this post missed a point. Long before the article that gives a 20-year deadline, there were floods of catastrophic forecasts. Had they been correct, no one would be discussing about the Paris deal today: the "last chance" would have already been lost several times. In the end, the climate issue reminds me of SARS, the horrific syndrome that allowed many scientists to gain fame and win research funds, but suddenly disappeared from news pages. Now, the time is ripe to push the climate card, which can also give fame and research funds. Of course, more media hype means more publicity and better chances of success. So far, climate change seems to hold more attraction than SARS: global warming is a global problem, while SARS was a sort of local nuisance, concerned with a few areas. Remember, more attraction can turn into more fame and more money.


Welcome PageOutlineResumeAuthorReferencesDownloadBlogArchiveContact usDisclaimerGet the book