☕️ A RED STORM ☙ Sunday, December 15, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Sunday subscriber roundup: media dabbles in catastrophism; record-breaking San Fran weather; lib activists brace for impact; Trump and Vance honor subway hero; ABC settles in disgrace; more.

Good morning, C&C supporters, it’s Sunday! Time for your bonus roundup, which today includes: media begins embracing catastrophism but what does it mean?; more weird 2024-style, record-breaking extreme weather news as San Fransisco deals with terrifying and unfamiliar meteorology; far-left activists begin bracing for a very conservative legislative period; JD Vance and President Trump honor subway hero; and ABC coughs up multi-million-dollar settlement for disparaging President Trump.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

🔥🔥🔥

This story’s unexpected popularity probably showed how badly the libs must feel this week. A bizarre apocalypse article, based on a recently published astrophysics study, bubbled up through leftwing media this week, finally topping the New York Times’ home page yesterday. It bore the terrifying headline, “Superflares Erupt From Stars Like Our Sun Once Every 100 Years. In case a hundred-year window lacked urgency, the article quickly pointed out, “The findings suggest that we could be due for an extraordinarily powerful solar event sooner rather than later.” Alarming!

The study published this week in the journal Science with a title nearly identical to the Times’ headline: “Sun-like stars produce superflares roughly once per century.” (After the appalling pandemic trend of civilians doing their own research, the journal Science joined many other science journals and locked its content up behind an expensive paywall waived for Establishment types and corporate media. The high priests of science will tell you what you need to know, dummy.)

The article’s gist was that astrophysicists saw “superflare” activity on several other stars in the same class as our Sun. Admittedly, while “a superflare has yet to be observed from our own sun” — at least, not in modern history — out of 56,450 sun-like stars, researchers found that about one in 20 similar stars produced a superflare, and the flares occurred on a centennial cycle, which was much faster than any previous theory.

Let us pause to reflect that the data these scientists used was not new. The information was collected by NASA’s Kepler satellite telescope, which retired back in 2017. The Times suggested nobody noticed till now because they didn’t have good software tools. But I’d suggest that we’re only finding out now because the results are too different from approved orthodoxy, and so no respectable scientists wanted to find them, at least not until conditions improved.

Given the wild solar weather this year, new theories about the Sun are permissible. A little. Welcome to modern science.

Out on the conspiratorial fringe, for years heterodox thinkers have proposed recurring superflare or “mini-nova” events, albeit on longer timeframes than 100 years. For instance, Netflix has now released two seasons of Graham Hancock’s popular show Ancient Apocalypse, which proposes a superflare-like scenario happening around 12,000 years ago during the ‘Younger Dryas’ period, which wiped worldwide civilization off the map.

Ben Davidson runs a YouTube channel called Suspicious Observer, a prepper channel organized around Ben’s theory of small and large geomagnetic pole shifts cycling every 6,000/12,000-year cycles, and caused by miniature nova events like superflares. And as for pandemic favorite The Ethical Skeptic (TES), the data genius who revealed and regularly reported on the CDC’s mendacious jab mortality data meddling, his true love is his well-developed but intellectually challenging theory of a recurring pole/solar disaster cycle. TES is especially fascinated by the highly suggestive weathering patterns on the Great Pyramids:

The left hates all three men and their stupid catastrophe theories. YouTube is brimming with sneering videos “debunking” Hancock, Davidson, and TES. Hancock in particular has been hounded by Orthodox Archaeology for years, decades maybe.

The problem is that Establishment Science is politically allergic to two scientific theories: 1) any model attributing Earth’s changing climate to anything besides human activity, or 2) any model explaining Earth’s geology as being caused by catastrophic events like Noah’s flood, rather than by gradualism, the notion that Nature’s slow, steady, uniform forces can fully explain all Earth’s geologic features.

Since Hancock, Davidson, and TES all argue for catastrophic cycles causing both geology and climate, their ideas are doubly anathema to capital-S ‘Science.’ The arrogant left considers them not just heretical, but as “non-scientists,” instantly disqualifying them right out of the gate for lacking the right credentials (and more importantly, lacking the right politics).

So, considering their long-standing opposition to catastrophism and non-human climate influence, what should we make of the far-left New York Times promoting this catastrophic “every hundred years” superflare story, which violates, or at least threatens to violate, both banned ideas?

And especially since the story lends credibility to heretics like Hancock, Davidson, TES, and other heterodox catastrophists?

The answer is not obvious, and the Times isn’t saying. But recent events suggest a solution. Two weeks ago, the Economist ran a scary science story headlined, “Earth's magnetic North Pole is shifting toward Russia.” (Cue complaints about Russian disinformation, which is now confusing the North Pole.) “The pole,” the Economist economically noted, “is on the move.” Moving could become problematic. “If the Earth's magnetic field is disrupted,” the Economist darkly warned, “it may cause problems in technology and navigation, as well as expose the planet to unwanted radiation.”

The Economist said the wandering pole is worrying researchers. “One of the main things researchers are monitoring,” it reported, “is the potential for a full magnetic reversal, during which the North and South Poles would flip entirely.” Now they tell us.

Not coincidentally, the “pole flip” is the same mechanism fueling the catastrophist theories of Hancock, Davidson, TES, about which they have been talking for years.

Ben Davidson in particular has argued that, during a true pole flip, where the north and south poles switch places, the planet will actually partly flip over before righting itself, a literal sort of ‘tipping point.’ This somewhat dramatic event would start fast, in hours or a few days at most. During the flip, the Arctic would temporarily become the tropics and vice-versa. After a few weeks or months, the Earth would then just as quickly flip back as the poles settled into their new places. (This remains a purely heterodox proposal; the Establishment has never publicly conceded that a pole flip can cause any geologic activity, much less move the planet.)

Never mind problems like GPS confusion, crippled compasses, or flocks of birds migrating the wrong way. The physical effects of the flipping could get downright ugly for folks on the surface when it happens. See, e.g., Noah’s Flood, as possibly evidenced by the disquieting wear marks on the Great Pyramids.

No matter how much Establishment Science would like it to, the problem is not going away. If anything, it is getting more obvious by the week, and Establishment scientists, clinging to their tired gradualistic theories, have no idea what’s going on. Headline from Meteored, yesterday:

Here’s the point: Could this year’s increasingly bizarre solar activity (with its astonishing, historic, worldwide aurorae and its weakening magnetic field), combined with the North Pole’s sprinting-speed geomagnetic excursion, be scaring the Establishment into considering previously unthinkable possibilities or, Heaven help us, the potential for a natural catastrophe not caused by cows burping?

These rapidly unfolding events must create a growing sense of urgency for Establishment Science to explain what’s happening, even if only to retain their crowns as experts and prevent customers from going somewhere else. Maybe that urgency, combined with the terrifying ultra-urgency of Trump’s appointment of heterodox scientists to run the main scientific agencies which, after all, award the grants, has the Scientific Establishment feeling especially apocalyptic this week.

Maybe we’re getting somewhere.