What is the Proper Role of Federal Government? – Freedom Outpost

Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.

What follows is a brief and simple primer about the structure of our Republic according to our founders. James Madison said that the powers delegated to the federal government are ‘few and defined’ (Article I, Sec 8). He explains that the general welfare clause does not grant the government the power to do generally whatever they want; it simply describes the purpose in delegating their few powers. In other words, our founders believed in and intended limited government. VERY limited.

James Madison  said, “I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who rarified the Constitution conceived—that is is not an indefinite government…but a limited Government. The Powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined…war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce.”

By the same token, Congress was to have a limited and strictly defined role as well. Congress was not established to “become” the federal government but to control it on behalf of the people. That is the reason they hold the most influence and control (contrary to the myth of co-equal branches) through the checks and balances established through powers of impeachment and congressional oversight.

James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson on 24 Oct. 1787, “In the American Constitution, the general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capacity.”

 

First, the Senate was established to represent the states in the federal government. That is why each state is allotted the same number of Senators, to ensure equal representation and therefore equal control for all states. The Senate’s primary job description was to protect the states from federal encroachment and ensure each state’s sovereignty. “Defenders of the 10th Amendment” would be a good description for the job our founders intended the Senate to perform.

Tench Coxe writes in ‘An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States II’ September 28, 1788,

President bears no resemblance to a king, so we shall see the Senate have no similitude to nobles. First then not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom and virtue are not precarious, for by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices; and they will have none of the peculiar follies and vices of those men who possess power merely because their fathers held it before them, for they will be educated (under equal advantages and with equal prospects) among and on a footing with the other sons of a free people.”

The House was designed to be the representatives of the people. That is why there are more house members than senators, to better reflect the population of people in each state. The House’s primary job description was to be the guardians of Liberty, so the people can maintain the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. “Defenders of the 9th Amendment” would be a good description for the job our founders intended the House to perform.

Tench Coxe continues,

“Each member of this truly popular assembly will be chosen by about six thousand electors, by the poor as well as the rich. No decayed and venal borough will have an unjust share in their determinations. No old Sarum will send thither a Representative by the voice of a single elector. As we shall have no royal ministries to purchase votes, so we shall have no votes for sale. For the suffrages of six thousand enlightened and independent freemen are above all price”

 

But here we are today with a Senate that looks more like a protector of the federal government than a defender of the states and a House that feels it’s primary role is to “protect” national security instead of the rights and Liberty of the people. Placing security over liberty seems to be a common affliction of our Congress.

Patrick Henry made it perfectly clear that without Liberty, life was not even worth living. Benjamin Franklin rightfully declared that if we place security above Liberty, we would lose them both.

Our framers made it clear that if the federal government was not following their constitutional duties or abiding by the limitations established, their actions (their laws) were null and void.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper #33:

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution… But it will not follow…that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION.”

 

This is the fundamental principle of state nullification. If Congress understood their proper role they would KNOW that when the federal government creates unjust and unconstitutional law, it is their job to protect the people from it and declare the sovereignty of the people over the powers delegated to the federal government. If they really understood their oath to the Constitution and what their obligations were, THEY would be nullifying Obamacare, UN Treaties, and the myriad of unconstitutional executive orders spewed out by former administrations.

Of course, there are those who would assert that the Supreme Court has “declared” state nullification invalid. The problem with that assertion is that the Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court is one-third of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (the division of government with the least power, by the way), a Federal government created by the people.

Allowing SCOTUS to determine the degree of sovereignty each state has over the federal government is the ultimate expression of a conflict of interest. Let us remember that the Federal government, which includes the SCOTUS is a creature of the people.

Would you allow the defendant in a criminal case to decide HIS own guilt or innocence? Of course not! But allowing the Supreme Court to determine how the Federal Government (of which it is a part) is operating with respect to State’s rights is to have the offender declaring his own innocence. Is the Supreme Court capable of making the proper ruling? I’m sure they are, but they are equally capable of making the improper ruling and such would be the destruction of liberty by declaring the 9th and 10th Amendments irrelevant.

 

Alexander Hamilton declared in Federalist paper #33 that when the government steps outside its constitutional bounds, it is incumbent upon the people to redress the injury done to the Constitution.

The current lack of understanding of the proper relationship between the States and its Federal Government as well as the neglect of the proper roles of our Congressional employees is leading directly to the destruction of our Constitution. And as Daniel Webster warned, we as a nation have an obligation to hold onto this great Constitution or suffer consequences of our neglect.

Daniel Webster stated in ‘An Anniversary Address’ July 4th 1806.

“Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.” 

KrisAnne Hall is an attorney, former prosecutor, a disabled Army veteran, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. Hall hosts weekly radio and TV programs and teaches an average of 265 classes each year on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Learn more at krisannehall.com.

The Language of Liberty series is a collaborative effort of the Center for Self Governance (CSG) Administrative Team. CSG is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization, dedicated to training citizens in applied civics. The authors include administrative staff, selected students, and guest columnists. The views expressed by the authors are their own and may not reflect the views of CSG. Contact them at CenterForSelfGovernance.com

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Advertisements

The Bill of Rights is Missing an Amendment

The intent of this Article, or Amendment, could not be clearer – that no branch shall ever exercise another’s power, even if voluntarily surrendered to another.

freedomoutpost.com

One of greater problems that plague our federal government is that of cross-delegation. What do I mean by this?

I describe this phenomenon as such, owing to the fact that three branches of government are no longer “separate but equal.”

As we see by the take-over of government by the federal judiciary, they are clearly the most powerful of the three.

The other two branches, the legislative and executive, take to bended knee before them, and as blind mutes, comply with any and every decree.

This was clearly not intended by the founders.

However, this cross-delegation can more accurately be described not as a seizing of power and authority of one branch from another, but as a voluntary giving of authority of one branch to another.

The legislative branch, devoid of backbone, consistently surrenders its constitutionally mandated authority to the executive branch, giving the President authority he is not entitled to.

Unfortunately, as is often the case today, the three branches of government see the Constitution as nothing more than a conglomeration of gray areas to be interpreted as they wish.

National Review described it as the “disalignment of the various branches of government relative to what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended.”

The Constitution does specify the duties of the three branches and assumes that the branches would have the fortitude to carry out their specific duties. They apparently did not envision such a large collection of spineless weasels, eager to give their authority away rather than have to make hard choices.

These supposed gray areas in the Constitution are exactly the reason why the anti-federalists insisted on spelling out a set of basic individual rights in the Bill of Rights.

Fulfilling a promise to anti-federalists like George Mason, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, James Madison introduced his proposed nine amendments on June 8, 1789.

The amendments were taken up by the House, and on August 24, the House voted in favor of presenting 17 amendments (first draft) to the states for ratification.

Congress then forwarded the proposed Bill of Rights to the Senate.

The Senate reduced those 17 to 12 (second draft) and on September 28, 1789, these 12 were submitted to the States for ratification.

The process slowed to a crawl, which for something this important was the right tact.

Finally, on December 15, 1791, the remaining 10 Amendments were agreed upon by three-quarters of the States and the Bill of Rights was born.

However, in retrospect, there was one original Article, that is desperately needed in today’s three-branch free-for-all environment.

Sadly it ended up on the cutting room floor – didn’t make it past the second draft.

This was Article 16, which read:

 “The powers delegated by the constitution to the government of the United States, shall be exercised as therein appropriated, so that the legislative shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial the powers vested in the legislative or executive.”

This one Article – this one short paragraph, would bring the entire federal government back into Constitutional alignment.

The intent of this Article, or Amendment, could not be clearer – that no branch shall ever exercise another’s power, even if voluntarily surrendered to another.

This one Article would put an end to the cross-delegation of authority, or “disalignment of the various branches of government.”

It should be considered as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Disaster Costs Aren’t Proof Of Warming | The Daily Caller

By Michael Bastasch

Natural disasters did $330 billion worth of damage in 2017, mostly due to hurricanes smashing into the U.S. this fall, making last year the second costliest year for disasters since 2011, according to the reinsurance industry.

Insurers will pay out $135 billion for natural disasters, according to Munich Re, the most on record. Most of the monetary damages came from hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, which hit U.S. and Caribbean islands in the fall. Hurricanes did $215 billion in damage.

While nominal costs of natural disasters — including hurricanes, fires and earthquakes — has grown over time, taking into account inflation and economic growth actually shows disaster costs have been trending down since 1990.

That’s according to research by the University of Colorado’s Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., who’s spent years studying why natural disaster spending has increased despite no apparent trends in extreme weather.

 

Pielke’s pushed back against claims made by politicians and activists that global warming is making natural disasters more frequent, thus pushing up disaster costs. Pielke’s work — and the work of others — however, shows this is not the case.

The global economy has grown since the 1990s. Hurricane Harvey, for example, was the costliest natural disaster of 2017, inflicting $85 billion when it struck in late August. Harvey dumped record rainfall for several days over the greater Houston area.

But Harvey’s price tag would have been much smaller had it hit in, say, 1960 when Houston’s population was 60 percent less than it is today. Fewer buildings, roads and infrastructure mean the same storm can do less damage.

That’s not all, though, Pielke has noted that even without development, inflation also makes it seem like there are more $1 billion disasters today than there were in past decades. We’ve also gotten better at detecting extreme weather, including through the use of satellites.

Activists often argue that increased disaster costs and disaster declarations show how extreme weather is becoming more extreme and intense due to man-made global warming. Though, climate assessments say there’s no evidence of increasing trends in extremes.

“The most important caveat: don’t use disasters to argue about trends in climate,” Pielke wrote in a blog post that incorporated new Munich Re disaster data.

“Trends in the incidence of extreme weather help to explain this graph as the world has experienced a long stretch of good fortune,” Pielke wrote.

How Robert Mueller Sabotaged Counterterror Training in 2012 – Freedom Outpost

 We knew Robert Mueller was selling out America to our enemies in 2009 when Hillary Clinton told him to deliver uranium to the Russians at a secret tarmac meeting.

We also know that Mueller obstructed Congress’ investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

However, were you aware that Robert Mueller, the very man who is investigating the Trump administration for alleged collusion with the Russians was behind scrubbing any and all references of Islamic jihad from counter terror training manuals?  You didn’t?  Well, take a listen to the following video by Robert Spencer for the details and if you don’t have time for the video, I’ve transcribed it below.

It has now come to light that as Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, who is currently the special counsel looking for any dirt he can find on President Trump, presided over the 2012 removal of all counter terror training materials that made any mention of Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism.

Since then, our law enforcement and intelligence officials have been blundering along in self-imposed darkness about the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat

Now, this turns out to be Robert Mueller’s doing.

In February 2012, the Obama administration purged more than a thousand documents and presentations from counter terror training material for the FBI and other agencies.

This material was discarded at the demand of Muslim groups, which had deemed it inaccurate or offensive to Muslims.

Now, this purge was several years in the making, and I, myself, was inadvertently the one who touched it off in August 2010.

I gave a talk on Islam in Jihad to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, one of many such talks I gave to government agencies and military groups in those years.

Now, while some had counseled me to keep these talks quiet so as to avoid attracting the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, the possibility of that pressure seemed to me to make it all the more important to announce that I had been there so as to show that the US government was not going to take dictation from a group linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

As it turned out, however, those who had urged silence were correct, for the Obama administration was indeed disposed to take dictation from CAIR.

CAIR sent a series of letters to Mueller and others demanding that I be dropped as a counter-terror trainer and the organization even started a coalition echoing the demand, and Jesse Jackson and other leftist luminaries joined it.

At the FBI, Mueller made no public comment on CAIR’s demand and so it initially appeared that CAIR’s effort had failed, but I was never again invited to provide counter-terror training for any government agency after having done so fairly regularly for the previous five years.

CAIR’s campaign to keep me from taking part in counter-terror training was, of course, not personal.  They targeted me simply because I told the truth, just as they would target anyone else who dared to do so.

Although Muller was publicly silent, now we know that he was not unresponsive and the Islamic supremacists and their leftist allies did not give up.

In the summer and fall of 2011, the online tech journal Wired published several exposes by the far-left journalist Spencer Ackerman, who took the FBI to task for training material that spoke forthrightly and truthfully about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

In a typical Sally from one of these exposes, Ackerman condemned the training material for intimating that mainstream American Muslims were quote, “likely to be terrorist sympathizers.”

Now, certainly all the mainstream Muslim organizations condemn al Qaeda and 9/11.  However, some of the foremost of those organizations, such as ISNA, MAS, the MSA, CAIR and others, have links of various kinds to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

A mainstream Muslim spokesman in the US,  Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, refused to condemn Hamas until it became too politically damaging for him not to do so.

CAIR’s Nihad Awad openly declared his support for Hamas in 1994.

Other mainstream Muslim spokesmen in the US, such as Obama’s ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Rashad Hussain, and media gadfly Hussein Ibish have praised and defended Sami al-arian, the confessed leader of yet another Jihad terror group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Do these men and organizations represent a tiny minority of extremists that actually do not express the opinions of the broad mainstream of Muslims in this country?

Maybe, but there’s something no counterparts, no individuals of comparable influence or groups of comparable size that have not expressed sympathy for some Islamic terror group.

Nonetheless, in the face of Ackerman’s reports, the FBI went into full retreat in September 2011.  It announced that it was dropping one of the programs that Ackerman had zeroed in on then on October 19, 2011.

Farhana Cara of Muslim advocates, who had complained for years about supposed Muslim profiling and entrapment sent a letter to John Brennan, who was then the
assistant to the President on national security for Homeland Security and counterterrorism.  The letter was signed not just by Cara but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the US:  57 Muslim, Arab and South or Asian organizations, many, again, with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic circle of North America, Islamic Relief USA and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

The letter denounced what it characterized as US government agencies use of biased false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.  It criticized the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials.

CAIR complained that my books could be found in the FBI’s library at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia, that a reading list accompanying a PowerPoint presentation by the FBI’s law enforcement communications unit recommended my book The Truth about Mohammad, and that in July 2010, I presented a two-hour seminar on the belief system of Islamic jihadists to the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Tidewater, Virginia and presented a similar lecture to the US Attorney’s anti-terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the FBI’s Norfolk field office.

Now, these were supposed to be terrible things because I was supposed to be bigoted and hateful, but many of the examples CAIR adduced of bigoted and distorted materials involved statements that were not actually bigoted and distorted at all, but simply accurate.

What was distorted was CAIR’s representation of them.

For instance, CAIR stated this:  A 2006 FBI intelligence report stating that individuals who convert to Islam are on the path to becoming homegrown Islamic extremists if they exhibit any of the following behavior:

  • wearing traditional Muslim attire
  • growing facial hair
  • frequent attendance at a mosque or a prayer group
  • travel to a Muslim country
  • increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political cause

Now, note the FBI intelligence report that CAIR purported to be describing did not actually say that converts to Islam were necessarily on the path to becoming extremists if they wore traditional Muslim attire, grew facial hair and frequently attended a mosque. It simply included these behaviors among a list of 14 indicators to identify an individual going through the radicalization process .

Others included:

  • travel without obvious source of funds
  • suspicious purchases of bomb-making paraphernalia or weapons
  • large transfer of funds from or to overseas and;
  • formation of operational cells

CAIR selectively quoted and misrepresented the list to give the impression that the FBI was saying that devout observance of Islam led inevitably and in every case to extremism despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining.

The Muslim groups signing the letter demanded that the task force purge all federal government trainings of materials of these supposedly biased materials and implement a mandatory retraining program for FBI agents, US army officers and all federal, state and local law enforcement who had been subjected to biased training.

They asked for more as well to ensure that all law enforcement officials would learn about Islam in Jihad only what the signatories, through this letter, wanted them to learn.

Brennan immediately complied numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam in Jihad were purged, but it wasn’t just Brennan.

Now, we know that it was Mueller all along.  Both Brennan and Mueller, of course, are part of the same Washington establishment that has wholeheartedly endorsed the idea that honest analysis of jihadist motives is Islamophobia.

The longer our military and intelligence apparatus subscribes to this view, the worse off we will be.

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years | The Daily Caller

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years

 By Michael Bastaschglobal_warming_hoax
 
Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record it showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”

 

The study is sure to be contentious. Christy has argued for years that climate models exaggerate global warming in the bulk atmosphere, which satellites have monitored since the late 1970s.

Christy, a noted skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.

While many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, few have really challenged the validity of the models themselves.

A recent study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer found that while the models ran hot, the “overestimation” was “partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Christy’s removal of volcanic-driven cooling from satellite temperature data could also draw scrutiny. The study also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.

Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.

“While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers, or a long-term cooling,” Christy said.

DON’T FORGET TO WATCH GORE’S DISASTROUS CNN TOWN HALL:

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 

Here’s Why Tom Brokaw’s Comments on Guns are Utterly Ridiculous – Freedom Outpost

By Suzanne Hamner

Right on cue, leftist, liberal Democrats and Hillary Clinton wasted no time after the tragic shooting incident in Las Vegas to advocate for gun control.  It’s the same old song and dance routine after any incident involving a gun – common sense gun control laws are needed now, gun show loopholes should be closed, action needs to be taken to stop this kind of violence, and whatever “feel good” reason a political hack or news personality thinks up to infringe upon the right to bear arms.  On Monday night, Tom Brokaw, appearing on NBC News covering the shooting in Las Vegas, stated, “It’s amazing what you can buy, at a gun show or illegally from other people.”

The video provided by The Daily Caller captures Brokaw saying a conversation cannot be held because of the emotional response of gun owners to gun control.

Brokaw continued:

We can’t have that conversation because it immediately becomes so emotional between the gun owners of the America, who are protected by the NRA, and other people saying there ought to be a more reasonable ground. I’m a gun owner. I don’t have one of the AR-15s. I don’t need them. But almost all my friends out there have that kind of weapon.

Mr. Brokaw needs to understand a few points before providing commentary.

Mr. Brokaw, you need to understand the reason there can be no conversation on gun control – it is because the law is clear.  The Second Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America recognizes and guarantees the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, which cannot be infringed by the government.  No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes.  The only “emotional” argument comes from leftist, liberal, communist, Marxist, socialist individuals and Democrats who subscribe to the statist view that government is the grantor of individual unalienable rights or has the authority to regulate individual unalienable rights.

Rights come from God, Mr. Brokaw, and precede any government, especially the united States government, which was formed by the people through the ratification of the Constitution for the united States of America.  The Constitution conveys no rights to the people because the founders recognized rights existed prior to government and are given by God as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  Rather, the Constitution limited government from infringing on the God-given individual unalienable rights of the people.

Now, as far as the National Rifle Association (NRA) is concerned, it would help you tremendously, Mr. Brokaw, if you read about the founding of the NRA and its expansion into the areas of politics and legislation.  For your information, the NRA does not protect the gun owners of America as much as you think the organization does.  Any law enacted by Congress;  any “rule, regulation, or policy” enacted by the unconstitutional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF);  or, any “executive action” regarding firearms, is strictly prohibited by the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” clause.  Yet, the NRA supports certain Congressional legislation regarding firearms, such as HR 3668 and HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which is in violation of the Second Amendment.  So, truly, Mr. Brokaw, the NRA is not “protecting” gun owners in America since the association is willing to “bend” for Congress to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

As a gun owner, Mr. Brokaw, you should know there is never any “reasonable ground” when it comes to guns and gun control involving government, Democrats, or leftist, liberal, progressive, communist, socialist, Marxist individuals.  It is “their way or the highway.”  Moreover, it is already established that “government,” particularly the above-mentioned sect of the population, wants to be the only sect determining what is “reasonable.”  But, the most important aspect that governs this entire situation is the type of government the people established.  The united States is a constitutional republic whereby government protects individual God-given unalienable rights.  This republic is not a democracy, whereby the majority rules;  nor, is this government an aristocracy, whereby the elite rule.  So, even if a “majority” wants to infringe on someone else’s God-given rights or the political elite, wealthy or news “celebrities” want to limit an individual right, it is the function of government to protect it.

And, by the way, your guns locked up in a cabinet in Montana will do you no good should you need to defend yourself from criminals or a tyrannical government.

Mr. Brokaw, you should know that an AR-15 is nothing more than a semi-automatic type of rifle.  It is the different aesthetic appearance that “unnerves” some individuals.  Because of your limited knowledge, semi-automatic is the firing of one projectile with each squeeze of the trigger.  While no individual may “need” an AR-15 or another type of semi-automatic rifle, the issue is not need but “right” to possess firearms comparable to those used by government military.  No, Mr. Brokaw, no one “needs” a tank either, but an individual has the “right” to possess one.

Not to confuse you any more than you already are, Mr. Brokaw;  but, the news media, which includes you, has done a fantastic job of misrepresenting, twisting, and fabricating information regarding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  You people keep calling our government a “democracy” instead of a “republic” as the founders established.  News media personalities are too interested in hearing what some lame brain celebrity or sports figure has to say about “government,” “politics,” and the Constitution than actually talking to someone that knows.  You and your colleagues are guilty of fabricating “news” or perpetuating a falsehood, such as Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.  After that tidbit was proven false, news media “talking heads” and “Silicone Barbies” continued to dissect it, muse about it, analyze it and make predictions on future events amounting to “chewing on an issue til it loses its flavor then sticking it in your hair” as Vivianne Joan Abbott Walker said in The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.

But, I digress.

Any “gun control” or “reasonable ground” regarding firearms always targets law-abiding citizens.  The reason is that criminals will break the law, regardless.  A criminal will not care about any unconstitutional law addressing firearms – these individuals will still find access to whatever they want.  It isn’t law-abiding individuals that should worry anyone;  it is the criminals.  And, the only equalizer between those who observe the law and those who violate it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  But, the Second Amendment’s main function is protecting the people against a tyrannical government, preserving all other God-given unalienable individual rights recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the united States of America.

Simply put, Mr. Brokaw, every member of both chambers of Congress should honor their oath of office to support, protect and defend the Constitution and stop with despotic and tyrannical legislation.  For any law passed by Congress outside their constitutional authority is a usurpation;  the people should treat it as such.

These are all simple facts, Mr. Brokaw, relayed without any emotion.  There is no need to be emotional when one is dealing in facts.  And, if those of us who remind people like you of the facts become emotional, the main emotion is frustration – frustration that too many in this republic remain “stuck on stupid” or engage in “willful ignorance” to the point of being detrimental to freedom and liberty.

Do us all a favor, Mr. Brokaw.  Educate yourself on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence before you spout off more misrepresentations, personal opinion, and/or twisting of the facts regarding firearms and firearm ownership.  The continued propaganda peddled by you and the rest of the lamestream enemedia is old and stale;  plus, it results in people who support the Constitution sounding like a broken record when it should not be necessary.

Commentary: The climate-change alarmism debate is over — and Al Gore and his disciples have lost – TheBlaze

Commentary: The climate-change alarmism debate is over — and Al Gore and his disciples have lost

Chip Somodevilla / Staff / Getty Images

 

In the world of science, debates rarely end. Only after years of careful analyses, rigorous scientific studies, and the replication of findings can scientists safely declare they believe a theory has likely been proven. And even then, real scientists know virtually every scientific conclusion is subject to further debate and experimentation as additional insights are discovered.

On the topic of the science of climate change, including the causes and potential dangers, the debate is still very much alive and well. But the current climate-change debate held in most public forums, including in Washington, D.C., has never been particularly scientific (that is, adhering to the scientific method), and after three decades of debating the claims made repeatedly by climate alarmists such as Al Gore, it’s clear the debate is over, and the alarmists have lost.

What alarmists believe

The current climate alarmist debate involves only two groups. The alarmists are those who say climate change is happening, that it is now and has for decades been caused by humans’ greenhouse-gas emissions, that the warming is causing or will soon cause catastrophic problems, and, most importantly, that the evidence is overwhelming and beyond dispute. Anyone who doesn’t believe in all four of those assertions falls, whether they realize it or not, into the “climate skeptic” camp, a rather large tent.

If this description of the debate surprises you, it’s only because for 30 years alarmists have consistently and improperly been claiming climate-change skeptics are “deniers” — a name that was deliberately chosen because of its link to Holocaust “deniers” — who are stupid, corrupt, or both. They’ve spread countless falsehoods about what global warming actually is and have repeatedly made untrue claims about what skeptics believe.

Is the science settled?

One thing is abundantly clear, however: For alarmists, anyone who doesn’t accept the climate-change dogma, which, again, includes all four of the claims made above, is dangerous.

“This is scary stuff, above and beyond everything else that scares us about Republicans,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in 2016. “You have a major political party which has turned its back on science regarding climate change. … It is caused by human activity. And it is already, not tomorrow but today, causing massive problems all over this country.”

So certain are the climate alarmists of their position that many of them have suggested it could be appropriate to imprison climate-change skeptics. Pop-culture “scientist” Bill Nye suggested as much in an April 2016 interview.

“Was it appropriate to jail the guys from Enron?” Nye said. “We’ll see what happens. … In these cases, for me, as a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen. So, I can see where people are very concerned about this, and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this.”

The climate-alarmism debate is clear, so the only question is: Are the alarmists right? On this point, the facts are apparent: Although there is still a debate over whether the climate is still warming significantly, what the causes for the warming are, and whether warming will cause more harm than good, it is now certain that the evidence is not anywhere near overwhelming enough for Gore, Sanders, and Nye to make their most important claim: that the debate is over and that the theory of human-caused climate change has unquestionably been resolved in climate alarmists’ favor.

The evidence: climate models

Let’s start with the basics. If climate alarmists are correct that the debate is over, why can’t they prove it using scientific data? Because the climate is incredibly complex, climate scientists can’t run laboratory experiments to test hypotheses in the same way they might in other areas of research. Instead, they are forced to rely on computer climate models, which have been remarkably bad at proving a link between humans and carbon-dioxide emissions, as David Henderson and Charles Hooper noted for the Hoover Institution in April.

“The ultimate test for a climate model is the accuracy of its predictions,” Henderson and Hooper wrote. “But the models predicted that there would be much greater warming between 1998 and 2014 than actually happened. If the models were doing a good job, their predictions would cluster symmetrically around the actual measured temperatures. That was not the case here; a mere 2.4 percent of the predictions undershot actual temperatures and 97.6 percent overshot, according to Cato Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels, former MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, and Cato Institute climate researcher Chip Knappenberger. Climate models as a group have been ‘running hot,’ predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred over 1998–2014.”

Numerous other studies have been conducted showing the failure of most climate models. Earlier in 2017, a paper in Nature: Geoscience found climate models have failed to explain the global warming pause experienced in the early 21st century.

“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” lead author Benjamin Santer and his team wrote.

“Over most of the early twenty-first century … model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed … partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations,” they added.

If climate models don’t get the most basic prediction they make, that of global temperatures, correct, one could reasonably ask why people should trust their predictions concerning climate changes purported to result from rising temperatures.

The evidence: alleged dangers of warming

Climate alarmists’ numerous predictions about extreme weather have also been utterly incorrect.

Authors of a paper in the August 2016 edition of the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology found “stronger storms are not getting stronger,” and the researchers also noted changes in the strength, seasonality, and the increase in the amount of heavy rainfall events could be explained by natural variability.

Alarmists can’t even definitively prove warmer temperatures are causing more harm than good. Increased carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures have scientifically been proven to help plant growth, which means there is more food for humans and animals. In fact, it is widely known that historically, cooler conditions are much more dangerous than warmer conditions for life on Earth.

A 2015 article in the influential journal The Lancet examined health data from 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths, and found relatively cold weather, directly or indirectly, kills 1,700 percent more people than warm weather.

Alarmists’ response

Of course, climate alarmists refuse to accept any of these well-established facts, because it would undermine the foundation of everything they’ve claimed for three decades. In the face of facts, they hurl unjustifiable accusations and insults in an attempt to sway readers.

Writing for Forbes in July, climate alarmist Ethan Siegel, like many of Gore’s disciples, claimed similar arguments we had made in the past are “lies” and distortions.

“The only reason to write about validating climate skepticism is to reinforce pre-existing beliefs,” Siegel wrote.

Then, to bolster his assertion, Siegel provided a number of alleged proofs of skeptics’ “lies,” some of them laughable. For instance, in response to a claim made about there being fewer hurricanes (despite alarmists’ many predictions that there would be more hurricanes and more-intense storms), Siegel pointed to a study that admitted there were fewer hurricanes, and he acknowledged that fewer large hurricanes have made landfall in the United States in recent years, but he insisted alarmists were right because of a single study that reported “wind speeds in tropical cyclones” increased from 1984 to 2012. By how much, you may ask? Three mph, a paltry figure that’s within the margin of error for such measurements, thus proving absolutely nothing.

Siegel also claimed, “The effects of ocean acidification, rising sea levels and the severe economic consequences, among many others, show that the negative consequences of global warming for humanity will far outweigh the positives,” but then provided absolutely no proof that would undermine the findings of the article in The Lancet, to which he was attempting to respond, that shows cold weather is much more dangerous.

The scientific debate over the causes and possible problems related to climate change is far from over, but the debate over the argument made repeatedly by climate alarmists that the evidence is overwhelming is now settled, and alarmists such as Gore and Siegel have lost.

The only reason we continue to hear these outlandish, unscientific assertions is because radical environmentalists depend on them to continue their push for extreme economic, political, and social changes — many of which were also made in the 1970s, when numerous alarmists predicted a new ice age was just around the corner.

Justin Haskins is executive editor and a research fellow. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute.

Source: Commentary: The climate-change alarmism debate is over — and Al Gore and his disciples have lost – TheBlaze

Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’

Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming.

This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.

The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C –  concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.

In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.

Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years’ worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.

This, the scientists admit, is next to impossible. Which means their “carbon budget” – the amount of CO2 they say is needed to increase global warming by a certain degree – is wrong. This in turn means that the computer models they’ve been using to scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are wrong too.

One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.

He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.

In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.

But you certainly wouldn’t guess this from the way the scientists are trying to spin their report.

According to the London Times:

 Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one ofthe study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

“It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”

and

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

He said that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.

He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

Note the disingenuousness here.

Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.

Allen’s “so it’s not that surprising” is indeed true if you’re on the skeptical side of the argument. But not if, like Allen, you’re one of those scientists who’ve spent the last 20 years scorning, mocking and vilifying all those skeptics who for years have been arguing the very point which Allen himself is now admitting is correct.

That’s why Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says, this is a “landmark” moment in the history of great climate change scare.

“It’s the first official confirmation we’ve had that CO2 is not as big a driver of climate change as the computer models have claimed; and it’s the first official admission that the planet is not warming dangerously.”

But this is not, unfortunately, a cause for wild celebrations in the street. ManBearPig has been scotched but by no means been slain. Nor are the alarmists yet ready to admit the full scale of their errors.

This is little more than a damage limitation exercise by scamsters who know they’ve been caught cheating and have now been forced to concede at least some territory to their opponents for fear of looking ridiculous.

Paul Homewood has their number:

1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot.

This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.

2) I suspect part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on.

This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.

3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.

Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.

4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?

5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.

Yup. But at least we climate skeptics have been proved right yet again, that’s the main thing.

Oh, and by the way, snooty alarmist scumbags: that word you were looking for to describe the current state of global warming science is: “Sorry.”

The Myth That Climate Change Created Harvey, Irma

Residents in Rockport, Texas, survey the property damage wrought by Hurricane Harvey. (Photo: Glenn Fawcett/UPI /Newscom)

Flooding in homes and businesses across Houston was still on the rise when Politico ran a provocative article, titled “Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like.”

Politico was not alone, as another news outlet called the one-two punch of Harvey and Irma the potential “new normal.” Brad Johnson, executive director of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote, says Harvey and Irma are reason to finally jail officials who “reject science.”

Rather than focus on the victims and offer solutions for speedy recovery, pundits and politicians in the wake of Harvey focused on saying, “I told you so.”

 

Except they’re not telling the full story.

Consider this data from a 2012 article in the Journal of Climate, authored by climatologists Roger Pielke Jr. and Jessica Weinkle. Pielke tweeted a graph from the paper that shows no trends in global tropical cyclone landfalls over the past 46 years.

Statistician and Danish author Bjorn Lomborg also tweeted a graph showing major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. trending downward for well over a century.

Before anyone starts claiming that Pielke and Lomborg’s charts rely on denier data, mainstream science published similar findings.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in its most recent scientific assessment that “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes … have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin,” and that there are “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency.”

Further, “confidence in large-scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones [such as ‘Superstorm’ Sandy] since 1900 is low.”

Other media outlets tying Harvey to climate change took a more measured approach.

For instance, Vox wrote that man-made global warming did not actually cause Harvey, but simply exacerbated the natural disaster by creating heavier rainfalls.

But this claim is discredited by University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass, who after examining precipitation levels in the Gulf found that “[t]here is no evidence that global warming is influencing Texas coastal precipitation in the long term and little evidence that warmer than normal temperatures had any real impact on the precipitation intensity from this storm.”

Mass went on to explicitly refute those who attribute Hurricane Harvey to climate change:

The bottom line in this analysis is that both observations of the past decades and models looking forward to the future do not suggest that one can explain the heavy rains of Harvey by global warming, and folks that are suggesting it are poorly informing the public and decision makers.

Politicians seeking to exploit Harvey and Irma as reasons to act on climate change would only make a bad situation worse. Climate policies and regulations designed to prevent natural disasters and slow the earth’s warming simply will not do so.

Such policies aim to limit access to affordable, reliable conventional energy sources that power 80 percent of the country. Restricting their use through regulations or taxes will drive energy prices through the roof and make unemployment lines longer.

Further, these policies will destroy economic wealth, meaning fewer resources would be available to strengthen infrastructure to contain the future effects of natural disasters and to afterward.

Instead of blaming man-made greenhouse gas emissions, climate catastrophists should see natural disasters for what they really are: natural.

If policymakers want to take a page out of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s “never let a crisis go to waste” playbook, they should worry less about costly nonsolutions to climate change and focus on natural disaster response, resilience, and preparedness.

The Corruption of Atmospheric Science ⋆ The US Constitution ⋆ Constitution.com

By Adrian Vance 

Norwegian scientists are taking carbon dioxide from air with giant pumps and are preparing to release chemicals from a balloon to dim sunlight to cool the planet according to recent press accounts in Europe.  The insanity of this enterprise is a stunning measure of the greatest science fraud of all time, “Man Caused Global Warming by Carbon Dioxide and Methane.”

Backers claim risky and expensive projects are urgently needed to find ways of meeting the goals of the Paris climate deal to curb global warming that researchers blame for causing more heatwaves, downpours and rising sea levels.

For the record:  While the temperatures did rise from 1880 AD to 2000 AD 0.8 degrees Centigrade they have fallen more since and we note the annual rise of 0.0067 degrees C per year has never been measureable and well within the “circle of confusion” or statistical insignificance.

 

The United Nations claims the targets are wrong and will not be met simply by reducing emissions, but they offer no science, data, equations, etc. to support this claim.  There is sufficient data in one publication for them to define targets if they are competent; the January 1978 issue of Scientific American, “The Carbon Question” by George Woodwell, but they are too lazy or incompetent to do the work.  They only ask for more money from the United States!

They push for ways to reduce temperatures with an apparatus built by a Zurich, Switzerland company Climeworks to suck “greenhouse gases” from thin air with giant fans and filters in a $23 million, US funded, project it calls “the world’s first commercial carbon dioxide capture plant.”

“Direct Air Capture” research by companies like Climeworks has gotten tens of millions of dollars in recent years from the US government, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the European Space Agency.

They plan to bury the gas underground apparently not aware of the fact it will diffuse and return to the atmosphere in a few years, but they claim it will stay underground forever, violating the diffusion laws of physics.  They claim, “If buried underground, vast amounts of greenhouse gases extracted from the air would help reduce global temperatures,” claiming this to be “…a radical step beyond cuts in emissions that are the main focus of the Paris Agreement.”

The irony is that this concept is obviously wrong several ways.  CO2 does not heat the atmosphere as we demonstrate in our experimental demo in “CO2 Is Innocent” at http://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com  You can clip-copy, print and have it authenticated by any physical science teacher or chemist.

 

Climeworks claims it costs $600 to extract a “tonne” of carbon dioxide from air and the plant’s full capacity is 900 tonnes a year. That’s equivalent to the annual emissions of only 45 Americans.  So much for saving the world with the Climeworks System as it would take 353,333 of these units to correct the sins of America and at $20 million a plane it would take $7 trillion, but America is rich!

Jan Wurzbacher, director and founder of Climeworks,  who has been taking lessons from Elon Musk, says the company has planet-altering ambitions by cutting costs to about $100 a tonne and capturing one percent of global man-made carbon emissions a year by 2025, but he has not made an estimate of how many trillion this would cost for a completely ridiculous technology that is shown to be unnecessary by our simple demo-experiment at http://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com

Since the Paris Agreement, the CO2 business substantially changed from industrial and agricultural applications to “climate change.” Penalties for factories, power plants and cars to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are low or non-existent. They are only $5.82 a tonne, 1,000 kg or 2,200 lbs, in the European Union. That will change in the hands of the ever eager to tax socialist governments.

Isolating CO2 is expensive because the gas is only 0.04 percent of the air. Pure carbon dioxide delivered by trucks, for use in greenhouses or to make fizzy drinks now costs about $300 a tonne in Switzerland.  It will drop dramatically, but the “global warmers” see all the interest in capturing “evil CO2” as a cash cow and full employment program for many Ph.D.s.

To drive the scam the Paris Agreement seeks to limit a rise in world temperatures this century to less than two Celsius degrees (3.6 Fahrenheit), ideally 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial times with perhaps the outlawing of the internal combustion engine which Al Gore said “…is a greater threat to humanity than nuclear weapons!”  Al took one physical science, dumbell survey course at Harvard and got a “D” in it ironically from Dr. Roger Revell, the man who invented anthropogenic global warming!

 

U.N. data claims current plans for cuts in emissions will be insufficient, without the United States, and that the world will have to switch to net “negative emissions” this century by extracting carbon from air with Climeworks Pumps and Refrigerators.

Riskier “geo-engineering” solutions could be a backstop, such as dimming the world’s sunshine, dumping iron into the oceans to soak up carbon, or creating clouds as they are highly reflective of sunlight.

New university research at Harvard, which means it has to be right as they are not only rich, but smart.  A geo-engineering project into dimming sunlight to cool the planet set up in 2016 has raised $7.5 million from not-too-swift private donors. They plan a first outdoor experiment in 2018 above Arizona where a fashionable garden party will be held under aircraft that are going to spray stuff in the air.

“If you want to be confident to get to 1.5 degrees you need to have solar geo-engineering,” said David Keith, of Harvard, but everyone wondered what he was talking about as he was at a garden party luncheon where a talk on rose gardens was expected.

Keith’s team aims to release about 1 kilo (2.2 lbs) of sun dimming material, perhaps calcium carbonate, from a high-altitude balloon above Arizona next year in a tiny experiment to see how it affects the microphysics of the stratosphere.  “I don’t think it’s science fiction … to me it’s normal atmospheric science,” he said.

 

Some research has suggested geo-engineering with sun dimming  chemicals could affect global weather patterns and disrupt vital Monsoons, and make a lot of money for the perpetrators whether it works or not as the money is always up front for these guys.

At the recent Truffle Harvest celebration in Monaco many experts feared pinning hopes on any technology to fix climate change is a distraction from cuts in emissions blamed for heating the planet, but then what would all the new Ph.D. climatologists have to do?

According to Christopher Field, Ph.D. Stanford Professor of Climate Change, “Relying on big future deployments of carbon removal technologies is like eating lots of dessert today, with great hopes for liposuction tomorrow.”  Thus aerial carbon capture seems to be a controversial issue.  Raymond Pierrehumbert, a professor of physics at Oxford University, said solar geo-engineering projects seemed “barking mad.” In contrast, he said “carbon dioxide removal is challenging technologically, but deserves investment and trial.”  “More money for science?” we ask.

“We’re in trouble,” claims Janos Pasztor, head of the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Project says, “The question is not whether or not there will be an overshoot but by how many degrees and for how many decades.”  It is amazing none of these people know how carbon functions in the atmosphere as we so easily demonstrate it with a less than $10 demo-experiment at http://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com See, “CO2 Is Innocent.”

Faced with hard choices, many experts say extracting carbon from the atmosphere is among the less risky options. Leaders of the major economies, except President Trump, said at a summit in Germany this month that the Paris accord was “irreversible,” but our simple demo clearly shows this is all nonsense.

 

Carbon Engineering, set up in 2009 with support from Gates and Murray Edwards, chairman of oil and gas group Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, has raised about $40 million and extracts about a tonne of carbon dioxide a day with turbines and filters.

“We’re mainly looking to synthesize fuels” for markets such as California with high carbon prices, said Geoffrey Holmes, business development manager at Carbon Engineering.

But he added “the Paris Agreement helps” with longer-term options of sucking large amounts from the air.  Among other possible geo-engineering techniques are to create clouds that reflect sunlight back into space, perhaps by using a mist of sea spray.

That might be used locally, for instance, to protect the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, said Kelly Wanser, principal director of the U.S.-based Marine Cloud Brightening Project.

Among new ideas, Wurzbacher at Climeworks is sounding out investors on what he says is the first offer to capture and bury 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air, for $500 a tonne.

That might appeal to a company wanting to be on forefront of a new green technology, he said, even though it makes no apparent economic sense. ($1 = 0.9538 Swiss francs) ($1 = 0.8593 euros)

We challenge these estimations:  The “…5 euros ($5.82) a tonne” is ridiculous on its’ face.  A “tonne” is 1,000 kilograms and the standard way to capture CO2 is to freeze it out of air and it is not possible at that price given the millions of Dollars such an apparatus would cost and the power it would consume per “tonne” freezing CO2 from air that has only 0.04% CO2!

The most outstanding criticism we can make is that the basic concept is completely and entirely wrong, fraudulent and an indictment of the entire weather science community if not the physical science community as well.  Why are so few younger Ph.D.s not speaking out? All of the serious critics are over 65, retired and independent.

We are in the LinkedIn database of physical scientists and have emailed 3,000 of our “CO2 Is Innocent” or “Proving Climate Change” papers to prove what we are saying, and not one has responded with an objection, correction or criticism, but only five have responded positively and three of those were “thumbs up” logos. The fact of the matter is that the physical science community knows and is participating in the fraud.  No nation can survive with a corrupted science.