Q&A: Marc Morano’s Politically Incorrect Book About Climate Change

Al Gore, former vice president, is among the radical left-wing environmentalist who author Marc Morano debunks in his book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” (Photo: Van Tine Dennis/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Marc Morano, founding editor of the award-winning website ClimateDepot.com, recently authored “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” He spoke to Daily Signal Editor-in-Chief Rob Bluey about climate change myths and other facts you probably haven’t heard reported by the media. An edited transcript of their interview is below. You can also listen to it on The Daily Signal podcast.

Rob Bluey: What prompted your interest in the issue of climate change? There’s a great photo of you in the book next to a wanted poster. How did you become such a villain to the left?

Marc Morano: I always said I was a Republican, except when it came to environmental issues. I remember not liking James Watt, the former interior secretary. I remember not liking President Ronald Reagan’s environmental policies. I always wanted to be a forest ranger as a kid growing up. I got heavily involved emotionally in watching all the documentaries about the Amazon rainforest back in the 1980s and 1990s.

It wasn’t until I started reading Dixy Lee Ray and actually hearing her talk, it was actually on Rush Limbaugh’s show, the coverage of the Rio Earth Summit, that I started to look deeper into environmental issues. What I remember her specifically saying, as a nuclear physicist, Dixy Lee Ray, that the Amazon was one of the most intact forests and this idea that it’s about to disappear was complete exaggeration and hype. I started investigating that. It actually culminated in a documentary on the Amazon rainforest.

>>> Buy the Book: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change

Global warming, when I started focusing on it, I actually started with a skeptical view and I was only able to get more and more skeptical, because I saw the same tactics being used.

The way I ended up in the wanted poster in Paris—that was the movie premier of my film “Climate Hustle” from 2015 at a Paris cinema. The environmental groups put out wanted posters of me the day of the premier. All over the city, this was literally on the main streets of Paris. So I posed with one of them in the book and you can see the picture. They called me a “climate criminal wanted for climate crimes.” This is the kind of intimidation they like to do.

Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” in Paris. (Photo Courtesy of Marc Morano)

Bluey: Despite that intimidation, you’ve still gone on to write this book. So what prompted you to do that and what’s your goal when a reader picks it up? What do you want them to walk away with?

Morano: My goal here was to help conservatives and Republicans articulate the issue. During my time on Capitol Hill, I worked for the Senate Environment of Public Works Committee. I can’t tell you the horror stories, Rob, of being in high-level meetings, during the height of the cap-and-trade debate 2007, 2008, 2009; back when President Barack Obama was pushing this through all the way to 2010.

The staffers of very conservative Republican senators would be like, “Well, we don’t want to touch the science on this because we don’t want to be seen as against the Earth or against the environment. Let’s just solely focus on the economics.”

I remember arguing passionately. If people think we face the climate catastrophe, we’re Americans! They’re going to say we will bear any cost and overcome it. They never wanted to challenge it. So I’m trying to, and working for Sen. James Inhofe, we tried to challenge the science.

What I tried to do with this book is say it’s OK to espouse climate skepticism. The book is done for anyone from, I would say, sixth grade through highest levels of education to educate them with the top voices in science, the basic concepts, and to make it fun, informative in a talking point form.

This is a needed book because in order to fulfill President Trump’s policies, you need the scientific justification, and this book fills that gap in, as well as talks about the policy.

Bluey: The other thing the book has is a lot of great facts that I think counter what you so often hear in the media and from liberal politicians. Could you share some of them? I know you have examples right on the cover. For instance, let’s take hurricanes because we’re in the midst right now of another hurricane story. You hear this all the time—that these hurricanes are more intense, they’re happening more often because of climate change. You say, “No.”

Morano: Not only do I say “no,” but the peer-reviewed scientific literature clearly and overwhelmingly says “no.”

There is nothing unusual, particularly on extreme weather. It’s not just hurricanes. Hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, on the entire spectrum of extreme weather, we are either at stable or declining trends. And that includes droughts.

California droughts in previous centuries blew away anything we’re talking about now. Floods, no trends on 100-year, 85-year time scales. Hurricanes were much worse, many more powerful hurricanes in the 1940s and ’50s. In fact, we were in the longest period of no major hurricane category three or larger before last year’s big hurricanes hit. And even though there is this alleged record rains, in the 1960s hurricanes that hit Cuba had many more times rain and flooding events than that.

“They make it seem like extreme weather is everywhere. But taken as a whole, and in the peer-reviewed literature, it’s actually on a declining trend.”

I go into that in the book about these so-called 1,000-year floods and I explain that all these extreme weather events they claim, it’s kind of like a lottery promotion scam. Where they say, “Oh, this is a 1,000-year storm hit this city, and a 1,000-year storm hit that, this is unusual.” No, there are going to be very few lottery winners. But the lottery winners there are, they highlight them. “Look, there’s a lottery winner and there’s a lottery, look the lottery winners are everywhere.” They make it seem like extreme weather is everywhere. But taken as a whole, and in the peer-reviewed literature, it’s actually on a declining trend.

Interestingly enough, cold weather is actually more extreme than warm weather. In the 1970s, they blamed tornadoes, floods, even the threat of war and increased violence on global cooling at the time. So there’s just not the science there at all, when it comes to that. And also I go through all the other myths you’ve heard about from the hottest year on record, the hottest decade.

Bluey: Let’s tackle that one because we hear this one it seems month after month—another record-breaking month. At the same time, I love the chart that The Daily Signal published of the temperature throughout history. You see the lines going up and down. Tell us what we need to know.

Morano: First of all, in the book, I interviewed geologists, I have Nobel Prize-winning scientists endorse the book. They explain that in the geologic history of the Earth, we are in the coldest 10 percent of the geologic history of the Earth. In other words, 90 percent of our Earth’s history was too warm to have ice at either pole. So we are in the 10 percent coldest. That’s No. 1.

No. 2, if you go back to the Roman warming periods during the time that Jesus Christ walked the Earth—and I show this in the peer-reviewed studies in the book, in a very reader-friendly way—we are actually now cooler than we were. So we’ve cooled since the time Jesus Christ walked the Earth. We’re actually about the same temperature or cooler since the medieval warm period, since about 900 to 1300.

First of all, you say hottest year, what time scale? Then, you jump ahead to about 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age, where the New York river, New York Harbor froze over, the Thames river was frozen, it was a brutal period, coinciding with low sun spot activity and bunch of other factors.

Suddenly, we get thermometer data. So the thermometer data comes online right at the end of the Little Ice Age. It’s very cold. All these things you hear about the glaciers retreating, most of that glacier retreat happened by 1900. Now, 80 percent of the carbon dioxide came after 1940, or after World War II in 1945. We had a huge warm spell from the 1920s into the ’30s and then, we had a cooling period from the ’50s all the way up to about the late 1970s. I go into the whole global cooling scare.

“The so-called claims of the hottest year fall easily within the margin of error. That’s why it’s a political statement. It is utter nonsense from beginning to end.”

They now claim, “Oh, that never happened.” They have studies out, they claim that that was overblown, there’s only a couple scientists. I show in the book it was National Academy of Sciences, CIA, some of the same scientists warning of global cooling in the ’70s who then flipped and became global warming.

I actually feature in the book an article from the 1977 and ’78 in The New York Times, two articles. During this time, the scientists were battling it out when global cooling was morphing into a climate change, global warming.

To answer the question on the hottest year, we warm from the late ’70s to the late ’90s. Then essentially we flatlined. Essentially, there’s no statistically significant global warming. We had a thing called “the pause.” They didn’t like that, so they actually went back in the records and erased the pause. They changed the data.

Besides, even doing all that, the hottest year claims are within hundredths of a degree and that margin of error is tenths of a degree and they adjust the temperatures to within tenths of a degree without explanations. The so-called claims of the hottest year fall easily within the margin of error. That’s why it’s a political statement. It is utter nonsense from beginning to end.

It’s a fancy way of saying the temperature hasn’t changed since the ’90s. That’s where they get hottest decade on record. On record just means since the Little Ice Age ended, when we put thermometer data out and that’s what that means. If you go back further, we’ve cooled, Middle Ages, Roman warming period, and even further.

Bluey: Thank you for setting the record straight on that. One of the other things that you argue is that the left has abandoned this fact-based science and instead resorted to just dramatic fear-mongering. What do you mean?

Morano: Go back to the 19th century, Rob, to explain this. Every storm is allegedly unprecedented, we’ve never seen it, this is the new normal, so to speak. This hurricane has a name, it’s Hurricane Katrina. This hurricane has a name, it’s Hurricane Harvey. The same lines over and over. Everything is done as a tactic of fear in order to get action. This started in the 1960s with the modern environmental movement.

Particularly, I go into a little bit about Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb.” I actually show, Rob, that they use this hysteria for the different environmental scares in the 1970s, whether it’s resource scarcity, over-population, rainforest clearing, et cetera.

They will say, “We need a global solution; we need global governance; we need wealth redistribution; we need sovereignty threatening treaty, or some kind of economic activity limiting.” No matter what environmental scare in the past that they tried to scare people with, it was the same solutions they’re proposing now.

In the book, I go back and show over and over that global warming is merely the latest scare they’re using to get their agenda. I show Naomi Klein, who’s an adviser to Pope Francis, who wrote “Capitalism vs. the Climate.” I interviewed her for the book. She actually says that they would be seeking the same solutions even if there was no global warming and that essentially, capitalism is incompatible with a livable climate. She actually urges people, “We need to jump on this because solving global warming will solve what we’ve been trying to achieve all along.”

They’re open about it. They use the climate scare tactics to achieve their ends. And in order to get those ends achieved, they have to hype and scare. It’s been a very effective strategy because they’ve bullied Republican politicians, who should know better, into at least submissiveness and silence and/or activism, when you come to the case with John McCain and even Mitt Romney.

Climate change activists want to have it both ways to advance their agenda, argues author Marc Morano. (Photo: Erik Mcgregor/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Bluey: What are some of the strangest things that you’ve seen the left blame climate change on?

Morano: There’s a whole series of things. One of the things they do is they make opposite predictions. Global warming will cause more snow, less snow. More hurricanes, less hurricanes. More fog, less fog. More malaria, less malaria. I go through it all.

It’s as if you bet on the Super Bowl, and you bet both teams to win. You can go to the office the next day and say, “I did it! I won! I bet on the winning team.” First of all, they’re never wrong because they literally have opposite predictions.

The second thing is they come up with everything. Global warming will cause an increase in prostitution, bar room brawls, vehicle thefts. These are by United Nations scientists who did these studies, funded by major universities. These aren’t just some wacky claim, or some professor talking off the top of his head. They actually get funded studies to do this.

“They actually blame the rise of Hitler on global warming. … There are so many wacky things that they’ll blame on global warming.”

One of my favorites was in 1941, a University of Cincinnati professor said that the warmer weather we were having in the 1930s and ’40s created more docile people, which led to them being more susceptible to Hitler, Mussolini, and dictators. They actually blame the rise of Hitler on global warming at that time. Oddly enough, Hitler was saved in the bunker when Von Stauffenberg tried to kill him. Because it was a very hot day, they had to move the location of that meeting when the assassination attempt happened. They moved it to a room with a heavy table that saved Hitler. Global warming created Hitler, global warming saved Hitler.

There are so many wacky things that they’ll blame on global warming. My favorite quote is probably Michael Oppenheimer, U.N. lead scientist, former Environmental Defense Fund activist, “Anybody who eats is under threat from climate change.” That’s his summation. So there you go. It’s that combination of just about everything. If you eat, then you’re under threat of climate change, you should be worried. If you don’t eat, then you’re fine.

Even when you’re dead, you won’t escape the clutches of global warming. In the book, I show multiple examples. In one case, Peruvian mummies are decaying faster because of the humidity caused by climate change. Also, they’re worried that dead bodies in the permafrost in Siberia are melting and are going to release new pathogens. The dead walk among us because of global warming. So, even the dead are now to blame for exacerbating the problem of global warming.

Bluey: We’ve used these terms interchangeably: climate change and global warming. Can the left make up its mind on what to call it?

Morano: No, in fact, in the book, I have a lot of fun. “Global climate disruption” was John Holdren, Obama’s former science czar. He wanted to call it that. “Global weirding” is what Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist, wants to call it. They’ve come up with all these different names. “Global heating.”

Former Sen. Barbara Boxer, when I was in the Senate Environment Public Works Committee, she actually called the hearing “global warming” one time. This was when they were really trying to push climate change. Temperatures hit their peak in the late 1990s from the cooling of the 1970s. They’ve tried to push climate change because they didn’t think without that constant increase in temperature, they weren’t getting anywhere. It was getting harder to sell.

“[C]limate change had to be the new moniker because global warming was too focused on temperature.”

Climate change includes the extreme weather. I remember very vividly, I was in Bali, Indonesia—a $15,000 roundtrip business class flight for the U.S. Senate at a global warming hearing for the United Nations—arguing with a John McCain climate staffer about how the new argument in global warming was all going to be about extreme weather.

Therefore, climate change had to be the new moniker because global warming was too focused on temperature. They wanted to go out on every limb and this way they could blame everything from cows and transportation, airlines.

They’re trying to get every aspect of our society under global warming regulation and not just focus on temperature. Because now if you have a bad crop, if you have vehicle crash—the Department of Transportation got us funding to study how global warming could increase fatal car accidents—that’s why it has to be “climate change,” because they’re trying to go in every direction.

Bluey: How have the left’s policies, as you argue in the book, hurt the world’s poor?

Morano: That is one of the most insidious things. In the book, I feature Al Gore at a Bill Gates function, saying that Africa’s projected to have more people than China and India combined in the next century and that we need “ubiquitous fertility management.”

This is a white, wealthy Western politician saying essentially there are too many black Africans. Let’s be blunt about it. I actually quote a former Harvard professor just excoriating Al Gore for essentially racist comments. Basically singling out Africa and saying, “They’ve got to have better fertility management because we have too many Africans and we’ve got to control their population.” Now Al Gore would just say, “No, I’m thinking of only the Earth.” But what conservative politician could get away with that?

“Fossil fuels are the most abundant, cheaply available, and fastest way out of energy poverty, which means they’re the lifeline for lowering infant mortality, longer life expectancy, modern dentistry.”

When you look at third-world development—and by the way, “third world” is a politically incorrect term; we’re supposed to say the “developing world”—they have about 1.1 billion people without running water and electricity. Essentially, what they’re trying to do with climate policy is prevent them from developing through fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are the most abundant, cheaply available, and fastest way out of energy poverty, which means they’re the lifeline for lowering infant mortality, longer life expectancy, modern dentistry.

If you’re living in a poor nation, you’re burning dung, you’re living in a hut made of dung, you’re breathing in horrible air, the rivers are polluted from sewage. The second you get modern sewage, the second you get coal plants even or oil or even nuclear, if you’re lucky enough, everything gets radically cleaner. They’re trying to prevent it. Even the World Bank won’t allow coal plant development in countries that are in dire poverty.

These environmentalists I interviewed, one in South Africa, they travel the world from Minnesota and other places—wealthy, white Western college kids—go to Africa and essentially say, “You’re doing it right by living this primitive existence. You’re living it right. You’re Earth-friendly.”

I interviewed Jerry Brown, the California governor, at an Earth Summit in South Africa. He actually says the Earth can’t allow the rest of the world to develop like the United States and Europe because we’d need 20 more Earths to do it. In other words, they have to be managed. It’s a new form of colonialism. It’s the most insidious things. That’s a very intense chapter in the book because it’s an eye-opener for people who haven’t been following this. They are trying to limit their development.

The environmental activists—climate activists—they even have something called the U.N. Climate Fund. I interviewed a South African development activist, Leon Lowe, who’s very articulate. He just says, “The developing world needs to tell the first world to essentially go to hell if they’re going to tell them how to develop, what resources they can use of their own.”

He says, “Until London, Rotterdam, Paris, and Washington level their cities, return them to swamps and wetlands and jungles, they have no business telling the developing world how they can use the natural resources, how they can develop, what energy they can use.”

That’s the dilemma we’re facing now. They’re trying to control and manage people and keep them at a subsistence level of life. It’s the most anti-human movement of today. It’s why former Czech President Václav Klaus has said, the greatest threat we face today for human freedom is, what he says, “ambitions environmentalism from the climate movement.”

Bluey: In addition to writing the book, you run a website called ClimateDepot.com. What’s your mission? What do you strive to do there?

What I’m trying to do there is have a daily one-stop shop of all the latest climate, energy, and environmental news. In other words, I link to all the mainstream sources, but I’ll try to pick out some of the best tidbits and actually try to do reality checks all the time. I do special reports.

It’s a way for you to get your energy, climate, environment news without just having to hear the mantra of nonsense, of 97 percent of all scientists agree the Earth is doomed, we’re facing a catastrophe, we need the Paris Agreement.

I have user guides. I have special reports and I have a lot of humor to try to bring people in—to say this is not an intimidating topic. Don’t be afraid to stand up because the whole movement is designed—the environmental left has designed this to intimidate everyone into silence on this issue. If you’re against climate change, belief in climate change, catastrophic climate change, you are a dumb person. You are an idiot. You’re a rube. You’re not welcome in polite society. Even the impolite don’t want you.

Bluey: Marc, thanks so much. Again, the book is called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” Thanks for writing it.

Morano: Thank you, Rob. Appreciate it, enjoyed it.

Advertisements

Speculative Climate Chaos v. Indisputable Fossil Fuel Benefits – Paul Driessen

Speculative Climate Chaos v. Indisputable Fossil Fuel Benefits
Editor’s Note: This column was co-written by Roger Bezdek***

Judge William Alsup has a BS in engineering, has written computer programs for his ham radio hobby, delves deeply into the technical aspects of numerous cases before him, and even studied other programming languages for a complex Oracle v. Google lawsuit.

As presiding judge in People of the State of California v. BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell, he insisted that the litigants present their best scientific evidence for and against the state’s assertion that fossil fuel emissions are causing dangerous climate change. Now he wants to see, not just the alleged damages from burning oil, natural gas and coal – but also the immense benefits to humanity and the people of California from using those fuels for the past 150 years and more.

Environmental and climate activists, including cities pursuing climate lawsuits against oil companies, almost never acknowledge those benefits, which are far-reaching and indisputable. We can only hope attorneys Anne Champion, Philip Curtis, Diehl Kemper, et al. and friends of the court will do justice to the many blessings attributable to our use of these once unimaginable energy resources.

For countless millennia, our ancestors struggled to survive amid deprivation and backbreaking dusk-to-dawn labor, often on the brink of starvation – with the bulk of humanity living little better than their domesticated animals. Average nasty, brutish and short life expectancy hovered in the low thirties.

But then, suddenly and miraculously, in barely two centuries, health, prosperity and longevity began to climb. First coal, then oil, then natural gas paved the way, providing the fuels for transportation, communication, refrigeration, electricity and other incredible technologies that improve, enhance, safeguard and save lives. Incomes increased eleven-fold. Mass die-offs so confidently predicted by Malthus and Ehrlich never materialized. In fact, global life spans more than doubled, and today billions of people enjoy living standards that even kings and queens could not dream of 120 years ago.

Sadly, equal numbers of people still struggle on the edge of survival. A billion and a half are still without electricity, two billion still exist on a few dollars a day, and millions still die every year from insect-borne, lung and intestinal diseases – largely because they still burn wood and dung, instead of fossil fuels.

In 1900, New York City’s 3.4 million people relied on 100,000 horses whose “tailpipes” emitted 2.5 million pounds of manure and 60,000 gallons of urine every day. Sanitation crews cleaned it up, dumped it mostly in local rivers, and hauled dead horses to rendering plants. Farmers devoted thousands of acres just to growing horse feed. Imagine what today’s 8.6 million NYC residents would require and emit.

Today, far more powerful, far less polluting, trucks, cars, buses, trains, subways and airplanes move people, food and products far more quickly and efficiently. They take us to work, school and worship services; to the grocery, bank, drug store, doctor and restaurant; to movies, picnics and sporting events. Fire trucks help us battle devastating conflagrations, and ambulances take our injured to hospitals.

All these vehicles (internal combustion and electric) exist because of, are fueled by – and travel on roadways made with fossil fuels: asphalt from oil, metal and concrete manufactured using fossil fuels.

Even electric cars require oil, gas and coal for manufacturing and recharging. Indeed, the earth-moving machines, drilling rigs and production platforms, pipelines, foundries, factories and other technologies needed to extract, process and fabricate raw materials into the world around us exist because of fossil fuels. Every bit of metal, plastic, concrete, wood, fabric and food we see results from fossil fuels. Even wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels are impossible without the fuels that California so loves to hate.

Medical devices, computers, cell phones, radios and televisions, kitchen appliances, household and office heating and air conditioning, millions of other products of every description require fossil fuels for their components, manufacturing and daily operation. The schools and research laboratories that made our amazing technologies and other advancements possible are themselves made possible by fossil fuels.

The modern agricultural equipment and practices that feed the world share the same ancestry: tractor and harvester fuel, ammonia fertilizer from natural gas, pesticides and herbicides from petrochemicals. Carbon dioxide from burning these fuels helps crop, forage, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, with less water and better resistance to droughts and diseases. Our bounteous grain and other crops mean fewer famines, except where forced starvation is used to subdue and eliminate enemies.

Indeed, between 1961 and 2011, the total monetary value of CO2 enhancement for 45 crops reached an estimated cumulative value of $3.2 trillion! Carbon dioxide’s annual enrichment value rose from $19 billion in 1961 to $140 billion in 2010. Between 2012 and 2050, these benefits will total $9.8 trillion!

Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products all have their roots in petrochemicals – as do paints, synthetic fibers and plastics. Hockey and football players are dressed head to toe in fossil-fuel-sourced materials.

High-rise office and residential buildings made possible by steel and concrete allow our cities to grow upward, instead of just outward, preserving millions of acres of wildlife habitats and scenic areas.

Then there’s electricity. Look around you, and try to imagine your life without this wondrous, pervasive energy source. Electricity was properly ranked humanity’s second most significant innovation of the past 6,000 years, after the printing press! It has created, shaped, defined and powered the modern world, and facilitated virtually every technological achievement of the past century. Electrification of nations is undeniably the world’s most significant engineering and life-enhancing achievement of the past century.

Economic growth, quality of life and longevity are directly correlated to sufficient, reliable, affordable electricity. In today’s world, nothing happens without it: communication, transportation and research; the operation of every home, office, hospital, factory and airport; refrigeration to preserve food and medicine; heating and air conditioning to save lives and enable people to survive and prosper in any climate.

Electrification will be increasingly important in the 21st century, and world electricity consumption is forecast to double within four decades, as electricity supplies an increasing share of the world’s ever-increasing energy demand. Fossil fuels will continue generating at least 75% of electricity, even in 2050.

Hydroelectric and nuclear (which radical environmentalists also despise and oppose), a bit of geothermal, and a smattering of unreliable, weather-determined wind and solar power will supply the rest. The land, resource and environmental impacts of building and operating wind and solar must also be considered.

Social media and internet search engines (to run biased searches for alarmist climate news) also depend on electricity – 91.4% of which was generated by fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro in 2016 in the USA.

Increased productivity generated by all these technologies creates the leisure time and wealth that enable everyone to enjoy evenings, weekends and holidays – and the fossil fuel transportation to go places (including to faraway, exotic locales and 5-star hotels for IPCC climate change confabs).

Finally, aside from nuclear-powered ships, our highly mechanized military gets there “the fastest with the mostest” thanks to fossil fuels, to combat terrorism and provide for our national defense.

Judge Alsup’s case is thus really about highly speculative manmade climate disasters versus indisputable fossil fuel benefits – as further documented here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and elsewhere. Indeed, today’s undeniable fossil fuel benefits outweigh any hypothesized climate, sea level and other costs by literally orders of magnitude: at least 50:1 to more than 200:1.

Barring major efficiency, battery storage and other technology improvements, renewable energy cannot possibly replace fossil fuels. Judge Alsup has no choice but to rule in favor of the oil company defendants … and all who rely on oil, gas and coal for the countless, life-enhancing benefits barely touched on here.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of articles and books on energy, climate change, carbon dioxide and economic development. 

Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and president of Management Information Services, Inc.

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.

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.

In 1 Graphic, Here’s What Uncle Sam Is Doing With Your Tax Money

Rapper Cardi B has some questions for the IRS. (Photo: Zach Chase/picture alliance / Runway Manhat/Newscom)

From the Daily Signal

Last month rapper Cardi B asked a slightly more profane version of the same question many Americans ask when they file their taxes.

“Uncle Sam, I want to know what you’re doing with my f—ing tax money.”

That’s a good question. The average American household sends more than $20,000 to Washington in tax revenue each year, and most see little in return.

In 2017, the federal government nabbed more than $3.3 trillion in taxes—but that still isn’t enough to satiate Washington’s immense appetite for spending. The 2017 deficit was a whopping $665 billion.

 

So where do our tax dollars go?

Some believe most of it goes to welfare programs and foreign aid. Others believe defense and corporate subsidies dominate the budget.

In reality, health entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare—and Social Security are the largest programs. If Congress continues its current policies, these entitlements and interest on the debt are set to consume every dollar of taxes paid by 2027. That’s less than 10 years away.

Right now,  federal health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare subsidies currently consume 28 percent of the budget. Federal health spending is projected to grow on an unsustainable trajectory of 6 percent per year over the next 10 years. That growth rate is about three times the projected pace of economic growth over the same period.

Meanwhile, Social Security, the single largest federal program, accounts for roughly a quarter of all federal spending. Its trust funds are already paying out more than they take in, and as more people retire, the system will face continued stress.

Without reform, the program’s trustees project benefits will need to be cut as much as 23 percent if nothing is done by 2034.

In the meantime, rather than slowing down, spending on all these programs is expected to dramatically increase in the near future. Combined annual spending on health entitlements and Social Security is projected to grow by 89 percent over the next decade.

Other income security programs—veterans’ benefits, food and housing assistance, federal employee retirement, and disability—account for 17 percent of the budget, surpassing national defense spending.

The defense budget covers everything from military paychecks, to operations overseas, to the research, development, and acquisition of new technologies and equipment.

At 15 percent of the federal budget, defense spending is the last major category of federal spending and has been falling as a percent of the budget for the last decade.

And the rest?

Well, interest on the debt is one big culprit.

Over the coming decade, U.S. debt held by the public is projected to balloon to over 96 percent of gross domestic product—driven primarily by health and Social Security spending. As the size of the debt grows, so will the interest costs.

Currently, 7 percent of the budget is spent on interest—money that takes away from other priorities. But in just five years, interest spending is projected to exceed national defense.

Deficit spending has many costs. Economic growth tends to slow in countries with debts that are comparable to the size of the economy, a group the U.S. is quickly joining. As the debt increases, so does the cost of the interest we must pay to those who hold the debt. China is currently the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt.

Without reforming America’s massive and growing federal programs, Washington will have to continue to borrow increasing amounts of money, piling new debt onto younger generations and worsening the nation’s already unsustainable economic course.

Some people will tell you that the recent tax cuts are to blame for our fiscal challenges. However, in 2018, total tax revenue is projected to increase by $22 billion. In dollar terms, tax reform was only a cut in the growth rate of revenue collection and not actually a decrease in total dollars collected by the IRS. By 2025, revenue growth will return to pre-tax reform levels.

The growing deficit is caused exclusively by more spending—every year after 2018, tax revenue is projected to grow faster than the economy.

Growing government spending threatens higher taxes on current and future taxpayers. Without serious spending reforms, taxes will go back up. Congress made much of the tax cuts temporary. After 2025, when many of the tax cuts expire, tax revenue jumps back to its pre-tax reform levels. Eventually, rising debt will leave lawmakers with limited options to avoid a financial crisis. Unless we can reverse course, it is only a matter of time before the taxman comes knocking.

In the words of Cardi B, “What is y’all doing with my f—ing money? I want to know. I want receipts.”

Increasing taxes is not the solution. Washington already takes too much of the money that Americans work hard to earn. Congress must rethink how it is spending the people’s money.

 

New Study Shows Past Research On Rising Ocean Temps Built On Faulty Science | The Daily Caller

 

Ocean temperatures have risen only 0.1 degree Celsius over the last five decades, according to a landmark study some scientists argue could change the way researchers measure the ocean’s temperature levels.

Each layer of water in the ocean has vastly different temperatures, so determining the average temperature is nearly impossible without glossing over important data. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego decided on a different model – they measured the ratio of noble gases in the atmosphere, which are in direct relation to the ocean’s temperature.

Geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus, an academic at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, measured values of the noble gases argon, krypton, and xenon in air bubbles captured inside ice cores in Antarctica. Krypton and xenon are released into the atmosphere in known quantities as the ocean warms, according to the study, which was published Thursday in Nature Journal

“This method is a radically new way to measure change in total ocean heat,” Severinghaus said in a post on the Scripps website, which has since been removed. “It takes advantage of the fact that the atmosphere is well-mixed, so a single measurement anywhere in the world can give you the answer.”

 

Severinghaus measured values of the noble gases argon, krypton, and xenon in air bubbles captured inside ice cores in Antarctica. Krypton and xenon, which are remarkably stable regardless external factors, are released into the atmosphere in known quantities as the ocean warms.

Much of the previously available information used to determine ocean temperatures during the past thousands of years has come from records produced by organisms that lived during those times and were subject to a complex array of external biological factors. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other major organizations rely on these methods to make their determinations.

The ratio of these gases allows for a much more effective and exact calculation of average global ocean temperature, according to Severinghaus and his team of researchers at Scripps. They discovered that xenon and krypton are well preserved in ice cores and can, therefore, provide temperature information that scientists can use to study many other aspects of the earth’s oceans.

“Our precision is about 0.2 ºC (0.4 ºF) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 ºC,” he said, adding that advanced equipment can provide more precise measurements, allowing scientists to make better calculations going forward. His fellow researcher made similar remarks.

“The reason this study is so exciting is that previous methods of reconstructing ocean heat content have very large age uncertainties, [which] smooths out the more subtle features of the record,” said co-author Sarah Shackleton, a graduate student at Severinghaus’ lab.

“This is the first time that we’ve been able to see these subtle features in the record of the deglaciation,” she added. “This helps us better understand the processes that control changes in ocean heat content.”

Severinghaus’ findings are potentially very significant and “remarkably interesting,” Cato Institute scientist Patrick Michaels told The Daily Caller News Foundation. It tells academics that “we are living in a world that won’t warm at the same rate as those seen in the U.N. climate models”

Ocean temperature levels have caused a great deal of debate in recent decades. Many scientists believe hotter and cooler oceans could lead to dramatic shifts in not just global temperature levels but also hurricane frequency.

A study in 2015, for instance, predicted that the Earth is about to undergo a major climatic shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures and fewer hurricanes hitting the U.S.

Scientists at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom predicted at the time that a cooling of the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures a half a degree Celsius and may offer a “brief respite from the persistent rise of global temperatures.”

This cooling phase in the Atlantic will influence “temperature, rainfall, drought and even the frequency of hurricanes in many regions of the world,” says Dr. Gerard McCarthy. The study’s authors based their results on ocean sensor arrays and 100 years of sea-level data.

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter.

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.

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