It is difficult to overstate just how out of touch Democrats are with reality right now. When you’re as unpopular as they are it makes sense – you can’t admit reality, it’s too depressing, so you create a new one in your head. That’s a survival mechanism everyone has employed, to one degree or another, and at some point in their lives for short periods, and it’s perfectly normal. What isn’t normal is how Democrats have constructed this fantasy world and appear to live in it all the time.
I don’t know how you can watch Joe Biden stumble and bumble his way through the State of the Union Address and think he is well. Either he referred to the Ukrainian people as “Iranians” or “Urainians,” with neither option being good because what’s left of his brain didn’t notice whatever it was that came out of his mouth. A normal, healthy person will make mistakes, verbal gaffes, but our brains notice and we correct ourselves almost immediately. That does not happen with Joe Biden. He is so married to the teleprompter and going off script that he pays no attention to the words.
The media, naturally, ignored most of the gaffes because covering for their President is second nature to them. But it wasn’t just what he screwed up saying that was the problem, the parts of the speech he read accurately were just as disturbing.
“One way to fight inflation is to drive down wages and make people poorer,” Joe said. “I think I have a better idea to fight inflation: lower your costs, not your wages.” This is just one example of something that makes zero sense. None. It was not called out by anyone.
Over on MSNBC, one exchange between Stephanie Ruhle (who doesn’t get the credit she deserves as one of the dumbest people on cable news, probably because of misogyny) and former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, one of the richest Senators when she was in office, really exemplifies how out of touch the left is.
Ruhle started, “Claire, do you think when it comes to the voter, the president and this administration needs to do more talking about those economic wins? You know, because inflation is such a problem, often times it seems like Democrats are afraid to talk about how strong the economy is because they don’t want to be insensitive to people who are left out but the thing is if they do not sell their wins they can’t win in the midterms and then they can’t help anyone.”
This “you don’t know how good you’ve got it” argument is not the stuff successful campaigns are made of. More than that, however, is how Democrats insist their policies “leave no one behind,” except maybe the rich. Except what Democrats advance always benefits their rich donors. People for whom inflation means next to nothing. Ruhle isn’t impacted in any meaningful way by inflation, she’s rich, and McCaskill has a net worth north of $60 million.
McCaskill’s answer was every bit as bad as you’d expect. “This is not complicated,” she started. “The Democrats are very bad at being repetitive and disciplined on message. This president in one year created more jobs than any president in the history of the United States of America, say it over and over and over again. Real wages are up, saving is up yes there is inflation but overall if you don’t remind people how much better it is now than it was before then you leave the field open for the Republicans to distort and not tell the truth like frankly the governor of Iowa did tonight, she distorted the economic record of this president. And he brought down the deficit. So all of this is really important for them to just keep hammering over and over again. they get distracted by wanting to do so much for so many instead of keeping it simple and making sure voters understand who is really in their corner.”
Joe Biden didn’t create a single job, he just happened to be in office when the jobs Democrats shut down were allowed to return. New companies were not formed, nor have they expanded – people laid off were called back to work. No matter how many times that lie is repeated, it will never ring true to the public. We know.
Along those lines, the economy being allowed to reopen leads to increased economic activity, which leads to increased revenue to the government. That is not “cutting the deficit,” especially when your spending is loaded up in the future, an accounting gimmick if there ever was one.
These people live in a different world, a completely strange reality unfamiliar to anyone not currently on hallucinogenic drugs. Maybe we’re secretly being ruled by Hunter Biden?
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bull…” W. C. Fields
and, flying a bomber over Berlin.
In late February 2015, Willie Soon was accused in a front-page New York Times article by Kert Davies (Gillis & Schwartz, 2015) of failing to disclose conflicts of interest in his academic journal articles. It isn’t mentioned in the Gillis and Schwartz article, but the timing suggests that a Science Bulletin article, “Why Models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” (Monckton, Soon, Legates, & Briggs, 2015) was Davies’ concern. We will abbreviate this paper as MSLB15. Besides Soon, the other authors of the paper are Christopher Monckton (senior author, Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley), David Legates (Professor of Geography and Climatology, University of Delaware), and William Briggs (Mathematician and statistician, former professor of statistics at Cornell Medical School). In the January 2015 article, the authors “declare that they have no conflict of interest.”
MSLB15 was instantly popular and devastating to the climate alarmist cause and to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2013). The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a research organization set up by the United Nations in 1988. MSLB15 was published online January 8, 2015 and downloaded 22,000 times in less than two months, an outstanding number of downloads. The New York Times article appeared less than two months after MSLB15 hit the internet, it was a “fake news hit job.”
The paper caused a stir because it explained that the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report or “AR5” reduced its near-term warming projections substantially, but left its long-term, higher, projections alone. This was because the IPCC central, CO2 feedback-based, estimate of the climate sensitivity to CO2 was reduced from 3.2°C (5.8°F) to 2.2°C (4°F) per doubling of CO2 concentration. The sensitivity to CO2 is often abbreviated “ECS” for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. The MSLB15 calculation was done the way the IPCC used in their Fourth Assessment Report, abbreviated “AR4.”
If the new estimate is correct, the projected rise in temperature for the 21st century is less than one-degree C. Another implication of the change is that the combustion of all fossil fuels estimated to exist would only cause a temperature increase of 2.2°C (4°F). This amount of warming is trivial, good for humanity, but bad for the climate alarmists.
The organization that models climate projections for the IPCC is the CMIP, or the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. It was created in 1995 to consolidate climate models from around the world into a set of projections that could form the basis for the IPCC reports. The CMIP climate models used for the IPCC fourth and fifth assessment reports overestimate global warming by a substantial amount as shown in John Christy’s plot from a previous post and shown again here as Figure 1.
Figure 1. John Christy’s famous graph comparing the AR5 IPCC climate models to weather balloon and satellite observations for the mid-troposphere. The satellite and weather balloon observations are independent of one another and surface measurements. From Christy’s 2016 Congressional testimony (Christy, 2016).
AR5 was essentially a repeat of AR4 with respect to the computation of human influence on climate. Yet, MSLB15 tells us that deep in AR5 a dramatic change was made in the model calculations that lowers the computed climate impact of CO2. But the change was not reflected in the AR5 long-term climate projections. Monckton points out that the IPCC made the changes due to pressure from expert reviewers to bring their climate projections and model parameters into line with observations (Monckton, 2015b). The IPCC made the change, then ignored it in their longer-term projections.
Modern computer climate models are expensive “general circulation” models that model thermal energy moving through the atmosphere and the upper part of the oceans. The models break the atmosphere into 3D grid boxes that are assumed to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium and only change at their edges where they contact neighboring boxes. The older models, such as the 1979 Charney model (Charney, et al., 1979), were simpler and modeled the whole atmosphere and upper ocean conceptually.
As discussed in our last post, the complexity of modern models has not changed the estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 or made it more accurate. The 1979 Charney Report model computed the same range of sensitivity to CO2 as AR5 reported in 2013. This range (1.5° to 4.5°C) has survived intact for forty years despite the efforts of thousands of researchers spending over one-hundred billion U.S. 2014 dollars between 1993 and 2015 (U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2016) in the U.S. alone.
So, when MSLB15 showed up online, explaining that the AR5 model’s feedback estimates suggested an ECS of 2.2°C (4°F), rather than the AR4 estimate of 3.26°C (5.9°F) (IPCC, 2007, p. 798) it caused a huge uproar. As Rud Istvan noted in a post, at the time, “If you are taking heavy flak, you are over the target.” The B-27 or Avro Lancaster being flown by Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates and William Briggs must have been directly over central Berlin given the response by the alarmists and the news media.
The direct warming from CO2 or ECS is small, around one-degree Celsius for a doubling of CO2. This slight warming will cause a feedback, generally assumed to be due to an increase in absolute humidity, caused by warmer temperatures. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so this reduction in feedback, from AR4 to AR5, is what the climate alarmists are worried about. Why is the range of ECS in AR5 the same as in AR4 when such an important component of CO2-caused warming was reduced? Did politics overrule the scientific findings?
Adding fuel to the fire was the fact that no best estimate of ECS was given in AR5. There are many ways to compute ECS and they disagree so much, that the IPCC did not give a best estimate. Both TAR (the IPCC third assessment report) and AR4 provided a best estimate of 3°C (5.4°F), so if AR5 had stated their feedback-implied ECS of 2.2°C (4°F), the precipitous decline would have been obvious and politically damaging. So, they were silent. The obvious question is why? Did they think no one would notice the intellectual dishonesty?
To estimate ECS, one can use climate model results, analysis of feedbacks (like in AR4 or MSLB15), observed temperature and CO2 changes (Lewis & Curry, 2018), or paleoclimate studies. The dilemma the IPCC faced in AR5 was that these estimates did not agree and many of them were far below those given in AR4 and previous assessment reports, as shown in our previous post. One wonders why the IPCC is so sure that humans control the climate with their greenhouse gas emissions, when the impact of the main greenhouse gas, CO2, is so poorly understood? Since no best estimate of ECS was given in AR5, one can argue that our understanding is diminishing with time.
Once Christopher Monckton and his co-authors, including Willie Soon, noticed that the CO2 feedback forcing was lowered in AR5, they created a simple model to investigate this difference and published their assessment. It is virtually impossible to attack the “Irreducibly simple climate model” presented in the paper, it is too basic. As Istvan reports the derivation of the MSLB15 model is impeccable. So, the alarmist cabal initially said that Science Bulletin was an obscure journal, therefore the paper cannot be any good. Predictably, that didn’t work, besides, the Science Bulletin is the Chinese version of Nature or Science.
Criticism of MSLB15 Rud Istvan’s post on the paper is illuminating and interesting, as is Monckton’s reply. Many traditional climate scientists, even Judith Curry, are somewhat dismissive of MSLB15. They think this simple approach to climate modeling doesn’t provide any insights into why the climate models do not agree with observations. Kevin Trenberth complains that the model is too simple (Briggs, 2015). Istvan comments that: “Trenberth’s comments to the NYTimes are indefensibly misleading in my opinion, and provide a vivid object lesson about consensus climate ‘science’ and its reporting” (Istvan, 2015). We agree with this assessment. MSLB15 explicitly recognize that their model is simple:
“[The MSLB15 model] is not, of course, intended to replace the far more complex general-circulation models; rather, it is intended to illuminate them.” (Monckton, Soon, Legates, & Briggs, 2015)
The irreducibly simple model is simple, it is in the title of the paper and Trenberth’s statement to the New York Times (Briggs, 2015) is vacuous. MSLB15 is important, not as an advance in climate science, but because it illuminates the serious flaws and internal contradictions in the IPCC/CMIP climate models. Further evidence that the IPCC models are seriously flawed is that they are no more accurate in predicting the climatic impact of CO2 now than they were in 1979, the MSLB15 model merely drives this painfully obvious point home. Billions have been spent; one would think we would have seen some progress by now.
The subtitle of this post, a quote from W. C. Fields, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bull…” says it perfectly. The IPCC computer models and the ludicrous idea that averaging them provides us with a reliable and useful prediction of future climate is an attempt to “baffle us with bull….” This human-caused climate change perpetual money-squandering machine must start producing answers or be cut off from funding.
The MSLB15 model reduces the nonsense to its essence and shows this deception, if not clearly as we would like, at least more clearly and succinctly than the IPCC does. Compared to the real world, the IPCC models are too simple, their complexity doesn’t help us understand the human impact on climate, it merely provides a way to hide their inadequacies and push a chosen agenda. This was what I took away from reading MSLB15.
Rud Istvan thinks the simple model could be made simpler and have the same effect. Monckton thinks the model needs the all the elements it has, to be useful. Either way, Istvan found the model to be useful and we agree. I have no problem with the model as a useful way to understand the more complicated general circulation models. It is not, as MSLB15 readily admits, a replacement for them. It sheds light on them and provides a useful reality check.
The point MSLB15 makes, is that the IPCC model based ECS estimates are inflated. They could add that they are inaccurate and are not improving with time and money spent. Monckton says in his rebuttal to Istvan, we must let “the daylight in on the magic” (Monckton, 2015b, p. 6). We agree.
Mark Richardson and colleagues (Richardson, Hausfather, Nuccitelli, Rice, & Abraham, 2015) try to show that the MSLB15 model underestimates global mean temperatures. Richardson, et al. do not refute MSLB15, they simply refute a strawman of their own creation. Further, the only period that Richardson, et al. use, that is long enough to be considered “climate,” is 1900 to 2010. For this period, both CMIP5 and MSLB15 have errors that are well within the margin of error for the temperature datasets they cite, HadCRUT4, Cowtan & Way, and Berkeley Earth. Their shorter periods, 1970-2010 and 2000-2010 are too short to be meaningful.
Next, the alarmists, possibly including John Holdren, senior advisor to President Obama, began to attack Willie Soon, one of the authors, through his employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. John Holdren had already attacked Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas’ 2003 papers (Soon & Baliunas, 2003) and (Soon, Baliunas, Idso, Idso, & Legates, 2003b) when he was still at Harvard according to The Harvard Crimson (Sanchez, 2003). He claimed the papers were a “flawed analysis.” They were not flawed and MSLB15 was not flawed either. MSLB15 might be overly long and a difficult read, but it is not flawed, as far as we can tell.
Unable to attack the science, the alarmists wanted the skeptics in the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics silenced. The Smithsonian responded with new directives on conduct that contained a “loyalty to the Smithsonian” clause. The Smithsonian’s Inspector General investigated Soon and found no wrongdoing on his part, but this simply enraged the critics and didn’t settle anything (Arnold, 2016). Attacks on climate skeptics were common in 2015 and 2016 and the Obama administration was not alone, some of the harassment came from Congress, particularly from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Congressman Raúl Grijalva.
The New York Times and the other news organizations covering the story should have written about what MSLB15 said, the story isn’t that complicated or hard to explain. But they didn’t. The fact they attacked the authors, without discussing what they wrote in their peer-reviewed paper, speaks volumes, as stated in the web site “Bishop Hill” by Andrew Montford (Montford, 2015). The news media didn’t care about climate science, after all, the “science is settled,” isn’t it?
The 2015 Attack As mentioned at the top of the post, the height of the attacks on Willie Soon, by the New York Times (Gillis & Schwartz, 2015) was on February 21, 2015. They attacked Willie Soon personally. They relied upon false information from Kert Davies (Davies, 2020), the founder of the secretive Climate Investigations Center or CIC. Davies suggested that Willie Soon had a conflict of interest and lied in MSLB15 when he said he didn’t. Davies and the New York Times claimed that Soon had received undisclosed money from ExxonMobil and the Southern Company.
Most of the New York Times article is either wrong or misleading and in our new book, Politics and Climate Change: A History, we address each of their accusations. Here we will just cover a few of the most egregious lies. The basis for the attack was a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) to obtain internal documents from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where Soon is employed as an astrophysicist. The FOIA was filed by Davies and Greenpeace.
As he had previously done in 2010 (see our book for details of the 2010 FOIA request), the director, Charles Alcock, made a crucial mistake and ordered Willie Soon to comply with the request. Unlike departments in the Executive branch of the government, a government trust, like the Smithsonian Institution, does not have to comply with FOIA requests. Thus, Alcock’s order is persecution of an employee. Alcock is specifically allowing Davies, the New York Times, and Greenpeace to intimidate and harass one of his employees. The documents (New York Times, 2015) include research proposals from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory that were written by Soon to The Southern Company (NYSE: SO) a leading natural gas and electric utility company, ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, and Donor’s Trust.
Science is a process for challenging the consensus view. Science cannot prove anything, the scientific process is about disproving things, particularly consensus opinions. For example, both Copernicus and Galileo disproved the idea that the Sun revolves around Earth. Science uses observations, analysis, and logic to disprove erroneous assumptions made by the public.
The New York Times obviously does not understand this 9th Grade definition of the scientific method and their article asserts:
“The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is, and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.” (Gillis & Schwartz, 2015)
This unsupported assertion is laughably anti-scientific. As we have seen, “the vast majority” or a consensus of scientists is a political thing. A scientist looks at the conclusion of the “vast majority” and asks, “Is that true? How can I test that idea?” Challenging the consensus view is the whole idea of science. A true scientist wants to foster “public debate.”
The premise of the New York Times article is quite disturbing for several reasons. Firstly, they assume the so-called “consensus” view that climate is controlled by humans is true, even though no direct evidence supporting it exists. The computer model projections relied upon by the IPCC are not direct evidence. In fact, MSLB15 suggests the models are not even accurate. Let us not quibble over the words “causing climate change” and “controlling climate.” Everyone agrees that humans have some influence on climate, the debate is over how much. The alarmists clearly believe that CO2 is the “control knob” for climate change (Lacis, Schmidt, Rind, & Ruedy, 2010).
Secondly, they assume that privately funded research, by an established and very credible astrophysicist, working for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is somehow tainted by donations to the Smithsonian. Thirdly, they seem to think that since Soon “has received little federal research money over the past decade” that this somehow makes him inferior to other researchers. All three assumptions are horrible. Do they really think that private companies should not be allowed to fund scientific research? Or, if they do, that the research should be discounted based only on the source of funding?
These views are not only juvenile, they are anti-scientific and possibly violate the free speech portion of the first amendment of the U.S Constitution. It is illegal to attempt to take away a person’s constitutional rights through intimidation or other means (Columbia Law School, 2020).
One of the Smithsonian studies, partially funded, by ExxonMobil, Donor’s Trust and the Southern Company was “Understanding Solar Variability and Climate Change: Signals from Temperature Records of the United States.” For one interested in climate change this would seem to be an important topic to investigate. The checks from these organizations were made out to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory or the Smithsonian Institution (see my book for photocopies of the checks). No money was paid to Willie Soon, who is a government employee and paid a salary. He wrote the proposals for the Smithsonian Institution as one of his duties as a Smithsonian employee (Arnold, 2016).
Science stands on its own, the conclusions either follow from the evidence and analysis presented, or they do not. The study can be replicated, or it cannot. Funding has nothing to do with it. Just because the New York Times reporters cannot understand Soon’s papers, does not mean no one can. Other scientists will read his papers with a properly skeptical eye and let him, or others, know if there is a problem. The papers survive or fail on their own merits.
The first amendment grants people and through them corporations, the right to free speech and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This concept is supported by the Supreme Court in rulings like Citizens United (Smith, 2020). The New York Times article complains that Soon presented his research, funded through the Smithsonian, by the Southern Company, ExxonMobil and the Donor’s Trust, to Congress. Are they saying that Soon and the people who funded some of his research should have their first amendment rights taken away because they disagree with “most” scientists or the New York Times? That is not the way science, or the United States works. In general, the article was anti-science and anti-American.
The scientific community provides a place for scientists to debate ideas. The scientific playground contains thousands of peer-reviewed journals that allow all sides an opportunity to present their data, analysis, and conclusions for inspection. Unfortunately, once politicians and the news media became involved in the human-caused climate change debate it became a disaster. Politicians used personal attacks, suppression of opposing views, ridicule, harassment, and intimidation, rather than reason to push their views on scientists. All of these were used against Willie Soon and his former supervisor Sallie Baliunas. His friends and colleagues, David Legates, Christopher Monckton, and William Briggs, were also attacked unfairly. Politics and a scientifically ignorant news media corrupt science to an unacceptable degree. We are opposed to all government funding of scientific research for this reason. My next post and my new book discuss this viewpoint further.
I wrote this report a couple of years ago, when local misguided fracktivists tried to get our local board of supervisors to issue a county-wide ban against fracking. I thought it might do some good for my readers here, so I decided to publish it.
A report to the Butte County Board of Supervisors and to the Butte County Planning Commission
Introduction
I had considered speaking before you, but in the emotionally charged venue of your chambers it is often difficult for a rational voice to be heard without being shouted down. Plus, I have a hearing impairment that makes interaction difficult. Therefore, I thought I’d prepare a document.
My intent here is to help you make the most enlightened decision possible, by sorting through the hyperbole, political agendas, and emotions which have presented themselves in this debate by providing a factual guide that is based on reality, and not on any viewpoint from any vested interest.
The history of hydraulic fracturing aka “fracking”
Modern hydraulic fracturing technologies started on April 25th, 1865, when Civil War veteran Col. Edward A. L. Roberts received the first of his many patents for an “exploding torpedo.” Nitroglycerine and later Dynamite was used back then to provide the force. Roberts was awarded U.S. Patent (No. 59,936) in November 1866 for what would become known as the Roberts Torpedo. The new technology would revolutionize the young oil and natural gas industry by vastly increasing production from individual wells.
On March 17, 1949, a team of petroleum production experts tried a new technique on an oil well about 12 miles east of Duncan, Oklahoma – to perform the first commercial application of hydraulic fracturing. This began the modernized process that is still in use today.
Since 1949, hydraulic fracturing has done more to increase recoverable reserves than any other technique. In the more than 60 years following those first treatments, more than two million fracking treatments have been drilled and pumped with not a single documented case of any fracking treatment polluting an aquifer.
Reference: American Oil and Gas Historical Society
RELEVANCE: Hydraulic fracking is not a “new” technique. History of use shows it has not polluted groundwater/aquifers.
How does “fracking” actually work?
Fracking is simply a technique use to increase the surface area of a drilled well. By having an enlarged surface area of cracks, crevices, and seam splits, more oil or natural gas can be recovered. It improves the production of a new well or an existing well.
In virtually every case, the shale seams are far below the water table, as seen in this cross section below showing how shale is fractured to increase surface area to retrieve more natural gas.
The gas is pulled from the ground through a process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which large volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals, are injected deep underground to break shale apart and free the gas.
Figure 1: Cross section of a fracked shale gas well Source: US. Dept. of Energy
RELEVANCE: most fracking is conducted well below the water table.
What is in fracking fluid?Water, sand, and, some common chemicals.
Water accounts for about 90 percent of the fracturing mixture and sand accounts for about 9.5 percent. Chemicals account for the remaining one half of one percent of the mixture. This graphic illustrates the breakdown.
Figure 2: makeup of fracturing fluid
RELEVANCE: Traditional fracking fluid is mostly water & sand, with 0.5% common household chemicals. There are no large amounts of “highly toxic” chemicals as some activists claim.
Why the worry over fracking water?
Many people worried about what chemicals are used in fracking cite the potential danger of a hypothetical scenario where fracking fluids leaking into the groundwater as the primary reason for their concern. However, there are many misconceptions about how fracking water is collected and disposed of after it has been pumped into the shale to release natural gas trapped inside.
Once the fracturing process is completed, the water rises back to the surface, forced upward by the geologic formation’s natural pressure. Then, the fluids are stored in pits or tanks to be treated – if the water is to be discharged into surface water – or is injected deep underground.
Spent or used fracturing fluids are normally recovered at the initial stage of well production and recycled in a closed system for future use or disposed of under regulation, either by surface discharge where authorized under the Clean Water Act or by injection into Class II wells as authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regulation may also allow recovered fracturing fluids to be disposed of at appropriate commercial facilities. Not all fracturing fluid returns to the surface. Over the life of the well, some is left behind and confined by thousands of feet of rock layers.
Treatment of fracking water is highly regulated by EPA rules, and many states are working to revise or create their own laws overseeing gas drilling operations in their areas. So, there is a huge financial incentive for drilling companies to do it right, otherwise they are faced with fines, and possible shutdowns.
A 2004 study from the EPA investigating the environmental impact of disposing what chemicals are used in fracking into coal bed methane production wells found no confirmed cases of drinking water wells’ quality being compromised as a result. The study noted that:
“Where fluids are injected, EPA believes that groundwater production, combined with mitigating effects of dilution and dispersion, absorption, and biodegradation, minimize the possibility that chemicals included in fracturing fluids would adversely affect [underground sources of drinking water],”
It’s our experience in Pennsylvania that we have not had one case in which the fluids used to break off the gas from 5,000 to 8,000 feet (1,500-2,400 m) underground have returned to contaminate ground water.
John Hanger, former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Fracking fluid is now going through a change to make the small 0.5% portion of chemicals even safer.
As The Associated Press reported in August 2011, one Halliburton executive drank a new recipe for hydraulic fracking fluid at a conference by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. The intent was to quash fears about what is hydraulic fracking and the chemicals that are used – Halliburton’s development uses food industry materials – by showing how safe they can be.
“During a keynote lunch speech at the conference presented by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, Halliburton Co. CEO Dave Lesar talked about addressing public concerns about hydraulic fracturing, which extracts natural gas by blasting a mix of water, chemicals and sand underground.
He raised a container of Halliburton’s new fracking fluid made from materials sourced from the food industry, then called up a fellow executive to demonstrate how safe it was by drinking it, according to two attendees. The executive mocked reluctance, then took a swig.
The thing I took away is the industry is stepping up to plate and taking these concerns seriously,” Ken Carlson, a Colorado State University environmental engineering professor, told the AP. “Halliburton is showing they can get the same economic benefits or close to that by putting a little effort into reformulating the fluids.”
The process is safe, and continues to be proven as such.
For example, on May 13th 2011, the New York Times reported:
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” got a clean bill of health this week in the first scientific look at the safety of the oil and production practice.
In a May 6th 2011 story on a senate hearing, E&E Newswires reported:
The debate about hydraulic fracturing has intensified as advances in the technology have opened vast gas-bearing formations in densely populated areas, like the Northeast. Critics say fracturing could cause some of the hazardous chemicals in the fluid to find its way into groundwater, but industry representatives say the fluid would have to travel upward through thousands of feet of rock, and there has never been a proven case of that happening.
The British government’s health agency is the latest body to give fracking a clean bill of health, in a move that should galvanize the country to act on its considerable reserves of shale gas. Reuters reports:
Public Health England (PHE) said in a review that any health impacts were likely to be minimal from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves the pumping of water and chemicals into dense shale formations deep underground….
“The currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to emissions associated with the shale gas extraction process are low if operations are properly run and regulated,” said John Harrison, director of PHE’s center for radiation, chemical and environmental hazards.
RELEVANCE: The EPA sees no threat to drinking water in studies they have conducted. Neither do the British.
There is a huge financial incentive by drilling companies to manage fracking water properly or face fines. Newer formulations of fracking fluid are safe enough to actually drink.
Scientific studies show the process is safe.
If fracking is safe, and has been in use since 1949, with it used in over 2 million wells, how did it get such a bad reputation?
The answer lies in an activist movie known as “Gasland”, seen on HBO in 2010 and also shown in “alternative” theatres in the USA, such as the Pageant Theater in downtown Chico.
In that movie, a claim is made that fracking caused groundwater to become flammable, due to methane gas leaking into the water table. This frame from the dramatic scene in that film shows a Colorado resident igniting his tap water with a cigarette lighter.
Figure 3: igniting methane in tap water in Weld County, CO.
The implication made by the director/producer (Josh Fox) in the film is that this was caused by the recent increased in fracked wells in that part of Colorado, Weld County. To the untrained and uncurious, this certainly seems like a valid conclusion.
However, research shows that a few inconvenient facts about that movie. A 1976 study by the Colorado Division of Water found that this area was plagued with gas in the water problems back then. And it was naturally occurring.
As the report stated there was “troublesome amounts of methane” in the water decades before fracking began. It seems that in geographical areas gas has always been in the water.
But Josh Fox knew this and chose not to put it in Gasland anyway.
Another filmmaker asked Fox about this omission at a screening at Northwestern University in Chicago. You can watch that video here:
And as way of verification of the Gasland’s claim of fracking causing methane in groundwater was based on a fabricated claim or not, I went looking for the 1976 report that McAleer cited. I didn’t find it, but I did find another report from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) which was equally damning:
Figure 4: Abstract of 1983 study that found naturally occurring methane in Colorado groundwater
Also, the state of Colorado Department of Natural Resources came to a similar conclusion in a report they produced about the Gasland movie, saying that the methane came from nearby coal seams (biogenic) and what not from fracking operations, and had been present for quite some time:
…we concluded that Mike Markham’s and Renee McClure’s wells contained biogenic gas that was not related to oil and gas activity. Unfortunately, Gasland does not mention our McClure finding and dismisses our Markham finding out of hand.
The Markham and McClure water wells are both located in the Denver-Julesburg Basin in Weld County. They and other water wells in this area draw water from the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer, which is composed of interbedded sandstones, shales, and coals. Indeed, the water well completion report for Mr. Markham’s well shows that it penetrated at least four different coal beds. The occurrence of methane in the coals of the Laramie Formation has been well documented in numerous publications by the Colorado Geological Survey, the United States Geological Survey, and the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists dating back more than 30 years. For example, a 1976 publication by the Colorado Division of Water Resources states that the aquifer contains “troublesome amounts of . . . methane.” A 1983 publication by the United States Geological Survey similarly states that “[m]ethane-rich gas commonly occurs in ground water in the Denver Basin, southern Weld County, Colorado.” And a 2001 report by the Colorado Geological Survey discusses the methane potential of this formation and cites approximately 30 publications on this subject.
…
Finally, it should be understood that the COGCC Director, Dave Neslin, offered to speak with Gasland’s producer, Josh Fox, on camera during the filming of the movie. Because the issues are technical and complex and arouse concerns in many people, Director Neslin asked that he be allowed to review any material from the interview that would be included in the final film. Unfortunately, Mr. Fox declined. Such a discussion might have prevented the inaccuracies noted above.
Essentially, what we have is an activist movie director making false claims that can be easily refuted with geologic studies done by the State of Colorado, refusing to have his work reviewed, and those false claims being used to incite and worry people who are otherwise unable to make distinctions themselves.
Despite this and many more inaccuracies being well documented, activist organizations like Greenpeace, with multi-million dollar budgets, include the “flaming faucets” claim in their own anti-fracking materials, such as this one from their website, seen below.
Item# 10 says: “Concentrated Methane gas create flammable water and poisonous fumes”
Figure 5: Screen capture of Greenpeace web page claiming fracking contaminates groundwater
Despite the science being well known and well documented, anti-fracking activist groups simply don’t care; they’ll make the claims anyway. Their goal is to stifle energy development, more on that later.
This is what is happening in Butte County with the “Frack Free Butte County” activists. Much of the claims they are making can be easily refuted if you bother to do a modicum of research.
For example, one of their claims is:
Fracking uses gross amounts of water. In a drought, the last thing we should rely on is fracking for purposes supplied by other sources.
What they don’t seem to realize is that fracking is a closed water system, it does not use “millions of gallons of water” (a common citation to position fracking as a water hog), but instead uses water that it treats and recycles at the surface.
The shale gas industry uses water: 1-5 million gallons per well. However, its needs are not great in comparison with those of other industries, such as the power generation industry, or even the quantity used in domestic appliances. Gas drilling in Pennsylvania uses less than 60 million gallons per day, compared with 1,550 million gallons per day used in public water systems, 1,680 million gallons per day used in industry and 5,930 million gallons per day used in power generation in the state (US Geological Survey). A single shale gas well uses in total about the same amount of water as a golf course uses in three weeks.
Sidenote:
If you look at the amount of water used by the Sierra Nevada Brewery in Chico per year, you’ll find it far and regularly exceeds any expectation of water to be used for hydraulic fracturing in Butte County, should it ever occur in Butte County.
For example in 2007, SNB used over 6 million barrels of water (31 US gallons/barrel) for a total of 186 million gallons of water.
Approximately one-third of the water pumped down the well for fracking returns eventually to the surface together with gas during production. In the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, this water is saline, because the shale rock was formed on the bed of an ancient sea. The water is extracted from the gas, collected in pools doubly lined with heavy-duty polythene, and either re-used for fracking in other wells or desalinated, treated and disposed of as waste. This is no different from the treatment of waste water in any other industrial process. Pollution incidents involving such `produced water‘ are rare. A gas well operated by EOG Resources blew out in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, in June 2010, spilling 35,000 gallons of slick water. The water was contained by berms and linings, and there were no injuries or significant damage to the environment.
Another claim used by activists is that the water coming to the surface is radioactive.
The returning water is also slightly more radioactive than surface water because of naturally occurring isotopes within the rocks. However, this radioactivity drops when the salt is removed and before the water is disposed of in the sewage system. In any case many granite rocks have higher natural radioactivity, so exposure to waste water from gas drilling is likely to be no more hazardous than exposure to some other kinds of rock. There is no evidence that either gets close to being hazardous. Indeed the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has tested the water in seven rivers to which treated waste water from gas wells is discharged and found not only no elevation in radioactivity but:
All samples were at or below background levels of radioactivity; and all samples showed levels below the federal drinking water standard for Radium 226 and 228. — Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 7 March 201140
All technologies have environmental risks. Press coverage that talks about `toxic‘, `carcinogenic‘ and `radioactive‘ `chemicals‘ is meaningless. Vitamin A is toxic. A single cup of coffee contains more known carcinogens than the average American ingests from pesticide residues in a whole year. Bananas are radioactive. Dihydrogen monoxide is a chemical (water, H2O).
RELEVANCE: As demonstrated above, the list of easy refutations to activist’s claims about fracking is quite long, if any of you want to have them specifically addressed, I’ll be happy to do so personally on request.
This will surprise you – fracking has actually helped solve the “global warming” problem
The same people who complain that fracking will kill the planet also say similar things about carbon dioxide emissions related to “global warming”.
The great irony of fracking to produce more natural gas is that it has helped make a shift from coal to natural gas in energy production, actually reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the USA.
As demonstrated in this article, carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. are at their lowest level in 20 years thanks to fracking.
Figure 4: US CO2 emissions from energy consumption sources 1973-2012
So many activists want us to get off “dirty coal” as an energy source, yet they seem unwilling and unable to accept a much cleaner burning fuel, natural gas, because it involves “fracking”.
But, you shouldn’t take my word for it, read what they say at U.C. Berkeley about Natural Gas in their August 2014 report:
Climate Impacts of Coal and Natural Gas
In a world where a cost-‐competitive near-‐ zero carbon energy source is not readily available, particularly in developing countries, replacing coal electric generation with natural gas could provide an effective strategy to mitigate climate change and reduce harmful air pollution.
Just as surprising, the leader of the group that produced that report, Berkeley Earth, is an advocate of fracking to produce more natural gas.
Deadly particulate pollution known as PM2.5 (highly regulated in California) is currently killing over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world, demonstrates Richard Muller (Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley since 1980) in Why Every Serious Environmentalist should favour Fracking. His co-author, Elizabeth Muller, is his daughter and co-founder (with him) of Berkeley Earth, a non-profit working on environmental issues.
Study: Fracked shale gas impacts have positive and negative benefits, but there’s no reason not to make it part of the energy mix – September 22, 2014
From The University of Manchester: Fracking’s environmental impacts scrutinised
Greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of shale gas would be comparable to conventional natural gas, but the controversial energy source actually faired better than renewables on some environmental impacts, according to new research.
The UK holds enough shale gas to supply its entire gas demand for 470 years, promising to solve the country’s energy crisis and end its reliance on fossil-fuel imports from unstable markets. But for many, including climate scientists and environmental groups, shale gas exploitation is viewed as environmentally dangerous and would result in the UK reneging on its greenhouse gas reduction obligations under the Climate Change Act.
University of Manchester scientists have now conducted one of the most thorough examinations of the likely environmental impacts of shale gas exploitation in the UK in a bid to inform the debate. Their research has just been published in the leading academic journal Applied Energy and study lead author, Professor Adisa Azapagic, will outline the findings at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester on Monday (22 September).
“While exploration is currently ongoing in the UK, commercial extraction of shale gas has not yet begun, yet its potential has stirred controversy over its environmental impacts, its safety and the difficulty of justifying its use to a nation conscious of climate change,” said Professor Azapagic.
“There are many unknowns in the debate surrounding shale gas, so we have attempted to address some of these unknowns by estimating its life cycle environmental impacts from ‘cradle to grave’. We looked at 11 different impacts from the extraction of shale gas using hydraulic fracturing – known as ‘fracking’– as well as from its processing and use to generate electricity.”
The researchers compared shale gas to other fossil-fuel alternatives, such as conventional natural gas and coal, as well as low-carbon options, including nuclear, offshore wind and solar power (solar photovoltaics).
The results of the research suggest that the average emissions of greenhouse gases from shale gas over its entire life cycle are about 460 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. This, the authors say, is comparable to the emissions from conventional natural gas. For most of the other life-cycle environmental impacts considered by the team, shale gas was also comparable to conventional natural gas.
But the study also found that shale gas was better than offshore wind and solar for four out of 11 impacts: depletion of natural resources, toxicity to humans, as well as the impact on freshwater and marine organisms. Additionally, shale gas was better than solar (but not wind) for ozone layer depletion and eutrophication (the effect of nutrients such as phosphates, on natural ecosystems).
On the other hand, shale gas was worse than coal for three impacts: ozone layer depletion, summer smog and terrestrial eco-toxicity.
Professor Azapagic said:
“Some of the impacts of solar power are actually relatively high, so it is not a complete surprise that shale gas is better in a few cases. This is mainly because manufacturing solar panels is very energy and resource-intensive, while their electrical output is quite low in a country like the UK, as we don’t have as much sunshine. However, our research shows that the environmental impacts of shale gas can vary widely, depending on the assumptions for various parameters, including the composition and volume of the fracking fluid used, disposal routes for the drilling waste and the amount of shale gas that can be recovered from a well.
“Assuming the worst case conditions, several of the environmental impacts from shale gas could be worse than from any other options considered in the research, including coal. But, under the best-case conditions, shale gas may be preferable to imported liquefied natural gas.”
The authors say their results highlight the need for tight regulation of shale gas exploration – weak regulation, they claim, may result in shale gas having higher impacts than coal power, resulting in a failure to meet climate change and sustainability imperatives and undermining the deployment of low-carbon technologies.
Professor Azapagic added:
“Whether shale gas is an environmentally sound option depends on the perceived importance of different environmental impacts and the regulatory structure under which shale gas operates.
“From the government policy perspective – focusing mainly on economic growth and energy security – it appears likely that shale gas represents a good option for the UK energy sector, assuming that it can be extracted at reasonable cost.
“However, a wider view must also consider other aspects of widespread use of shale gas, including the impact on climate change, as well as many other environmental considerations addressed in our study. Ultimately, the environmental impacts from shale gas will depend on which options it is displacing and how tight the regulation is.”
Study co-author Dr Laurence Stamford, from Manchester’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, said: “Appropriate regulation should introduce stringent controls on the emissions from shale gas extraction and disposal of drilling waste. It should also discourage extraction from sites where there is little shale gas in order to avoid the high emissions associated with a low-output well.
He continued:
“If shale gas is extracted under tight regulations and is reasonably cheap, there is no obvious reason, as yet, why it should not make some contribution to our energy mix. However, regulation should also ensure that investment in sustainable technologies is not reduced at the expense of shale gas.”
From Stanford University – Stanford-led study assesses the environmental costs and benefits of fracking – September 13, 2014
A strange thing happened on the way to dealing with climate change: Advances in hydraulic fracturing put trillions of dollars’ worth of previously unreachable oil and natural gas within humanity’s grasp.
The environmental costs – and benefits – from “fracking,” which requires blasting huge amounts of water, sand and chemicals deep into underground rock formations, are the subject of new research that synthesizes 165 academic studies and government databases. The survey covers not only greenhouse gas impacts but also fracking’s influence on local air pollution, earthquakes and, especially, supplies of clean water.
The authors are seven environmental scientists who underscore the real consequences of policy decisions on people who live near the wells, as well as some important remaining questions.
“Society is certain to extract more gas and oil due to fracking,” said Stanford environmental scientist Robert Jackson, who led the new study. “The key is to reduce the environmental costs as much as possible, while making the most of the environmental benefits.”
Fracking’s consumption of water is rising quickly at a time when much of the United States is suffering from drought, but extracting natural gas with hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling compares well with conventional energy sources, the study finds. Fracking requires more water than conventional gas drilling; but when natural gas is used in place of coal or nuclear fuel to generate electricity, it saves water. From mining to generation, coal power consumes more than twice the water per megawatt-hour generated than unconventional gas does.
Unconventional drilling’s water demand can be better or worse than alternative energy sources, the study finds. Photovoltaic solar and wind power use almost no water and emit no greenhouse gas, but cheap, abundant natural gas may limit their deployment as new sources of electricity. On the other hand, fracked gas requires less than a hundredth the water of corn ethanol per unit of energy.
Fracking’s impact on both climate change and local air pollution is similar to its impact on water, finds the study “The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking,” published in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources.
Getting a fractured well going is more intense than for conventional oil and gas drilling, with potential health threats arising from increases in volatile organic compounds and air toxics.
But when natural gas replaces coal as a fuel for generating electricity, the benefits to air quality include lower carbon dioxide emissions than coal and almost none of the mercury, sulfur dioxide or ash.
The study highlights several policies and practices that could optimize fracking’s environmental cost-benefit balance, and it highlights the need for further research. For example, the direct impact on the health of nearby residents is virtually unknown. “Almost no comprehensive research has been done on health effects,” said Jackson, “but decisions about drilling – both approvals and bans on fracking –are made all the time based on assumptions about health risks.”
And finally, from a political perspective, just how much support does the anti-fracking movement in Butte County have?
The “Frack Free Butte County” group tried to get their fellow citizens to fund their efforts via a crowd sourcing campaign. They only raised 9% of their expected goal:
Figure 5: Screen capture of Frack Free Butte County funding page
That speaks loudly when the citizenry can’t get behind it. It also suggests that the people who did contribute money (just 72 people) are limited to their friends and peers.
UPDATE: Via Tom Anderson in comments.
One interesting sidelight is that the EPA itself grudgingly confirmed in 2015 that fracking does not contaminate groundwater, barring mishap or poor practice.
About a year later, in January 21, 2016, the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board endorsed the agency’s findings and recommended its conclusions be stated less ambiguously. I think the agency is still trying to get out of that.
The study had further corroborated a study by the U.S. Department of Energy in which the researchers injected tracers into the hydraulic fracturing fluid, with no observable groundwater contamination after twelve months’ monitoring. It also confirmed reports by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Government Accountability Office, Duke University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University, the University of Colorado, and the Groundwater Protection Council – to name just a few.
Summary and my best advice
· Fracking is not something that just started, it is a long and well proven process
· Fracking is safe, despite activist claims of flaming faucets and other nonsense
· Fracking is not a water hog in comparison to other industries
· Fracking has benefits, including reduced carbon dioxide and reduced PM2.5 particulates
· Fracking is an emotional issue that is soundly refuted by government and scientific studies
· Fracking is a tool being used improperly by activists to stifle energy production
If you pass a fracking ban, will it affect me? No. However it may affect landowners who may wish to develop or improve wells in the small pockets of natural gas near Willows. A ban may render their mineral rights moot.
But, as we already know, there is only a small amount of gas wells in Butte County, and some of those were enhanced with fracking (check well logs) though owners don’t want to admit it for fear of activists chaining themselves to well or other such things.
A ban probably won’t matter much in the scheme of production, but if passed it will be used as a political bandwagon tool.
A fracking ban will be just about as useless as the infamous “nuclear weapons ban” in Chico, but it will make some emotional folks feel good about themselves.
If I were to be in your position, I’d put it up to a vote of the people of Butte County, rather than approve a ban outright. I think you’ll find it has about as much support in the citizenry as the ill-fated attempt to ban Genetically Modified Food (GMO’s) a few years back.
Thank you for your consideration.
DISCLOSURE:
I have no interests, funds, ownership, business arrangements, or any connection of any kind to any activist or political group, nor any industry that relies on oil or gas exploration, drilling, or production.
I produced this report of my own volition, simply to help educate you on the issues as I have done for myself over the past few years. The outcome of your vote will not affect me in any way, personally or financially.
The opinions expressed are my own, the facts expressed stand on their own merit and are referenced by source.
People sometimes ask me why I don’t believe the endless climate/energy use predictions of impending doom and gloom for the year 2050 or 2100. The reason is, neither the climate models nor the energy use models are worth a bucket of warm spit for such predictions. Folks concentrate a lot on the obvious problems with the climate models. But the energy models are just as bad, and the climate models totally depend on the energy models for estimating future emissions. However, consider the following US Energy Information Agency (EIA) predictions of energy use from 2010, quoted from here (emphasis mine):
In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected that in 2019, the U.S. would be producing about 6 million barrels of oil a day. The reality? We’re now producing 12 million barrels of oil a day.
Meanwhile, EIA projected oil prices would be more than $100 a barrel. They’re currently hovering around $60 a barrel.
EIA had projected in 2010 that the U.S. would be importing a net eight million barrels of petroleum by now, which includes crude oil and petroleum products like gasoline. In September, the U.S. actually exported a net 89 thousand barrels of petroleum.
In 2010, EIA projected that the U.S. would be producing about 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas by now. In 2018, the last full year of annual data, we produced more than 30 trillion.
The EIA had projected that coal electricity would remain dominant in the U.S. and natural gas would remain relatively stable — even drop slightly in its share of power supply. The opposite is happening. Coal-fired power is plummeting and natural gas has risen significantly.
Now remember, we are assured that these energy projections are being made by Really Smart People™, the same kind of folks making the climate predictions … and they can’t predict a mere ten years ahead? Forget about predicting a century from now, they are wildly wrong in just one decade. The EIA projections above missed the mark by 100% or more and sometimes didn’t even get the sign of the result correct … but as St. Greta the Shrill misses no opportunity to remind us, we’re supposed to totally restructure our entire global economy based on those same shonky predictions.
But I digress … Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. recently posed an interesting question—how can we fix what he called “apocalyptic” projections of future climate?
My response was:
My fix would be for all climate scientists to stop vainly trying to predict the future and focus on the past.
Until we understand past phenomena such as the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, etc. to the point where we can tell why they started and stopped when they did and not earlier or later, pretending to understand the future is a joke.
For example, the Milankovich astronomical cycles that have correlated well with episodes of glaciation in the past say we should be in a full-blown “Ice Age” today. These cycles change the amount of sunlight in the northern hemisphere. And when the world went into the Little Ice Age (LIA) around the year 1600, there was every indication that we were headed in that direction, towards endless cold. The same fears were raised in the 1970s when the earth had been cooling for thirty years or so.
Gosh … another failed climate prediction. Shocking, I know …
Regarding why the Milankovich cycles indicated an ice age, here are Greenland temperature and solar changes in the Northern Hemisphere for the past 12,000 years or so.
But instead of the Little Ice Age preceding us plunging into sub-zero temperatures and mile-thick ice covering Chicago, the earth started to warm again towards the end of the 1700s … why?
Well, the ugly truth is, we are far from understanding the climate well enough to answer why it was warmer in Medieval times; why we went from that warmth into the LIA in the first place; why the LIA lasted as long as it did; why it didn’t continue into global glaciation; or why we’ve seen gradual slight warming, on the order of half a degree per century, from then to the present day.
And until scientists can answer those and many similar questions about the past, why on earth should we believe their climate/energy predictions for a century or even a decade from now?
The only thing that seems clear about all of those questions is that the answer is not “CO2”. Here’s another look at Greenland, this time with CO2 overlaid on the temperature:
My Dad used to say “Son, if something seems too good to be true … it probably is”. I never realized until today that there was a climate corollary to that, which is “Son, if something seems too bad to be true … it probably isn’t”.
So my advice is to take all such predictions of impending Thermageddon, drowned cities, endless droughts, and other horribly bad outcomes by 2100, 2050, or even 2030, with a grain of salt. Here’s what I’d consider to be the appropriate size of salt grain for the purpose …
Every now and again, Mt. Hamner rumbles and roars to life in grand explosions of chastisements, rants, and steaming commentary. Today is one of those days. Why? Borrowing from Shakespeare, using a Suzanne flair, “How do I explain it? Let me try a few examples”. As the pressure builds, be sure to check your defensiveness.
There are numerous separate bills floating in the House and Senate that when passed and signed will work in conjunction with one another to create a communist/socialist/Marxist United States where the people will be the commodity and the fodder. Much of the legislation has to do with education. What better way to groom acceptance automatons to the government game than “get ‘em while they’re young”? But, it doesn’t just apply to the children in our country; adults are included as well. To get up to speed on these bills, visit CommonCoreDiva.com, where common core expert Lynne Taylor has done all the research for you. All you need to do is read it, understand it, and then act upon it.
Couple these education bills with HR 5038, which just passed the House, and the USMCA, and what do you have? A gaggle of goop designed to erode US and State sovereignty, eradicate individual freedoms and liberties, as well as God-given unalienable rights, provide illegal alien invaders amnesty, and re-establish indentured servitude in this country, which will be extended to citizens – read between the lines and bills. Many who have commented on the USMCA articles at various media sites praise the USMCA because the article’s author glosses over the agreement, only providing the scantiest of highlights – The Daily Caller and Breitbart News come to mind. This “agreement” basically creates a North American Union like the European Union with lots of new entities consisting of unelected bureaucrats that will influence every aspect of our lives. And, what are the American people focused upon? The dog and pony show of impeachment of a president using fabricated, false and manipulated information exposed as fraudulent years ago.
Yet, even alternative media sites, such as The Daily Caller and Breitbart News, still make impeachment the first stories on the page and then prioritize stories related to impeachment to follow. With the lamestream entertainment government-controlled media pushing the impeachment narrative and some alternative media sites focusing their readership on impeachment, most all bills going through both chambers of Congress are either buried back page news with scant coverage, provided short scant praising coverage, or not covered at all. The Drudge Report caved – rumor is Matt Drudge sold the site – and many other “alternative media” are following a disturbing pattern. It becomes more and more difficult to find out exactly what is happening in Congress when it involves legislation.
Nothing produces more ire and down-right frustration than the totally debunked, fraudulent hoax of man-made climate change. The ruse of man-made climate change was exposed 10 years ago; yet, people are still buying this garbage. Governments around the world are attempting to create policies around it, villainize the essential gas of Carbon Dioxide, steal money from their citizens, and implement a global government with the UN at the helm, while third world countries are “demanding” reparations because of the affect of first world industrialized nations upon them. You know the drill – those countries are poor and backward because of man-made climate change despite the hoards of money the US gives some of these nations yearly. Funny how those countries remained silent until it was mentioned by some government gus these third worlders needed money to help the issues “thrust” upon them because of man-made climate change.
With the US withdrawing from all this nonsense, the rest of the world governments are looking to stick the US and its taxpayers with the entire multi-billion-dollar reparations bill. China is refusing to pay anything. Say what you want, but China knows this is a hoax and other world governments won’t push back against China.
New research appears at Natural News further exposing man-made climate change as a hoax, finding man has virtually zero impact on global temperatures. Despite these exposures of the UN IPCC and compromised scientists, homo-stupidians (H/T Mike Adams) still regurgitate the rhetoric of “man-made climate change will doom us all”. Braindead politicians are some of the worst, as well as Hollyweirdos and their cultist followers. As with other issues, the lamestream entertainment government-controlled media, including some alternative media sites, are pushing false narratives based on false information and trying to sell constitutionalists who still patronize their outlets on a hoax. It’s worse than disgusting; it’s unredeemable criminality.
Enter 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, the hoaxers’ bastion of mental illness chastising government leaders for their inaction on a hoax and intelligent individuals worldwide who recognize the man-made climate change hoax. If “adults” are placing their eggs in the basket of Thunberg to persuade other adults to keep silent on the hoax through “guilt manipulation” and “you can’t criticize a child” mentality, it isn’t working. The homo-stupidians didn’t learn from the Hogg media circus. So what happens? After the lamestream entertainment government-controlled media spent considerable time promoting Thunberg’s psychotic episodes to no avail, Time Magazine, following a long tradition of placing totalitarian, murderous dictators on their cover, named Thunberg “person of the year” for 2019. Before anyone accuses this writer of calling Thunberg a totalitarian murderous dictator, understand, Thunberg is promoting a hoax that will eventually lead to the attempt to install a totalitarian murderous dictator over the world – the UN. Unless one hasn’t been paying attention, murder by government, democide, has killed more individuals worldwide than all the wars combined – 262 million to be exact.
How quickly the people of the world, particularly the united States, forget.
And, if this isn’t enough to rile one’s feathers, legislation – State and federal, attempting to infringe upon an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, against God-given individual unalienable rights recognized and guaranteed through the Second Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America, should have every citizen descending on all levels of government with a vengeance. Red Flag “laws”, gun confiscation schemes, accessory bans, and the removal of due process are appearing at all levels of government, with little opposition from those in government wearing the jersey of professed conservatives and some constitutionalists. In fact, Trump is all for the removal of due process when it comes to firearms – “Take the guns first and worry about due process later”; except, that is not how it works at all. States, like Virginia, are looking to criminalize gun owners and supporters through bans and confiscation as various counties in Virginia are declaring Second Amendment sanctuaries within their boundaries. Unfortunately, government didn’t get the hint. Governor Northam is threatening door to door confiscation – good luck with that.
According to some brain dead individuals, State law is superior to federal law; however, that is not exactly true. Moreover, any law at any level of government that restricts infringes or eradicates God-given individual unalienable rights is immoral, unlawful, and illegal since government does not bestow rights and has no authority over those rights. But, it matters not to these goons like Bloomberg, who is pouring millions of his own money into areas to get gun confiscation legislation passed. In Virginia, it is possible the governor could activate the National Guard, which a governor can do, to perform door to door confiscation. Wonder how many in the National Guard will go along with that? Wonder how many citizens will resist?
Don’t look for law enforcement in other States to stand with the people. The agencies are all too happy to become the “strongarm thugs” of government as they declare support for being an illegal alien invader criminal sanctuary city, town, county and/or State. Don’t worry about the numerous crimes of law enforcement officers being exposed – the agencies are more than happy to cover it up, abuse victims, and have cases thrown out by corrupt judges. If the officer is found to have committed a crime, they are given probation or released just to recommit those crimes against the citizenry. As a reminder, carrying a badge these days gives law enforcement officers the authority to shoot innocent citizens; some result in death.
Virginia will be the government’s strongarm thug paradise as they roll their government green military equipment through the streets to intimidate the people. Wherever this powder keg begins, it will take citizens standing together in Bundy Ranch fashion to resist, meaning citizens across the State of Virginia will need to be ready to mobilize. But, don’t expect the government to play fair.
As the rights of the people are being infringed all over the former republic, millions of citizens continue to be murdered in the womb and some State governments propose to murder them after birth. What really causes the caldera to explode is the pro-life groups who support “Heartbeat” bills and “ultrasound” bills when life begins at conception. There should be no compromise. You are either anti-murder of the unborn or pro-murder of the unborn – and now newborn infants; there is no in-between or qualifiers. When qualifiers are accepted for the very youngest among us, qualifiers can be applied to any age, mental disability – Down’s Syndrome comes to mind, physical disability or any demographic government chooses. It’s a slippery slope we have been sliding down since many accepted the false premise that the Supreme Court makes law.
The moral depravity and its acceptance by many that are spreading through society and the church indicate we are under the government of minoritarianism. Whether it is the black robed oligarch of nine, the delusional factions of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, or Islam, atheists, or the less than three percent population of LGBTQrstuvwxyz mentally ill, the government is being mobilized to combat those with opposing convictions. Instead of upholding the rights bestowed by God, guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights, the “political oligarchy” is willing to infringe upon the rights of those with opposing convictions to the point it places our children, and everyone else, in danger. It’s disgusting, immoral, unethical, illegal, and unlawful to the nth degree. When push back against this depravity occurs, government steps in to criminalize the lawful.
Twitter now allows pedophiles to openly discuss their depravity and criminality while censoring constitutional and conservative viewpoints. Facebook, Google, and other platforms do the same. And, some idiots like Cenk Uyghur want to legalize bestiality. Why have the people not protested this guy en masse everywhere he goes? Simple – police are allowing peaceful protestors against such to be assaulted by the delusional factions of individuals supporting depravity. It is now physically dangerous to peaceably assemble for some groups because of the violent nature of others and the inaction of the police.
And, what is most disappointing? Trying to get the public involved in combatting these encroachments, particularly in an area where unconstitutional law enforcement exists, without success. Why? Many Americans have become fearful of their own government and law enforcement even when engaging in lawful activities. Well, that’s game, set, match, and checkmate for the government. It’s not without understanding for sure, especially when laws are being passed to infringe upon rights if one has a criminal record or someone “thinks” you are a danger. It’s an upstairs/downstairs type of law enforcement when legal activities can get one arrested while crimes like assault receive impunity.
Last, but certainly not least, is the television ads being broadcast by Tom Steyer who continually refers to the US government as a democracy, runs on ending climate change, and spews all sorts of nonsense just to get a vote from the low information homo-stupidian voter. The absolute ridiculousness of this man is almost incomprehensible. Even the little “cat terrorist” recognizes his bunk because she barks incessantly every time he appears on the television. Good girl!! Some American voters should be so smart.
And, pay attention – anti-constitutionalists are moving out of the utopian bastions they have created into other areas of the country to create utopian bastions in the image of what they left. It’s working. See Virginia. Republicans are not a block to these anti-constitutionalists since they bend more than a tree in a hurricane to accommodate these idiots to avoid being called names. This writer has been called just about everything. Luckily, a thick skin is now in place – this writer doesn’t care. The ultimate one that this writer will answer to is a higher authority than anyone or anything on this earth.
The truth is never pleasant and doing the right thing is never easy – God and Jesus Christ never said it would be. But, imparting truth is showing love. And, friends, we have sat on our laurels for far too long. It’s come time to get in the fight or accept our fate. There is no more time for fence-sitting, qualifying a position, or being silent. It’s time to choose sides. The first side you should pick, if you haven’t already, is God and Jesus Christ. Once that is complete, the side of the issues you should stand on are clear – God’s side. And, no, Islam is not being covered since that false religion should be thoroughly exposed by now. Pope Francis is a proven heretic so no need to rehash what should be known. Islam and the heretic pope will retreat in the face of resistance because both are like bullies – stand up to them and they retreat. Don the armor of God and stand in righteousness; it will cause these two fakes to dwindle in the light.
It boils down to a choice and free will. Writing, emailing and phoning congressman does not work anymore – the people are ignored. They count on inaction. If the people do not mobilize to action, stand firm even in the face of adversity and challenge their unlawful, immoral, unethical, unconstitutional and illegal actions, minoritarianism will become the totalitarian, despotic tyrannical dictatorship we all have been warned about for hundreds of years. Look around. It’s well on its way.
Only 319 Square Miles The founders of this country were much smarter than and more responsible than our current Congressional representatives.
Fantastic Explanation of the Electoral College
Last week the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives introduced a bill to eliminate the electoral college. It seems that, since they couldn’t win the last presidential election under the rules that have existed for almost 250 years, they want to change the rules. Below is an excellent explanation of why this is a very bad idea.
In their infinite wisdom, the United States ‘ Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond (or Staten Island) & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. ( Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond )
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!
And…it’s been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.
Liberals are blaming California’s wildfires on “climate change.” Apparently, climate change now causes wildfires, but only in the state of California. Before this week, liberals thought rising sea levels would wash the state away. Now, they believe it will go up in flames unless we do something immediately to stop “climate change.” But climate change hasn’t turned California into a tinderbox, the environmentalists have.
California power company PG&E is preparing to pull the plug on 850,000 of its customers. PG&E has been deliberately cutting power to its customers in an effort to avoid wildfires. It isn’t working. Massive wildfires erupted in areas where PG&E provides service. The Tick Fire has burned down several homes and caused the evacuation of more than 40,000 people so far, and other wildfires are burning throughout the state. In Sonoma County, the Kincade Fire has already torched 34 square miles and destroyed 49 homes. That fire was likely caused by a broken transmission line belonging to PG&E.
But PG&E’s equipment couldn’t start these huge wildfires without a bunch of dead brush fueling the flames. As Chuck Devore writes in Forbes, “the outrageous cost to remove a few dead trees from private land is a consequence of California’s Byzantine environmental regulatory patchwork.” It’s not climate change that’s responsible for these massive fires, “it’s decades of environmental mismanagement that has created a tinderbox of unharvested timber, dead trees, and thick underbrush.”
As Devore writes, “forest management is so bad on public lands that a new report, ordered by the California legislature in 2010, shows that the portion of California’s National Forests protected from timber harvesting is now a net contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fires and trees killed by insects and disease.” So if environmentalists really believed climate change was causing the fires, they would be calling for more timber harvesting to stop it.
How many people have to die before environmentalists wake up? Gov. Gavin Newsom has attributed California’s wildfires to the effects of “climate change.” But in 2018, President Trump correctly identified the problem and threatened to cut off federal funds if California didn’t change its self-harming policies.
Trump tweeted, “There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!”
There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!
Gov. Newsom declared a state of emergency on Friday, announcing that he had secured federal emergency funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This is just like Newsom blaming the state’s high gas prices on the big oil companies. He’s trying to shift the blame. Only the longer he maintains this delusion about climate change causing wildfires, the more people will die in his state and the more homes will be destroyed.
PG&E admitted its power lines sparked wildfires in Northern California, even though it shut off power for about 500K people to prevent that from happening.
A wildfire exploded in size in Northern California amid dangerous winds, prompting the state’s largest utility to impose electrical blackouts. The fire comes two years after deadly blazes tore through the same area, killing 44 people. https://t.co/cDiq6N3uJypic.twitter.com/ruv6MEmKi5
Those who support the Green New Deal (GND) want what they claim to be the only real solution to the global warming problem which is solar power, and other so-called renewables to save our planet from the ravages of fossil fuel.
They insist our dependence on fossil fuels can be ended by having the world become fully dependent on green energy they wrongly claim to be environmentally friendly, producing no pollution. None of which is true or possible. But their real motivation for climate change delusion is to shift control of all energy from oil and gas companies to the government. It is a move toward the socialist goal of the Green New Deal.
With the exception of hydropower, all so-called “renewable” energy is expensive and inefficient. They are only thought to be economical and competitive through massive government subsidies which are hidden in our tax burden. Let’s try and show the real costs of rooftop solar power.
The US Department of Energy (DOE) Lawrence Livermore Laboratory says that as of 2015 the total energy consumed in America was the energy equivalent to 17 billion barrels of oil, 38% is used for electricity, 29% for transportation and the remaining 33% as onsite power for business and industry. Only 11% is used domestically. Fossil fuels provide 82% of that power, nuclear 9% and hydropower 2.5% (IBID). Of the renewable energy sources preferred by the GND, biofuels such as ethanol in gasoline provides 5%, wind power 2%, and solar one half of one percent. Yet in light of these government-generated statistics, the GND calls for all fossil fuel burning power plants to be shut down over the next 12 years, along with all Nuclear plants as anything radioactive is considered inherently evil. In addition, it demands that as many hydroelectric power plants as possible be closed to protect fish spawning grounds. (No this is not a joke). Finally, it eliminates gasoline-powered vehicles switching to electric cars and public transportation.
According to the 2017 Solar Electric Handbook (www.solarelectricityhandbook.com/solar-radiation.html) the maximum amount of sunlight hitting one square meter (roughly a square yard) of the Earth’s surface, delivers 1000 watts of power ( that would light 10, 100-watt bulbs). But the shifting angles of the sun drops that number to 600 watts. Commercial photovoltaic cells can only harvest 15% of that energy dropping us to only 90 watts under ideal conditions or lighting about one 100 watt bulb. But the sun does not shine at night so we are down to 45 watts. But solar collectors only take up a little over 50% of the land area of a solar farm bringing us to 25 watts, and then average clouds, smoke, and dust could drop us all the way down to zero. The average output across the US of a typical solar power facility is in fact between 5 and 7.5 watts per square meter (Electric Power Monthly, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Dec.22,2017. https://www.eia.gov.electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?/t=epmt_6_07_b)). Is the problem getting clearer, but wait there is more.
Photoelectric cells used to create electric energy consume more energy in their production than they collect. The complex steps required to create raw quartz used to eventually make the wafers that become the collectors surface, require 3370 kilowatt-hours of energy per square meter of collector material produced ( Williams,E.D.,Ayres.R.U., and Heller,M., “The 1.7 Kilogram Microchip: Energy and Material Use in the Production of Semiconductor Devices”, Environ.Sci. Technology., 36, 5504-5510 (2002). )
But wait there is still more. Solar energy can’t be turned on and off to meet shifts in energy. The sun shines during the day but power needs peak in the morning and evening. Less energy is collected in winter than summer due to shorter days and lower sun angles. One solution is to have backup fossil fuel power plants and now you are paying for two systems instead of one and the use of fossil fuel continues. The other solution is to store extra energy in batteries. A typical lead-acid car battery has a storage capacity of one kilowatt-hour, according to McGraw-Hill’s Handbook of Batteries
(Linden,D., Reddy, T.B..,Eds., Handbook of Batteries, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York , 2002, Chapter 23).
A total replacement of fossil fuels by solar energy and a battery storage component would require many trillions of such batteries. Lithium batteries would offer more storage but at twice the price.
While a solar farm can be built anywhere, sunny areas of the country are not evenly distributed requiring transmission lines from the sunniest areas to the less sunny areas. As the distance increase the cost of solar skyrockets.
Finally, the land areas required for solar farms are extraordinary. Using the most generous capacity numbers for photovoltaic cells in the sunniest areas, a 1000 megawatt solar farm (the standard output of most fossil fuel plants) would require 51 square miles which is the approximate area of San Francisco (Land Requirements for Carbon-Free Technologies, Nuclear Energy Institute Policy Paper, July 9 2015, https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Paper/Land_Use_Carbon_Free_Technologies.pdf?ext=pdf)
Where is the land to be sacrificed in the name of the GND to come from? In fact, there is not enough land in the United States to harvest the Solar energy to play a major role in the nation’s energy requirements.
Solar energy is too expensive for most countries or individuals to afford. The World Bank says that over 1.5 billion people live without electricity
Although coal is vilified while producing a third of the world’s energy, it’s use continues to increase as it costs only 7 cents a kilowatt-hour (Coal International Energy Agency https://www.iea.org/about/faqs/coal/.). Natural gas costs are even less at 6 cents a kilowatt-hour. The costs reported for solar operations have dropped to 16 cents a kilowatt-hour, but government subsidies come to 24 cents a kilowatt-hour giving it a real cost of 40 cents (Hansen,M.E., Simmons,R.T., Yonk,R.M., The Unseen Costs of Solar-Generated Electricity, The Institute of Political Economy, Utah State University, April 2016,www.usa.edu/ice.)
Few Americans could afford this to save the planet let alone people living in poor countries. Both widespread solar energy and the Green New Deal are but a fantasy of those who truly wish to destroy the nation as envisioned by our founding fathers.
Portions of this article have been excerpted with permission of the publisher and author of the 2018 book THE MYTHOLOGY OF GLOBAL WARMING by Bruce Bunker, Ph.D.. Publisher: Moonshine Cove. The author of this article strongly recommends that book as the very best source of detailed accurate information on the climate change debate.
Dr. Jay Lehr contributes posts at the CFACT site. Jay Lehr is the author of more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 36 books. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author, and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government, as well as many foreign countries. He is a leading authority on groundwater hydrology.
House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump is all but “Kabuki theater at this point,’ former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy McCarthy said Friday.
“For example, this whole idea that there is an impeachment inquiry: there’s not. The idea that there are subpoenas: there aren’t. And, I think a lot of people are consuming it as if it were true on face value and I really think if I were the White House what I would be worried about is breaking through that,” McCarthy told Hemmer.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is joined by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., at a news conference as House Democrats move ahead in the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
In an op-ed in The Hill, McCarthy wrote that congressional Democrats, to the contrary, are instead conducting the 2020 political campaign: “Democrats are mulishly determined to ram through an article of impeachment or two, regardless of whether the State Department and other agencies cooperate in the farce.
Their base wants the scarlet-letter ‘I’ (impeachment) attached to Trump. The party hopes to rally the troops for the 2020 campaign against Trump…
If Democrats truly thought they had a case, they wouldn’t be in such a rush—they’d want everyone to have time to study it. But they don’t have a case, so instead they’re giving us a show.”
House Democrats launched a formal impeachment inquiry into the president after a whistleblower complaint suggested the president, during a July phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, tried to induce officials there to investigate Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and their business dealings in that country.
“The question here is, was there a corrupt quid pro quo?” the Fox News contributor asked.
The letter will say that the White House won’t comply with the Democrats’ investigation because Pelosi hasn’t codified the probe with a formal vote on the House floor.
McCarthy said it would actually benefit the House if it wanted to go into court and try to enforce any information demands: “The first thing a court’s going to want to know is, ‘Has the House voted to have an impeachment inquiry?’
And, a lot hinges on that, including how much expansion a court would give a president’s claim of executive privilege and privilege over matters that are in the president’s duties under Article II.
“If they really have grounds to seek the president’s impeachment, they not only should have a vote because it’s in their interests when they go to court to have a vote, they should be proud to have a vote,” McCarthy added.
He concluded: “If [House Democrats] really think they have grounds to remove the President of the United States from power, then the House should speak as one as an institution and vote that way.”
The Dems have been raving about how they are going to take down the president and they have the country believing that is their intention, including Trump. But former Federal Prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy claims that is not the case. He claims this is all theater and the Dems are just trying to make Trump look bad.
“There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas.
You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued. The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.
The letter is signed by not one but three committee chairmen. Remember your elementary math, though: Zero is still zero even when multiplied by three.
What is portrayed as an “impeachment inquiry” is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.
The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.
Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what the committee chairmen issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies.
The Democrats, of course, hope you don’t notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. They are using the guise of frenetic activity by several standing committees — Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Ways and Means — whose normal oversight functions are being gussied up to look like serious impeachment business.”
This is something that the MSM is definitely failing to report. Liberals have been going on about this impeachment inquiry non-stop. But if the prosecutor is right then this is all just another attempt to tear down the president. But more importantly, this shows that the House Dems are no longer serving the people, as they are lying to us all about their intentions.
By Dr. Jay Lehr ~
They insist our dependence on fossil fuels can be ended by having the world become fully dependent on green energy they wrongly claim to be environmentally friendly, producing no pollution. None of which is true or possible. But their real motivation for climate change delusion is to shift control of all energy from oil and gas companies to the government. It is a move toward the socialist goal of the Green New Deal.
Gds44's Blog 
