Nonsensical Climate Change: Animal Farm Is Here! »

In late June, an agreement was reached between the United States, Mexico, and Canada aimed at addressing the issue of climate change. The pledge calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from oil and related industries, along with the implementation of cross-border energy transmission systems and development of clean energy sources. Ironically, part of the inspiration for the deal was a desire to strengthen cooperation between the North American nations after an important US-Canadian energy project, the Keystone XL oil pipeline, was rejected by American President Barack Obama – a move that weakened American energy independence and had an as-yet unforeseen impact on domestic jobs.

This agreement is the latest in a series of environmentalist paranoia regarding climate change and human industrial activity in general. The people behind it labor under the delusion that cutting emissions of carbon dioxide is clearly more important than addressing the national security threat posed by Islamic terror, growing our economy, and other crucial concerns. They also suffer from the curious shared hallucination that North America is a planet, rather than one among six inhabited continents.

Now California has introduced the first bill of its kind, allowing for the prosecution of climate change opposition–basically making it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent. The bill 1161, California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, is essentially, another assault on businesses and organizations that possibly could directly or indirectly engage in “unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” the State Senate Rules Committee’s. This gobbledygook clears the way for litigations against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled” the public on the risks of climate change.  I see this as a prophecy for a California “Animal Farm”  the State has degenerated into totalitarian government.

Even if the US, Canada, and Mexico cut their greenhouse gas emissions drastically overnight – which no one is even proposing, in favor of more gradual reductions – its net effect on global human emissions would be negligible. There might even be negative reduction – emissions growth. That’s because developing economies with many times the population of North America, such as India and China, are aggressively industrializing and have shown no interest in hobbling their own growth in service to Western environmental concerns. Effectively, we can’t do anything to cut the amount of carbon dioxide that humanity pumps into the air.


What we can do, unfortunately, is cripple the American economy at precisely the time it needs to be picking up steam. We have real international trade pressures coming from the aforementioned foreign powers – India and China – and we need to focus on being competitive with them. We also need to focus on maintaining the capacity for a strong, impregnable national defense. In a world of Islamic terrorism, to do any less is downright suicidal.

If these people really are so worried about the environment – a noble concern, so long as it is not placed above national security – then what they should really be pushing for is intelligent implementation of clean energy. Then it has to be done right, and it can’t come at the cost of throwing away our oil and gas industries overnight. The correct way to approach this challenge is to allow the free market to lead us into the future. We accomplish this by incentivizing clean energy development and deployment, offering tax credits to companies that do this work. As money flows into energy sources like wind and solar – naturally, not because the government mandates it – the market for dirtier sources will gradually diminish, giving businesses and workers in those industries needed time to retool and adjust to a changing energy economy. We can do this, but we must do it the right way – the capitalist way.

The most important effect of this strategy is that it preserves and even adds jobs in important industries, rather than sacrificing them on the altar of environmental awareness as punitive emissions caps against oil and gas do. We need to be looking at ways to strengthen and grow out economy while simultaneously addressing environmental issues, not throw one concern away in our need to worship the other. This is why the actions of the environmentalist left are irresponsible – not because it isn’t important to preserve and improve our environment, but because they’re going about it wrongly – and very dangerously.

Science Proves That Humans Are NOT the Cause of Climate Change

By Byron Claghorn

The Man-Made Climate Change and Global Warming hypothesis does not even qualify as a theory since these Global Warming Alarmists (GWA) have not been able to prove their case with actual scientific observations following accepted scientific method.  Instead the GWA rely on their own man-made computer models based on the shaky Premise and Assumptions that Man’s use of Fossil Fuels produces atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) that is now causing unlimited and catastrophic warming that will as a result devastate the Earth and its population later in this 21st Century when the CO2 concentration-level reaches or exceeds 600 ppm (parts-per- million).

 This premise that is at the very foundation of the GWA hypothesis and their own computer models is a very tentative link between Fossil Fuels and Climate Change that they have asserted as caused by Greenhouse Gases (only 1% of our atmosphere, 10,000 ppm) due to the Greenhouse Effect that occurs about 10 miles up at the top of our Troposphere.

The left-wing progressives, UN IPCC and the Environmentalists have politicized and completely ignored factual scientific proof and methods to push this GWA hypothesis and its premise for their own special interests under the banner of “Save Our Planet!”.   Most of the GWA are completely unaware of the actual solid scientific facts and can only parrot platitudes that they have been taught convinced that this subject is too complex for them to understand, except for those that push the GWA agenda who are fully aware that all these claims are unscientific and deliberate lies supported by Political Correctness, direct intimidation and broad propaganda spread by a willing or naïve media.

Partial GWA Truths:

Yes, the earth’s climate has Always Changed in its 4.5+ Billion year existence!

Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is caused by Greenhouse Gases, but it has and continues to be balanced providing the Earth and its citizens with a pleasant and habitable climate – Otherwise the earth’s global temperatures would be an estimated very cold and inhospitable -18 degrees C (i.e., -0.04 degrees F).

Yes, Al Gore and the other GWA are correct that there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the earth’s global temperature.   However, they have the actual correlation Backwards: They claim that increased concentrations of CO2 caused by Man & Fossil Fuels in the atmosphere causes increased warming temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.

In other words, they contend that Man & Fossil Fuels are creating sufficient quantities of CO2 that upset the natural balance of the Greenhouse Effect which causes it to continue to accumulate atmospheric heat leading to unending and catastrophic warming.

Factual Proven Science and Empirically Validated Observations:

The highly-qualified and honest scientists that have analyzed several of the ice-core samples covering 800,00 years of history in their labs confirm there is a correlation between CO2 and Temperatures-levels which correspond to time periods accurately reconstructed by other highly-qualified and honest scientists.

It turns out that the actual correlation is that: As the Sun’s rays increase the Temperature that warms the oceans evaporating both water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) allowing it to enter the atmosphere Naturally The concentration of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Increased!

This factual scientifically-researched correlation is precisely the OPPOSITE of the Global Warming hypothesis promoted by Al Gore and the rest of the GWA because rigorous scientific methods were applied!  Both Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) are greenhouse gases with naturally-produced Water Vapor being overwhelmingly the most significant contributor to the Greenhouse Effect.

Note: Carbon Dioxide LAGS  Increases in Temperature, so Temperature Increase is the Cause for Increased Atmospheric CO2, Not the Other-Way-Around as Claimed by Al Gore & the GWA!

Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is scientifically considered a TRACE Gas at 400 ppm (i.e., 0.04%) in our atmosphere with most of it (95%) caused Naturally (i.e., 0.038%, 380 ppm) – Leaving only an Extremely Trace amount (i.e., 0.002%, 20 ppm) provided by Man!   The Man-made contribution is insignificant to the proven balanced Greenhouse Effect where the most accurate Satellite and Weather Balloon measurement of Global Temperatures show normal and balanced temperatures all within the tolerance of natural variation.

If the GWA hypothesis regarding CO2 in our planet’s troposphere were correct, high-levels of increased temperatures would appear here – It is not happening folks, the GWA and UN IPCC are again ignoring actual science and scientific methods to report the politically-inspired theme of Global Warming and a coming Climate Catastrophe (unless you give them trillions of taxpayer dollars, of course!).

Net-Net: Since atmospheric CO2 is scientifically proven to NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING – Man and his use of Fossil Fuels are Cleared as a significant Cause for Climate Change; Also, the GWA Climate Models are fully-invested and based upon this failed Premise regarding Carbon Dioxide which are likewise proven false since: A hypothesis and its models that are based on a false premise and assumptions must also be considered to be invalid. However, the GWA continue to ignore the scientific facts and push their preferred political positions to advance their own political agendas.

Our Sun and its billions of past and future Solar Cycles that provide alternating warming Solar Maximums followed by cooling Solar Minimums have and continue to be the Primary Driver of Climate Changes on Earth and throughout our Solar System.

The Modern Grand Solar Maximum (1850 AD to the Present) peaked in 1998 with a 1-degree F drop in Global Temperature – A flat trend that is now predicted to be a transition into the next cooler Modern Solar Minimum — Much like the very similar warm Medieval Grand Solar Maximum did a thousand years before (900 AD – 1300 AD ) which was followed by its next extremely cold Solar Minimum dubbed “The Little Ice Age” (1300 AD – 1850).

Don’t just take my word for this, you should use the link below to view an excellent and scientifically-based Video by the actual professional Climate & Solar Scientists that analyzed many of the Ice-Core Samples and who have received NASA awards of Excellent for their work on Satellite and Global Temperature measurement as well as other related Climate Research:

CLICK ON THIS LINK to have expert and honest Climate Scientists amplify and verify the above points!

Likewise, there is no Climate Crisis at 600+ ppm as claimed by the GWA, since Carbon Dioxide is still a trace gas and has an insignificant impact on Climate.   CO2 is not a pollutant and it is good for Plants, Animals and Humans since the well-known Photosynthesis process absorbs CO2, water and light to produce the Oxygen we breath as well as absorbs the CO2 we exhale.

Likewise the GWA needs to stop demonizing the element Carbon (C) since it is essential to all life on Earth and all living things, including you and I, which are Carbon-Structures.


Carbon is the most-flexible element that recombines to form a vast number of useful compounds with almost 10-Million compounds described to date that is still a fraction of possible future compounds such as: soft pencil leads, hard diamonds, lightweight composite aircraft parts, lubricants, Nanotubes, Buckminster Fullerene “Buckeyballs”, even advanced tennis racquets (e.g., Graphene), …, etc.

In Conclusion: The allegiance to the politically-motivated ‘Anthropocentric Climate Change’ myth is preventing a massive improvement in our Economy by political constraints placed on our vast energy resources. We are now being urged by politicians and the GWA to further waste huge amounts of taxpayer money on a “Fool’s Errand” to stop “Man-Made Climate Change”, a non-existent threat and impractical task since we cannot control the Sun’s Energy, the Earth’s Tilt and Orbit which are the actual forces of only ‘Natural Climate Change’.


Byron Claghorn

Byron Claghorn is an experienced Business Analyst, Project Manager and Technical Writer. With a keen interest in science, the Global Warming and Man-Made Climate Change claims did not ‘Ring True’, so he has focused much time and effort in its research and reporting in this series of articles: “Man-Made Climate Change? – The Science on the Other Side of the Coin”. As a result of trying to ‘Connect the Dots’ in this highly politicized subject of “Climate Change”, this series will both inform as well as provide an example of how you can verify these facts, plus empower you to continue to question and ‘Connect your own Dots’ on this subject.


Deep-Sixing Another Useful Climate Myth – David Legates

By now, virtually everyone has heard that “97% of scientists agree:  Climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.” Even if you weren’t one of his 31 million followers who received this tweet from President Obama, you most assuredly have seen it repeated everywhere as scientific fact.

The correct representation is “yes,” “some,” and “no.” Yes, climate change is real. There has never been a period in Earth’s history when the climate has not changed somewhere, in one way or another. 

People can and do have some influence on our climate. For example, downtown areas are warmer than the surrounding countryside, and large-scale human development can affect air and moisture flow. But humans are by no means the only source of climate change. The Pleistocene ice ages, Little Ice Age and monster hurricanes throughout history underscore our trivial influence compared to natural forces.

As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.

It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. In much of Europe, electricity prices have risen 50% or more over the past decade, leaving many unable to afford proper wintertime heat, and causing thousands to die.


Moreover, consensus and votes have no place in science. History is littered with theories that were long denied by “consensus” science and politics: plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, a geocentric universe. They all underscore how wrong consensus can be.

Science is driven by facts, evidence and observations – not by consensus, especially when it is asserted by deceitful or tyrannical advocates. As Einstein said, “A single experiment can prove me wrong.”

During this election season, Americans are buffeted by polls suggesting which candidate might become each party’s nominee or win the general election. Obviously, only the November “poll” counts.

Similarly, several “polls” have attempted to quantify the supposed climate change consensus, often by using simplistic bait-and-switch tactics. “Do you believe in climate change?” they may ask.

Answering yes, as I would, places you in the President’s 97% consensus and, by illogical extension, implies you agree it is caused by humans and will be dangerous. Of course, that serves their political goal of gaining more control over energy use.

The 97% statistic has specific origins. Naomi Oreskes is a Harvard professor and author of Merchants of Doubt, which claims those who disagree with the supposed consensus are paid by Big Oil to obscure the truth. In 2004, she claimed to have examined the abstracts of 928 scientific papers and found a 100% consensus with the claim that the “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities.”

Of course, this is probably true, as it is unlikely that any competent scientist would say humans have no impact on climate. However, she then played the bait-and-switch game to perfection – asserting that this meant “most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

However, one dissenter is enough to discredit the entire study, and what journalist would believe any claim of 100% agreement? In addition, anecdotal evidence suggested that 97% was a better figure. So 97% it was.

Then in 2010, William Anderegg and colleagues concluded that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support … [the view that] … anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature” over a recent but unspecified time period. (Emphasis in original.)

To make this extreme assertion, Anderegg et al. compiled a database of 908 climate researchers who published frequently on climate topics, and identified those who had “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views” of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 97–98% figure is achieved by counting those who had not signed such statements.

Silence, in Anderegg’s view, meant those scientists agreed with the extreme view that most warming was due to humans. However, nothing in their papers suggests that all those researchers believed humans had caused most of the planetary warming, or that it was dangerous.

The most recent 97% claim was posited by John Cook and colleagues in 2013. They evaluated abstracts from nearly 12,000 articles published over a 21-year period and sorted them into seven categories, ranging from “explicit, quantified endorsement” to “explicit, quantified rejection” of their alleged consensus: that recent warming was caused by human activity, not by natural variability. They concluded that “97.1% endorsed the consensus position.”

However, two-thirds of all those abstracts took no position on anthropogenic climate change. Of the remaining abstracts (not the papers or scientists), Cook and colleagues asserted that 97.1% endorsed their hypothesis that humans are the sole cause of recent global warming.

Again, the bait-and-switch was on full display. Any assertion that humans play a role was interpreted as meaning humans are the sole cause. But many of those scientists subsequently said publicly that Cook and colleagues had misclassified their papers – and Cook never tried to assess whether any of the scientists who wrote the papers actually thought the observed climate changes were dangerous.

My own colleagues and I did investigate their analysis more closely. We found that only 41 abstracts of the 11,944 papers Cook and colleagues reviewed – a whopping 0.3% – actually endorsed their supposed consensus. It turns out they had decided that any paper which did not provide anexplicit, quantified rejection of their supposed consensus was in agreement with the consensus. Moreover, this decision was based solely on Cook and colleagues’ interpretation of just the abstracts, and not the articles themselves.  In other words, the entire exercise was a clever sleight-of-hand trick.

What is the real figure? We may never know. Scientists who disagree with the supposed consensus – that climate change is manmade and dangerous – find themselves under constant attack.

Harassment by Greenpeace and other environmental pressure groups, the media, federal and state government officials, and even universities toward their employees (myself included) makes it difficult for many scientists to express honest opinions. Recent reports about Senator Whitehouse and Attorney-General Lynch using RICO laws to intimidate climate “deniers” further obscure meaningful discussion. 

Numerous government employees have told me privately that they do not agree with the supposed consensus position – but cannot speak out for fear of losing their jobs. And just last week, a George Mason University survey found that nearly one-third of American Meteorological Society members were willing to admit that at least half of the climate change we have seen can be attributed to natural variability.

Climate change alarmism has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year industry – which guarantees it is far safer and more fashionable to pretend a 97% consensus exists, than to embrace honesty and have one’s global warming or renewable energy funding go dry.

The real danger is not climate change – it is energy policies imposed in the name of climate change. It’s time to consider something else Einstein said: “The important thing is not to stop questioning.”


The EPA Isn’t Handling Its Business – But Insists On Man-Handling Ours – Tea Party Nation

I have a (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) rule for federal government departments, agencies, commissions and boards: Barring a Constitutional amendment, if a bureaucracy was created after 1800 – it shouldn’t exist.

The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution – were by 1800 thoroughly implementing it. If they didn’t yet have the federal government doing something – the federal government wasn’t to be doing it.   So unless a subsequent amendment added an authority to the federal panoply – it’s been an unConstitutional addition.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 – WAY past our sell-by date. Our nation got along just fine for nearly two centuries without this particular federal usurpation. Was the Constitution first amended to give the federal government the authority to override how fifty individual states each respectively decide how to handle environmental issues? Of course not.

Did Congress pretend to be a unilateral, illegal amendment process and pass legislation creating the EPA? Not even: “Pseudo-Republican Richard Nixon created the mess in 1970 in typical DC fashion. He pretended to be (a one-man Constitutional amendment process) – and signed an executive order. The Democrat-controlled Congress then pretended to be (two-thirds of the states) – and ‘ratified’ the EPA with committee hearings.…”

So the entirety of the EPA is Constitutionally illegitimate. It is through this prism that we should examine its actions. Which are unilateral, authoritarian, bullying and amateurish. Time and again they grab more and more power and authority over our lives – all while failing miserably at the things over which they already lord.

The latest example of their awfulness? “An EPA official was caught red-handed with full knowledge of the danger of an environmental spill at Colorado’s Gold King Mine in emails discovered by the Denver Post, but the agency downplayed any knowledge of the hazard to the public. As 3 million gallons of lead, cadmium and other chemicals polluted the Animas River, the EPA pretty well tried to downplay the severity of that, too.”

An EPA screwup of MASSIVE proportions. Followed by an equally huge attempted coverup. And yet literally no one in government was fired for the fiasco. And does their fiasco stop them from abusing a business accused of a MUCH smaller error? Of course not: “On the same day when the Denver Post printed the story above, the Department of Justice announced the latest criminal sentencing in connection with the Elk River spill.

“‘A former owner of Freedom Industries was sentenced today to 30 days in federal prison, six months of supervised release, and a $20,000 fine for environmental crimes connected to the 2014 Elk River chemical spill…. (Dennis P.) Farrell is one of six former officials of Freedom Industries, in addition to Freedom Industries itself as a corporation, to be prosecuted for federal crimes associated with the chemical spill.’

“Was this private company dealt with so harshly because the Elk River spill was larger than the EPA’s Animas River discharge? No: the Elk River spill was only 7,500 gallons, compared with three million gallons the EPA discharged into the Animas River.”

Get that? Six private sector employees and the company itself prosecuted – for spilling 0.0025% of what the EPA spilled. An EPA spill which resulted in zero bureaucrats prosecuted – or even canned.

The EPA can’t handle its business – but it sure as heck wants to man-handle ours.

And, of course, the EPA continues to unilaterally, illegally and omni-directionally expand its authority. But one such additional assault? “You want to kneecap farmers? And make food exorbitantly more expensive? Turn farmers’ water into a weapon against them.

“‘The issue is the EPA’s proposed changes to the Waters of the United States regulation. In March, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed new rules that would expand the agency’s regulatory authority on streams and wetlands that feed into major rivers and lakes….

“‘(T)he rules…(would) allow the government to dictate what farmers can and cannot do with their farmland, which often includes small streams, ponds and marshes.’”

Given all we know – who do you think knows better how to treat and handle farmland? The farmers – who live and earn their living on it? Or faceless bureaucrats far removed from the land – and the consequences of their heinous actions?

If farmers screw up their land – farmers don’t eat. If bureaucrats screw up farmers’ land – farmers don’t eat. And NOTHING happens to the bureaucrats.

Farmers are just like the rest of us. The less government there is – the better things are for them. Less government domestically – like the ridiculous EPA. And less government internationally – like eliminating all government meddling in farm markets.

We the People handle with care. Government man-handles with impunity.

This first appeared in Townhall and Red State.

What Global Warming is really about – Judson Phillips

Posted by Judson Phillips

Today the left wing media is celebrating. The left has achieved one of its signature goals, namely an international treaty on “man-made” global warming.  Everyone is required to ignore the fact that global warming is a myth, totally unsupported by scientific evidence, but remember the left lives in a fact free world.  To the left, things are never as they are, only has they should be.

But there is much more to this story.  Would you like to know what the global warming scam is really all about?

First, if you had any doubts about the impartiality of journalists, you should see the video of journalists celebrating when the news of the “agreement” is announced.  Does anyone think they would celebrate like that if Ted Cruz were elected President or if America announced we had wiped out ISIS?

Buried in the agreement is a little provision that requires the developed nations, and that means primarily the United States, to pay developing nations $100 billion annually as damages for global warming.

This is only the start.

The goal of the left is to bankrupt the West and cripple the western economies.  A modern economy only works if there are sources of cheap, constant power.  Without power, the modern economy collapses.

Part of the agreement is to reduce so called “greenhouse gases.” Allegedly the version of the agreement signed does not call for sanctions for nations that do not reduce their emissions. But that is coming.

This is all a scam to transfer wealth from western nations that have free markets to corrupt third world nations. These nations are in poverty, not because of “Western imperialism.” They are poor because they have corrupt leaders who will not allow a free market.

Since the late 1940’s America has wasted billions, if not trillions on foreign aid to these third world nations. Foreign aid has not helped the nations but it has helped the bank accounts of the corrupt dictators that run these countries.  Does anyone really believe these “payments” are going to help the people of those nations?

This new treaty, and that is exactly what it is, will squander billions of dollars. If European leaders want to do that, it is their money. But Americans should not give a dime to this idiocy.

We can only hope that on January 20, 2017, one of the first acts of President Ted Cruz is repudiate the Paris accord.

Prominent Liberal Physicist: GOP on the “Right Side” of Global Warming Debate – The Last Resistance

Freeman Dyson is a 91-year-old physicist who says he likes Obama and is “100% Democrat.” But where he parts ways with the President and the rest of the Democratic party is the subject of global warming. Or climate change. Or whatever it’s called this week.

He said he’s disappointed that not only the Democratic party, but also a whole generation of scientists, deny obvious scientific facts that stare them in the face.

Fox News reported:

It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I’m 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”

Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994. Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career.


Climate change, according to Freeman, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”

20120717humorchokeThe physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.”

During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago. I can’t say if they’ll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.”

Dyson also wrote a strong foreword to a report published Monday by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide. “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,” he wrote.

endthelie Liberal cheerleaders will likely chime in and claim that he’s an old crank who’s not even a climatologist. He’s just a theoretical physicist and mathematician. And besides, he’s retired. What does he know?

In order to be a “legitimate” manmade global warming denier in the eyes of liberals, you have to be an actual climatologist. That has to be your field of expertise, and you have to have been in that field for no less than 20 years. And not only that, but you have to have had many of your papers published in “reputable” scientific journals. Of course, even if you were to meet all those criteria, liberals would claim that if you still deny manmade global warming theory, then you don’t deserve any of your credentials, and therefore, you’re not a legitimate scientist.

The more profitable and easy route to take is to be a believer in manmade global warming. That belief in and of itself becomes a person’s credentials, adequate enough to appear legitimate in the eyes of liberals. This is why someone like Bill Nye is looked on as an authority on the subject, even though his background is little more than a kids’ TV show personality

A prominent physicist does not agree with liberals on the global warming issue.

Source: Prominent Liberal Physicist: GOP on the “Right Side” of Global Warming Debate – The Last Resistance

Limiting the Federal Government by Restoring Freedom and Power to the States – Eagle Rising

Limiting the Federal Government by Restoring Freedom and Power to the States – Eagle Rising.

By / 17 August 2015

“Hi!  I’m from the government, and I’m here to help!”  —Ronald Reagan, citing what he thought were the Ten Most Dangerous Words in the English Language


A Big-Government Scandal

It looks like an Environment Protection Agency bureaucrat, to make the EPA more important in the minds of Americans, recently created an ecological catastrophe in New Mexico.  A New Mexico resident with 47 years of relevant experience warned the EPA what would happen if they did not change what they were doing, but the decision was made to do it anyway.  So the EPA’s shenanigans were on purpose!

Had there been no EPA, and local authorities had had oversight, this disaster would never have occurred.  It is far-away central planners—disconnected from local communities—who so often choose to be negligent, since they are free from any local accountability.  (Read about the latest EPA scandal here.)


Creating a Monster

The US government was created by the sovereign states, not the other way around.  Therefore, the federal government is there to do the bidding of the states, and of the people, rather than dictating to them.  There were three co-equal branches upon the nation’s founding, but there are, today, so many executive-branch departments—all of them massive in size and in the scope of their powers—that an imperial executive has been allowed to evolve.  America has, indeed, created a Leviathan.


The Road to Hell . . .


purpose of constitutionThe original intent of creating an executive department is to help our chief executive—the president—to enforce the laws passed by Congress.  But each department has ended up hiring its own army of bureaucrats to “help.”  And the result has been that each one has created rules that carry the force of law.  And none of these rules has ever been given the consent of the governed.  Many rules have even been scandalously written by lobbyists from the very organizations the departments were created to regulate.  Hundreds of thousands of rules—known collectively as “administrative law”—have been instituted, regardless of the fact that there is no provision in the Constitution that lends legitimacy to most of these.  So, good intentions are never enough; the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions.  

Cutting the Executive Down to Size

The best alternative to reform the problem of tempting a potentially scofflaw executive—who might make end-runs around the Congress simply by having department heads make new rules—is to rid the government of its tyrannical departments.  Rather than having so many executive departments, the enforcement mechanism for these laws should be the sovereign states themselves.  If a state is not complying with a legitimate federal law—one falling within the scope of the Enumerated Powers Clause (see here) the Department of Justice could always sue the state to force compliance.


Washington’s Original Concept of a Cabinet of Advisors

When George Washington took office, he created four governmental departments: the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of War (now the Department of Defense).  Any other departments should be eliminated.  Some of them have functions that could be taken over by the four departments that remain.  Others should have their functions subsumed by the states.  The states should run all departments and programs not authorized in the Enumerated Powers Clause.


Nullification of Un-Constitutional Laws


Jefferson and nullificationThe other thing that the sovereign states should do is to refuse to follow any federal law or mandate not within the federal government’s constitutional power to create.  (And, it goes without saying, unconstitutional executive orders, executive memos, and other such executive creations should be treated the same way.)  A federal law creating a welfare program should be nullified by the states, since such programs find no support in the Constitution.  (The General Welfare Clause is a reference to public goods that are created for the protection or use of all the people equally, such as the US military or a public road.)  Of course, a state could create welfare programs on its own, if it chose to do so.  

Nullification of Un-Constitutional Court Rulings

The Supreme Court has made rulings that are unconstitutional.  It is not the Court’s job to rewrite the Constitution.  The power of judicial review does not render the Supreme Court capable of writing law, on its own, independent of the means that are constitutionally mandated for amending the Constitution or passing laws in the Congress.  The Court’s only legitimate role is to rule on the laws as written.

States should ignore—and, therefore, nullify—decisions that are clearly not within the bounds of the Constitution.  If states were to do this, the jurists on the Court would take great pains, in their opinions, to reference what parts of the Constitution authorize them to rule the way they do.  This would mean the Court never could have ruled the way it did in Kelo v. City of New London.  (Read about Kelo here.)


Falling in Love with the Constitution Again

In addition to implementing a policy reducing the executive branch and nullifying unconstitutional decisions by the Supreme Court—or any federal court, for that matter—the states should make sure that they themselves are not infringing the rights of Americans under the Constitution.  Of course, the federal check on this kind of behavior would be a suit brought against a state by the Department of Justice.

Americans have lived under the Incorporation Doctrine for so long that it has become, without much ado, standard practice for each state to apply the federal Constitution locally.  (Before the Incorporation Doctrine, the federal Constitution used to be applied only to areas of federal jurisdiction.)  There needs to be a level playing field, to ensure that everyone is applying the rules fairly.  And for this to happen, the people and their elected officials—if they have not done so already—need to take care to fall in love with the Constitution once again.

Health Tip: The Next Time Government Gives You Dietary Advice, Do the Opposite

Health Tip: The Next Time Government Gives You Dietary Advice, Do the Opposite.

By David Harsanyi
Friday, August 14 2015
We already know that government recommendations regarding health are often driven by a bunch of Chicken Littles.

In “Sleeper,” Woody Allen plays Miles Monroe, a cryogenically frozen owner of a Greenwich Village health food store who, when defrosted in the year 2173, finds himself in an authoritarian state filled with giant vegetables, android butlers and Diane Keaton. When an unnerved Miles is first unfrozen, Space Age doctors try to calm him down:

Doctor: “He’s ranting. We’d better tranquilize him.”

Miles: “I knew it was too good to be true. I parked right near the hospital.”

Doctor: “Now here, you smoke this, and be sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs.”

Miles: “I don’t smoke.”

Doctor: “It’s tobacco. It’s one of the healthiest things for your body. Now go ahead. You need all the strength you can get.”

Pointing out the always-changing guidelines of salubrious living is a long-running joke in America. It’s worth remembering, though, that any self-corrections we make — and we make them all the time in real life using common sense — are far more difficult when government puts its imprimatur on pseudoscience, which it also does all the time.

In the Dietary Guidelines for Americans — the federal government’s advice manual for citizens — we are warned that “not eating breakfast has been associated with excess body weight.” But when researchers from Columbia University decided to test this notion, they found nothing of the sort: “In overweight individuals, skipping breakfast daily for 4 weeks leads to a reduction in body weight,” the study’s authors note. Other researchers did the same and came to similar conclusions. How many parents and overweight Americans took this advice as gospel when they could have been losing weight by skipping buttermilk pancake breakfasts?

We already know that government recommendations regarding health are often driven by a bunch of Chicken Littles. The leading organ of American scaremongering, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has gotten so much wrong over the years. There was the outrageous contention that 400,000 Americans were dropping dead from obesity every year. (They weren’t.) And then there were all the over-the-top warnings about the alleged risks of secondhand smoke. (They don’t really exist.)

Earlier this year, the bureaucrats behind the government’s dietary guidelines finally admitted there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol. After years of warning Americans that high-cholesterol foods would kill them — eggs, shrimp and so on — the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee will no longer list cholesterol among its “nutrients of concern” for overconsumption. Now some scientists argue that the state’s obsession with scaring citizens about fat may actually have made our health worse.

The popularity of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils — which government absurdly banned earlier this year — was driven in large part by government scaremongering about the evils of cooking with lard. But when contemporary researchers looked at the 1970s-era data underlying the dietary fat guidelines, they came to the conclusion that the data did not support the idea that eating less fat would translate to fewer cases of heart disease or that it would save lives. And studies show it hasn’t.

Nina Teicholz, author of “The Big Fat Surprise,” wrote this in The New York Times earlier this year:

“How did experts get it so wrong? Certainly, the food industry has muddied the waters through its lobbying. But the primary problem is that nutrition policy has long relied on a very weak kind of science: epidemiological, or ‘observational,’ studies in which researchers follow large groups of people over many years. But even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.”

For instance, the government has been telling us we’ve been eating too much salt for years. The Food and Drug Administration claimed that lowering salt intake would save tens of thousands of us every year. Overbearing nanny-state groups lobbied the government to regulate salt as they now do trans fats, and Americans turned to low-sodium diets in huge numbers.

One of America’s leading advocates of spurious science, New York’s Michael Bloomberg, persuaded more than 20 companies to drop salt levels voluntarily. Yet according to studies published in recent years, our salt intake wasn’t dangerous at all. Even the CDC has been forced to admit that it was wrong. And the low levels of salt recommended by the government not only were unnecessary but also have been dangerous for our health.

“There is no longer any valid basis for the current salt guidelines,” said Andrew Mente, one of the authors of a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “So why are we still scaring people about salt?”

Well, because that’s what government does best.


David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.” Copyright © 2015

The Green Con Job — Billionaires Build Empires on Alarmism – Tea Party Nation

The Green Con Job — Billionaires Build Empires on Alarmism – Tea Party Nation.


A cottage industry of green cronyism has been created due to government subsidies and tax incentives that is making billionaires like Nat Simons, Tom Steyer and Elon Musk even richer while it bankrupts the rest of us.  Paul Driessen and Tom Tamarkin takes us down this crony road of phony alarmism and hyped-up climate disasters:

Elon Musk and his fellow barons of Climate Crisis, Inc. recently got a huge boost from Pope Francis. Musk et al. say fossil fuels are causing unprecedented warming and weather disasters. The Pope agrees and says Catholics must “ask God for a positive outcome” to negotiations over another UN climate treaty.

It matters not that the predicted calamities are not happening. There has been no warming in 19 years, no category 3-5 hurricanes making US landfall for a record 9-1/2 years, indeed none of the over-hyped climate disasters occurring in the real world outside the alarmists’ windows. In fact, poor nations support the treaty mostly because it promises some $100 billion per year in adaptation, mitigation and compensation money from FRCs: Formerly Rich Countries that have shackled their own job creation, economic growth and living standards in the name of stabilizing Earth’s perpetually fluctuating climate.

Any money that is transferred will end up in the pockets of governing elites. Poor families will get little or no cash – and will be told their dreams of better lives must be limited to jobs and living standards that can be supported by solar panels on their huts and a few wind turbines near their villages.

Simply put, the Musk-Obama-Pope-Climate Crisis schemes will save humanity from exaggerated and fabricated climate disasters decades from now – by impoverishing billions and killing millions tomorrow.

For the catechism of climate cataclysm coalition, the essential thing is that we believe the hysterical assertions and computer models – and support endless renewable energy mandates and subsidies.

Musk and his Tesla and SolarCity companies have already pocketed $4.9 billion in taxpayer-financed subsidies, and even long-elusive profitability has not ended the handouts. Now he claims a small “blue square” on a map represents the “very little” land required to “get rid of all fossil fuel electricity generation” in the USA and prevent a non-existent climate cataclysm. We just need rooftop solar panels linked to wall-mounted battery packs – a mere 160 million Tesla Powerwalls – to eliminate the need for all coal and natural gas electricity generation in the United States, he insists.

Hogwash (from pork barrel political pig farms). As this careful and extensive analysisdemonstrates, even without considering the monumental electricity demand required to convert America’s vehicles to electric-battery versions, providing today’s baseload and peak demand electricity would require 29.3 billion one-square-meter solar panels. Assuming adequate yearlong daily sunlight, that’s 29,333 square kilometers of active solar panel surface area: 7.2 million acres – or nearly all of Maryland and Delaware!

The analysis is technical, beyond the ability of most voters, journalists, politicians and regulators to comprehend fully. Read it anyway, if only to understand the enormity of financing, raw materials, mining, manufacturing and electricity required to make and ship the panels (some 40 million per year), battery packs and inverters (to convert low-voltage solar electricity to 120 or 240 Volt alternating current).

We are clearly dealing with an unprecedented green mirage and con job. It will drive average retail electricity prices from the 8-9 cents per kilowatt-hour in coal and gas-reliant states, to the 15-17 cents per kWh in California, Connecticut and New York – or even the 36-40 cents in Germany and Denmark, where unsubsidized rates are 70-80 cents per kWh! The impact of such prices on people’s jobs, living standards, health and welfare would be devastating. But Musk and his “clean” energy friends ignore this.

Musk has a BS in physics – and obviously holds advanced BS degrees in lobbying and con-artistry about climate disasters and renewable energy solutions, mandated by government decrees and financed by endless billions in subsidies. He has made numerous personal visits to legislative offices in Sacramento and Washington, to promote more such schemes, and aligns his efforts with those of Eric Schmidt, Nat Simons, Tom Steyer, Al Gore and members of the Clean Tech Syndicate: eleven secretive families with total wealth of over $60 billion, who want to get even richer off taxpayers and consumers.

They assume (demand) that bogus climate cataclysms will continue to bring them billions in climate cash payouts from Washington and state capitals, along with more exemptions from endangered species and environmental cleanup laws and regulations that are applied with a vengeance to fossil fuel projects.

Google scientists finally admitted that existing and near-term renewable energy technologies simply do not work as advertised and cannot meet their political or climate promises. The technologies are all hat, no cattle. However, the Climate Crisis and Clean Tech industries are determined to push ahead – using our money, risking little of their own, and getting reimbursed by us when their investments turn sour.

Google and NRG now want a $539-million federal grant to bail them out of $1.6 billion in taxpayer loans for the bird-roasting Ivanpah concentrated solar power project in California, because it does not work and needs so much natural gas to keep its water hot that it doesn’t meet state renewable energy standards. Other Obama “greenbacks” energy “investments” have also drowned in red ink, leaving taxpayers to pay the tab: Solyndra, Abound Solar, Solar Trust, Ener1, Beacon Power, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Musk is nevertheless lobbying for SB-350, which would require that 50% of California’s electricity be produced via “renewable” sources, such as wind, solar, biofuels and politicians’ hot air. Meanwhile, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt’s family and corporate foundations give millions to alarmist climate scientists, the ultra-green Energy Foundation, and rabid anti-fracking groups like the World Wildlife Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC also gets millions from EPA, to promote the agency’s anti-fossil fuel agenda and place 33 of its employees on 21 EPA “advisory” committees.

Schmidt and Warren Buffett also support the secretive far-left Tides Foundation, which has given millions to groups opposed to coal and hydraulic fracturing, the Keystone XL and Sandpiper pipeline projects, and countless other job-creating hydrocarbon programs. Canadian researcher Cory Morningstar accurately describes Tides as a “magical, money-funneling machine of epic proportions.”

Billionaire Nat Simons and his Sea Change Foundation spend tens of millions annually promoting and lobbying for “renewable” energy policies, mandates and subsidies; investing in wind, solar and biofuel companies; supporting environmentalist pressure groups; and contributing to Democrat politicians who perpetuate the crony corporatist arrangements. Simons, his wife and various Vladimir Putin cronies (via Klein, Ltd. and the shadowy Bermuda Wakefield Quin law firm) are the only contributors to Sea Change.

We often rail against Third World corruption. Our American (and European) environmental corruption is simply more subtle and sophisticated. It is legalized deception and theft – a massive wealth transfer from poor and middle class consumers and taxpayers to billionaires who are raking in still more billions, thanks to brilliantly crafted alarmist campaigns. And let’s not forget Al Gore, Mike Mann, Tom Steyer, James Hansen and all the others who likewise profit immensely from these arrangements – and the constant vilification of scientists who question climate catastrophe mantras.

Pressure groups and governing elites used to argue that we are running out of oil and natural gas. That ploy no longer works. While fossil fuels may eventually prove finite, fracking has given us vast new supplies of petroleum – and huge coal, oil and gas deposits have been placed off limits by government decree. We have at least a century to develop alternative energy sources that actually work – that create real jobs, actual revenues, lower energy prices and true prosperity – without the mandates, subsidies, deception, fraud and corruption that are the hallmark of “green” energy schemes.

No wonder the “clean tech” crowd is financing anti-hydrocarbon and climate chaos campaigns. But despite the Pope’s belated rescue attempt, the pseudo-science of “dangerous manmade global warming” is slowly succumbing to climate reality. And any new UN climate treaty will founder once poor nations realize the promised hundreds of billions a year will not materialize.

Those still impoverished nations should not do what rich countries are doing now that they are rich. They should do what rich countries did to become rich.

America’s Growing Multicultural Quagmire – Tea Party Nation

America’s Growing Multicultural Quagmire – Tea Party Nation.

By Frosty Wooldridge

Last week sickened our nation with the shooting deaths of nine innocent worshipers in a Bible study class. White against Black! At the Boston Marathon two years ago, Muslims bombed Americans! We read in local newspapers of multiple killings in the past week of Blacks killing Blacks in Chicago, New York, Atlanta and many other cities. In Chicago last July 4th, no less than 50 gun fights of Blacks shooting Blacks.

Just announced last week: 121 illegal aliens released by Obama through his amnesty committed murders of Americans as reported by the Washington Times, “A total of 121 illegal immigrations whom Obama released back into the community went on to be charged with subsequent killings, according to government data released Monday that raises more questions about whether immigration authorities are doing enough to detail illegal immigrants awaiting deportation.”

In the past three months, Obama quietly oversaw the importation of thousands of Syrian Muslims from that wore-torn country that will number in excess of 75,000 when the refugee resettlement program finishes. None of them vetted as to terrorism! Ironically, federal authorities brag about the terrorist threats they neutralized with Muslims already inside our country. Because of Muslims in America, Pam Geller and Hersi Ali must be guarded 24/7 from death threats. Minnesota Somalia Muslims fly out of our country to fight with ISIS.

Does anyone connect the dots as to our country’s multicultural quagmire? When you import religions that foment terror, you witness terror in your own country. You witnessed Paris, France; you watched Sydney, Australia; you noticed the beheadings in London, England. You saw the killings in Ottawa, Canada, all by Muslims. This week, Muslims killed and/or beheaded dozens in Tunisia and Europe.

Exactly what do the 535 Congressional critters not understand about mass immigration from worn-torn poverty-stricken cultures dominated by violence? Am I missing something? If you inject 100,000 Somalian immigrants from Somalia into Minnesota, you see drug gangs, honor killings, female genital mutilation, Sharia Law and female subjugation.

When you release 121 Mexican illegal alien criminals back into our communities, you witness 121 killings of someone in American families. It’s not enough that illegal aliens overrun our borders with no chance of being stopped because Obama refuses to enforce our immigration laws—but to watch the wholesale killing of our citizens at the hands of 121 criminal aliens that Obama released completely makes no sense.

The Times continued, “Critics who have been pushing for stiffer immigration enforcement said the violence rate for released immigrants is much higher and that the 121 charged are only those who got caught.”

Don Rosenberg, the father of a son killed in a traffic accident by a drunken illegal alien with no license said, “Obama refuses to deport people. Those people can and should be deported. I guess until somebody who has the responsibility to make these decisions has one of their loved ones killed, it’s going to continue.”

It’s time to enforce our laws on our books. It’s time for a total immigration shutdown now. It’s time, way past time, that Congress stands up for Americans and our laws. It’s time for a national referendum to quit bringing endless third world refugees into America. They all thrive on welfare and we all live poorer and deadlier lives because of it.

But this scenario hasn’t changed in the past 30 years because American citizens refuse to take a stand. They continue electing representatives to Congress who refuse to enforce our employment, transport and landlord laws that specifically administer severe fines for anyone who employs, transports and houses illegal aliens.

As Ann Coulter stated in her book, we see our country deforming into a third world hellhole. It will get worse and then, it will worsen more and more until we no longer enjoy a country ruled by order and civility—but instead, multicultural chaos. Just watch as the Muslim numbers grow. America will resemble Lebanon. Actually, it already does in Ferguson, MO; Baltimore, MD and Charleston, South Carolina.

Definition of slogan: “Immigration Shutdown Now means the American people want all legal immigration dropped to less than 20,000 annually with compatible immigrants that fit our ethos and want to become Americans, and only those who benefit our country and/or they marry an American and speak English. That means we want all illegal immigration stopped by arresting, prosecuting and jailing employers of illegal aliens. We deport all illegal aliens by taking their jobs away and as we catch them. We want English mandated as our national language. We demand a cessation of Muslim immigration in order to protect our culture, language and way of life. We can’t save the world but we can save destroy our civilization. We demand a stable population that allows everyone to live, work and thrive into the 21st century. Especially our children.” FHW

That’s why you need to take action. Send this series to everyone in your network. Educate them. Urge them to take action by joining these websites to become faxers of prewritten letters and phone callers. We must force Congress into an “Immigration Shutdown Now.”

Share these videos all over America:

In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation. Take five minutes to see for yourself:

“Immigration by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck
This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a few words, “Mind boggling!”