Daniel Greenfield: Day 1 » Politichicks.com

By Daniel Greenfield January 24, 2017
 

Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 8.00.07 AMIn the first days of 2017, Washington D.C. was empty. It was a city holding its breath. Secret Service police officers in balaclavas waited at the White House as a black SUV carrying departing staffers passed. It had not been so long ago that they came into the city as if they owned it and the entire country. Now the same men and women who ran and ruined the lives of millions were scrolling through job postings on their smartphones. They watched Obama speak from faded screens at sports bars and they cried.

They knew it was coming. Day 1.

The parties and the protests are underway. Hundreds of thousands of Americans and anti-Americans have converged on the city: Tea Party housewives from Milwaukee suburbs and snarling Marxists from the ANSWER coalition, small businessmen from Houston and Berkeley J20ers outshouting the schizophrenic homeless panhandlers at Union Station.

While Trump and Pence are at St. John’s Episcopal Church, Black Lives Matter will be howling abuse at D.C.’s black police officers at Metropolitan Police Headquarters. As Trump takes his oath of office, the Future is Feminist Counterinaugural Action will try to disrupt the event with their “bodies.” As Trump speaks to unify America, leftist protesters plan to smoke pot on the National Mall.

They can’t stop what’s coming. And they know it. The crying Obama staffers loading boxes into their cars and the Marxists biting their lips as they color in their signs on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial feel it. The pundits of the Post, the non-profit parasites and the entire cocktail party circuit can sense it.

Day 1 is more than just a day. It’s the end of an era. It’s the end of Obama.

Berlin, November, 1989. Moscow, August, 1991. Washington D.C., January, 2017. That’s the closest you can come to describing it. It’s the fall of an evil empire. There are breaths of fresh air as the cleansing rain washes away eight years of oppression, lies and corruption into the sewers of the city.

Day 1.8-years

Trump has executive orders ready to go. While the ceremonies run their course, real change is already underway. The parade that matters is the slow march of Obama’s minions leaving and Trump’s people coming in. The transition began as a trickle, a few here and there, but is swiftly becoming a takeover.

The “landing team members” have moved in. And Obama’s people are moving out to be replaced by “beachhead teams”. What started with dozens and then hundreds will become thousands. These clashing armies wear uniforms of black suits and skirts. They wield smartphones and task lists. And they run the country.

That’s what the “peaceful transition of power” touted by Obama really means. A force of men and women the size of a small army will depart and another will arrive and take their place. They will do it without a shot being fired. The transition will not be entirely peaceful. The mobs of protesters will see to that. And the boycott of the inauguration by House Democrats is a rejection of that transition of power.

The roadblocks, barricades and fences are there to block the radical left’s plots to physically shut down the inauguration. Meanwhile their political allies in Congress are building roadblocks and barricades to jam up Trump’s nominees in endless committee sessions and hearings.

They can’t stop Day 1. But they are doing everything that they possibly can to slow it down.

Their battle plan is to confirm as few of Trump’s people as possible. The longer it takes to get new leaders into place, the longer it will take those leaders to bring in new people to make reforms. The endless hearings aren’t just political theater. They are an organized effort by the left to retain control of the government for as long as possible while tangling Trump’s agenda in red tape right from the start.

The protesters and the politicians have the same agenda. They want to stop reform from Day 1.

Walk past the White House, a modest building, serene and gracious with all the attention of the world on it, over to the monstrosity that Mark Twain once dubbed “the ugliest building in America.”

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building, that pile of Second Empire mansard roofs and porticoes, which looks as if Napoleon III had set up shop in the heart of our national government, is where the patriots struggling to overthrow another progressive unconstitutional emperor will mobilize.

Forget the balls. The truly fancy footwork will happen as Trump’s beachhead teams try to take over parts of the government. And the real protests won’t be the freak shows with giant signs, mock heads, pink costumes and joints. It will be a grim battle fought in the undercity of the bureaucracy.

And it will be an unrelenting battle that will go on for years.shrimp

While Trump takes his oath of office, moving trucks will be transporting the Obama occupation out of the White House. The first of the moving vans has already come and gone. And when all the moving trucks have transported away the last of the occupation, a new wind will blow through the White House.

Despite the roadblocks and the sabotage, Day 1 is coming.

Team Trump is ahead of schedule and under budget. A fifth of the funds are even being returned. When all the t-shirts are sold and the flyers are carried away in trash bags, there will be a new government.

And for the first time in eight years, it will be an American government.

That is what Day 1 really means. Not an era, but an error has ended. Day 1 means the restoration of freedom and the end of tyranny. It means security at home and respect abroad. It means change.

There were those who celebrated and those who mourned the fall of the USSR. So too there are those who celebrate and those who mourn the end of Obama. The tears of leftist hipsters crying over Obama are no different than those of the old women holding up Stalin’s portrait on May Day in the Red Square.

As the day ends with the Liberty and Freedom Ball, millions will celebrate because these words have meaning once again. They will celebrate because they have been liberated and now they are free.

Day 1 means many things to many people. Most of all it means that millions have reason to hope.

After midnight, in the last days of the last year, I stood at the Lincoln Memorial. Though millions visit it, the vast space was empty. The first Republican president watched over Washington D.C. in silence.

Or almost empty.

A large rat scurried down the steps and vanished into the shadows. Mr. Lincoln watched it go. As he now watches Obama depart.

(This article was originally published here at Front Page Magazine.)

Follow Daniel Greenfield’s blog Sultan Knish.B7ziW2nCMAELJox

The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong ⋆ The Constitution

The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong, Again!

By Adrian Vance

The Weather Channel, founded by John Campbell, but now under new owners, attacked a Breitbart News piece on climate change “…of cherry-picking facts to mislead the public about climate change.” They were responding to a Breitbart article declaring global land temperatures made their “steepest fall on record last year” and were met with “…an eerie silence by scientists.”

This is not surprising to anyone who follows “man-caused global warming.” It has been the greatest cash-cow, full employment program for Ph.D.s in Physics, Chemistry, Political Science, International Relations and lastly Meteorology, the only field that should be affected as the data is clear, but academic leeches are stuck hard and fast on the carcass of “anthropogenic global warming” and they will not relent until they have bled it white.

Every physical scientist knows it is a false issue only justified by, “…more money for science…” and they are not kidding. It has netted  $1 trillion and that does not include many millions for new textbooks in areas that will have to be replaced when the fraud is exposed.  The publishers know:  They all have physical scientist consultants who have told them the truth if they wanted to hear it.  According to Breitbart, “The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare” and we second that with a demo-experiment you can do in your home for less than $10 and we could teach this at a high school. You can do it at home. See: http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-is-innocent.html

endthelieIn response to Breitbart, The Weather Channel said climate change was real and Breitbart was lying which is interesting as they fired Dr. Heidi Cullen when she was caught in a “global warmng” lie saying, “Methane is a greenhouse gas 500 times more potent than CO2,” when it does not absorb IR much more than nitrogen which is classified as “transparent” to infrared radiation, IR, heat energy and there are actually no “greenhouse gases.”

”Science doesn’t care about your opinion,” Weather Channel Meteorologist Kait Parker said of Breitbart” adding,  “It will not change the future nor the fact that the Earth is warming.”  The Weather Channel then launched a scathing attack on Breitbart, accusing them of  “…cherry-picking facts to mislead the public about climate change,” when this is clearly what NASA, NOAA and now the Weather Channel have been caught doing.

The Brietbart piece was entitled “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists.”  It noted global land temperatures had dropped one Celsius degree in the last year but the news “…had been ignored by the alarmist community.”

This is a monumental change given the size and mass of gases in the atmosphere as it represents a huge change in the energy we receive from the sun.  It should not be surprising as the sun has been quiet for the last decade showing few sunspots.  They are like bubbles in boiling water showing more energy is entering the pot that normal evaporation can abibe so bubbles form explosively.  Black sunspots are solar bubbles.

Evidence of solar cooling includes earlier fall migrations of ducks and geese from Canada.  In northern California where ten years ago they were not seen until late October and early November some are flying over in late August with the greatest number now coming south in September.

While the Weather Channel does not typically offer opinion beyond weather and climate science, “…in this case we felt it important to add our two cents,” wrote they in a post on its’ website Tuesday.

Meteorologist Kait Parker denied the Breitbart, and other climate change skeptics, claims global temperatures are decreasing, and proceeded to pick apart the article piece by piece.

Addressing the claim global land temperatures had their “biggest and steepest fall on record,” the meteorologist pointed out, “this trend was based on just one satellite estimate,” when the Earth is 71% covered water is misleading.

The weather experts also disputed Breitbart’s claim that any recent warming was simply the result of El Niño which is now thought to be driven by very deep water volcanoes in the Indian Ocean, the deepest of all Earth’s seas.

El Niño clearly added to the strength of the record global warmth observed since late 2015,’ Parker said. “However, if the El Niño spike is removed, 2016 is still the warmest year on record and 2015 the second warmest.”  This statement is in error as the warmest year on record was 1934.

The Weather Channel said thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that “greenhouse gases” produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and “will keep doing so,” when there are no “greenhouse gases” as they would have to form a solid, transparent, glass-like shield to make Earth a “greenhouse” and no gas can form a solid, transparent or opaque.icyalgore

Climate change “experts” for the channel, Bob Henson and Jeff Masters, warn that “artificial debates” over climate change were “a distraction from the important discussions which should be taking place.”  What could be more important then whether or not the issue is false?  Nonetheless they contend:

“Scientific debate in this area is real and perfectly legitimate. Likewise, how we respond to climate change is a matter of public policy, one that demands healthy debate and engagement from citizens and political leaders.”  “Engagement from?”  Is this an error in grammar or an outing of intention?

“It’s something else entirely to foster suspicion about the very bedrock of climate change science, which is based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies and accepted by every major scientific organization on Earth.”  Those “peer reviewed” journals are all garage and basement printed, low circulation pamphlets with “peers” who are associates often on the same faculties as the authors who take turns being “peer reviewers.”

“Human-produced greenhouse gases are causing the Earth system to warm, and this trend will continue, along with shorter-term ups and downs. There are too many important debates and decisions ahead of us to waste time on artificial ones.”  Again the error expands as the primary “greenhouse gas,” CO2 actually causes a decline in atmospheric temperature as you can see in the demo-experiment at: http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-is-innocent.html

The Weather Channel ended its piece, by offering to help Breitbart next time they needed to fact check an article noting, “I’m sure we both agree this topic is too important to get wrong. A third of the world’s polar bears ‘will disappear in the next 40 years because of melting sea ice.”

We note that a recent Polar Bear census has noted there are more then ever, but this may be due to better counting than we have had in the past noting natural history, mistakenly called “science,” is open to question and notorious for rubber “facts.”

Source: The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong ⋆ The Constitution

global_warming_hoax

An Open Letter to Liberal Hollywood Celebrities! ⋆ The Constitution

By Jerry Johnson   http://constitution.com  

An open letter to Hollywood celebrities was floating around social media just after the Presidential election.  I have no idea who the author is, but I liked the points they were making.

During this last election cycle, Hillary called out her liberal Hollywood elite friends en masse to help her campaign.  She had to because that woman is so boring!

What I can’t wrap my head around is why Hollywood celebrities are stupid enough to comment on politics?

I know people who won’t see a Matt Damion movie because Matthew continues to insult them with his leftist dribble.

Think of all the celebrities who called Trump and his supporters racist, sexist, and xenophobes!  I’m sure they will remember those moments fondly.  Think of that the next time your movie bombs or no one buys one of your songs. Doesn’t anyone remember the Dixie Chicks?

This letter was written with people in mind like Elizabeth Banks, Jon Bon Jovi, Meryl Streep, Demi Lovato, Sarah Silverman, America Ferrera, Amy Schumer, George Clooney, Robert De Niro, and Katy Perry (I didn’t include Rosie O’Donnell cause not even the left cares what she thinks.)

It is my hope that the folks mentioned above will get it.  But I doubt they will.

I’ve taken the letter and reworked it to my style. So here we go.

Dear Hollywood celebrities,

It’s time to wake up now.  Get this!  The only reason you exist is for my entertainment.  Some of you are beautiful. Some of you can deliver a line with such conviction that you bring tears to my eyes. Some of you are so convincing that you scare the crap out of me. And others are so funny you can make me laugh uncontrollably.

But you all have one thing in common.  You only exist and have a place in my world to entertain me. That’s it. Nothing else!

You make your living pretending to be someone else. You play dress-up like a 5-year-old.

Your world is a make believe world.  It is not real.  It doesn’t exist.  You live for the camera while the rest of us live in the real world.

Your entire existence depends on my patronage.  I crank the organ grinder, and you dance.

Therefore, I don’t care where you stand on issues. Honestly, your opinion means nothing to me.  Just because you had a lead role in a movie about prostitution doesn’t mean you know what it’s like to be a prostitute.  Your view matters far less to me than that of a someone living in Timbuktu.

Believe me or not, the hard truth is that you aren’t real. I turn off my TV or shut down my computer, and you cease to exist. Once I am done with you, I go back to the real world until I want you to entertain me again.

I don’t care that you think BP executives deserve the death penalty. I don’t care what you think about the environment.  I don’t care if you believe fracking is bad.  I don’t care if you call for more gun control.  I don’t care if you believe in catastrophic human-induced global warming. And I could care less that you supported Hillary for President.

Get back into your bubble. I’ll let you know when I’m in the mood for something pretty or scary or funny.

And one other thing.  What was with all this “I’ll leave the country if Donald Trump wins”?  Don’t you know how stupid that made you sound?

What did you think my reaction was going to be?  I better not vote for Trump or we’ll lose Whoopi Goldberg?  Al Sharpton?  Amy Schumer?  Leave.  I don’t care! And don’t let the door hit you in the a** on your way out.

Make me laugh.  Make me cry. Even scare me. But realize this, the only words of yours that matter is scripted — just like your pathetic little lives.

I may agree with some of you from time to time, but in the final analysis, it doesn’t matter. In my world, you exist solely for my entertainment.

So, shut your pie hole and dance, monkey, DANCE!

Killing the Truth in Academia

General Robert E Lee
rlee@suthenboy.com
 
Preamble: The purpose of this blog is to discuss the principal curricula being taught in academia today as well as its impact on students and consequences to America. 
I was appalled by the disgusting reaction to Trump’s victory throughout academia, particularly by college students and instructors. Their behavior was reprehensible, embarrassing to America, and sadly, expected in today’s once hallowed bastions of higher learning. Something is drastically wrong in academia when instructors and students require coloring books, animals to hug, safe spaces to mourn, crying rooms, psychological help, relief from exams, and time off to assuage their despair, despondency, and anger. Far worse however, is their blatant rejection and defiance of America’s traditional election process because it did not provide the result they sought.
 
In my opinion the root cause of this abhorrent behavior is the culture of academia into which students are being indoctrinated by far left wing instructors propagating Marxism subtly disguised as progressivism. Sound ridiculous, please read on before commenting on my sanity. I also encourage you to read my 8/26/15 blog ‘Academic Shock’ to more fully appreciate the breadth and dangers of what is being instilled in students throughout academia today.
The following statements exemplify modern day fundamental building blocks of education: 
  • There are no facts, only interpretations – Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Morals, values, truths, standards, and human nature itself are products of different historical epochs and socially constructed – Marxism’s Worldview
Academia’s Standard Curricula: The curricula throughout politically correct academia today includes radical left wing self-proclaimed elite professors/instructors teaching students to reject objective truths and replace them with relative truths: i.e., perspectives or points of view to which each person is entitled regardless of how inconsistent with the truth they are. Notwithstanding how outrageous a relative truth may be, e.g., the Holocaust is a myth, at best it is taught to be a more unfortunate perspective on the matter instead of being repudiated as a lie. This self-serving cavalier attitude within the arrogant professorial domain adversely affects students in ways that include the following:
  • Disregards and renders truth meaningless
  • Erodes the legitimacy of serious opinion
  • Deprives students of a much needed solid education founded on traditionally accepted disciplines of study  
Another result of rejecting objective truths is that facts are considered as matters of opinion relative to and dependent upon the interests, prejudices, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin of the speaker rather than the truth or falsity of what the speaker says. The premise being that truth is somehow invented rather than discovered, and ergo, relative to the speaker.
 
Harvard historian Simon Schama perfectly exemplifies this arrogant attitude toward truth in the prologue to his fatuous book “Dead Certainties” (1991). Schama assures his readers “the claims for historical knowledge must always be fatally circumscribed by the character and prejudices of its narrator.” In other words, the historian’s supposed limitations make stating historical truth impossible, which is utter nonsense.
 
The Genesis of Relative Truths: This repugnant affront to traditional education, its truths and inherent values, is rooted in Cultural Marxism. This ideology was conceived, circa 1921, at the Frankfurt School in Frankfurt Germany by a group of radical Marxist intellectuals who rejected traditional Economic Marxism because they realized it was incapable of destroying and dominating the West. Cultural Marxism was based on behavioral psychology to achieve mass compliance with a desired goal(s), and ultimately replaced Economic Marxism. It is modern day Marxism euphemistically referred to as progressivism to hide the true ideology but Marxism nonetheless. The great majority of progressives are ignorant of the ideology they are propagating and just happy following the heard of sheep.
 
Unlike Karl Marx, the founding Cultural Marxists envisioned catalyzing the complete destruction of Western traditions, values, and culture by a lengthy, indefensible, peaceful cultural revolution wherein traditional morals and authority would be rejected. Once achieved Western culture would be supplanted by Cultural Marxist ideology.
 
In 1933 as National Socialism was gaining momentum in Germany the founders fled to America and set up shop at Columbia University in NYC. They began sowing the seeds of their cultural revolution by diffusing Cultural Marxist ideology through key spheres of influence, initially focusing on academia, politics, the MSM and film industry. The founders knew that progress would be slow but remained patient and steadfast while assiduously propagating their ideology.
 
The ’60s Boomer Rebellion: The founders’ fortunes dramatically changed for the better in the middle 1960s with the student “Boomer” rebellion wherein morality and authority were rejected and individual freedom to do as one pleased was exalted. The father and ultimate leader of this rebellion throughout academia was Herbert Marcuse, a founding member of the Frankfurt School and elite, well-respected university professor. Marcuse coined the chant, “make love not war” that became poplar throughout academia.
 
Deconstructing Truth: Marcuse’s methodology for rebellion included deconstructing the language, e.g., he coined the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of American culture. Deconstruction destabilizes and reconstructs clear definitions, the content and text of language, traditions, being, institutions, objective knowledge, reason, truth, legitimate hierarchies, authority, nature, and all that is considered universal. 
 
Marcuse was esteemed by the masses rebelling against the establishment. He catalyzed the confusion and obliteration of traditionally accepted culture through deconstruction which was primarily responsible for a major breakdown in the nation’s social conformity, particularly among impressionable young people.
 
The Intent of Deconstruction: Deconstruction is used by Cultural Marxists as the method of analysis that will show the correctness of their ideology in every situation and provide the answers they seek. This is done by taking any text, removing all meaning from it and re-inserting the meaning sought. For instance, Cultural Marxists uniquely use deconstruction to prove that any text illustrates the oppression of minorities, e.g., blacks, women, homosexuals, etc., by reading that meaning into the text’s words regardless of its actual meaning. The overused ‘race card’ routine should come to mind.
Outrageous examples include Shakespeare writing about suppressing women, and the Bible being about race and gender. Furthermore, morals, values, truths, standards, and human nature itself are considered products of different historical epochs and socially constructed. Ergo, the truth is relative, dynamic, and meaningless in the hands of a deconstructionist academician poisoning young minds to suit her or his agenda.
 
The Impact on Academia: The consequences of intentionally obfuscating and skewing the truth to fit a desired end have been particularly devastating in academia. Dissident ‘Boomers’ of the ’60s and their acolytes have dominated academia’s professorial domain for years. They were spoon fed and indoctrinated into Cultural Marxism as students, and as instructors are likewise actively propagating and spoon feeding that same ideology to their students. Among other things, they have intentionally undermined the integrity and very ideas of many academic disciplines in fields of study with generally agreed upon subject matters.
 
Study Groups: Instead of academic emphasis being placed on traditional disciplines, e.g., history, math, science, and literature, it is placed on race, ethnicity, and gender taught through study groups. There is an endless proliferation of such groups throughout academia which are typically comprised of the so-called “historically disadvantaged” minorities considered as ‘sacred cows’ by today’s politically correct progressives. This situation clearly evinces a breakdown of long accepted academic disciplines and is strongly encouraged by the respective educational administrations, also highly concentrated with progressives. 
 
Superficially the common mantra and favorite code words of study groups are inclusion, tolerance, diversity, sensitivity, social justice, sex education, and other such terminology connoting kindness. Notwithstanding the seemingly innocuous terms however, they are critical components of Cultural Marxism being cleverly disguised as progressivism as mentioned aforesaid. Ironically, to force compliance with their position on a matter, these inclusive, tolerant groups spew vile hatred towards and demonize everyone in disagreement with them, particularly straight White males.
 
Radical Left Wing Professors: Ultra-radical radical left wing instructors with personal anti-American agendas teach the pseudo study groups that include the following: women’s studies; gay studies; transgender studies; Asian studies; Afro-American studies; African studies; Indian studies; and the list goes on ad nauseam. While these groups are hyped as being cross- disciplinary they are anti-disciplinary because their sole purpose is to diffuse Cultural Marxist ideology in lieu of America’s culture, values and traditions. Among other Marxist concepts instructors use relative truth and deconstruction to achieve their desired anti-American goals. Carefully note, there are no male, White, or Western European studies. The only reference to Whites in any of these study groups is in demonizing and blaming them for the perceived ‘ills’ of the world’s ‘historically disadvantaged minorities’.
 
Cultural Studies: Cultural studies is the group most repugnant to traditional education because content is entirely discretionary with the instructor and accordingly, characterized by attitudes and agendas instead of empirical facts. There are two mandatory requisites for cultural studies: (1) political animus: (2) hostility to factual truth. Generally, students are strongly encouraged and often mandated to take this ridiculous course that is underpinned by ‘White Guilt’. 
Below are examples of relative truths students are taught by politically correct radical left wing Marxist ideologues with an aversion to empirical evidence and everything American.  
  • Columbus was an evil, bloodthirsty marauder who committed the American Holocaust, while the Indians were peaceful, environmentally sensitive creatures who lived in blissful harmony with each other and the earth. 
  • Cortez, who conquered Mexico on behalf of Spain, was a mass murderer and the Aztec conquest evinced European Imperialism perpetrating the greatest genocide in all human history.
  • Early pilgrims slaughtered their Indian guests at a Thanksgiving feast
It should be abundantly clear that present day curricula taught by Marxist instructors precipitated the behavior of academia that resulted from Trump’s win. More ominous, however, is the poisonous Marxist ideology into which students are being indoctrinated by instructors that loathe and want to destroy traditional American culture and values.

A Simple Experiment Disproves the Climate Change Alarmists ⋆ The Constitution

By Adrian Vance

Climate Alarmist Dr. Joe Romm claims atmospheric CO2 will rise to 910 parts per million, ppm, by the year 2100 where today it is 390 ppm, a 233% increase in 84 years and turn America into Death Valley.  We simulate this with two 2.5 liter plastic bottles for a shocking outcome costing less than $10, with no million Dollar grant or trips to exotic places to read papers, eat truffles and drink Champagne on your Federal tax Dollars.

In addition to the bottles, we need two lab “stick” thermometers, 650 milliliters of pure water, 1/8th tsp. of baking soda and a few drops of Distilled White Vinegar to simulate the 2100 AD atmosphere of America as predicted by Dr. Romm.  We suggest this be done in every General Science classroom in America.  It is low in cost and highly educational.

The bottles must be clear, not tinted, and “2.5 liters.”  There are other sizes and it is critical.  Lab thermometers are $2.39 each on Ebay.  Baking soda and “White Distilled Vinegar” are common pantry items plus a medicine dropper is common in most homes or $1.00 in a drug store.

 

Thermometer accuracy is easily confirmed by putting them into a tall glass of ice and water, where they should say 0° Celsius. Then, into a pot of boiling water where they should say 100° Celsius if you are at sea level.  If you are above sea level the boiling point will be lower.

In Chicago, at 650 ft,  it is 99.5° C, which is the level for most of the nation east of the Mississippi, but in Denver, at 5280 ft. it is 95° C and the far west is all over the place with Death Valley below sea level where the boiling point is 101°C!  Nonetheless, we are only interested in how thermometers track one another.  They must be consistent.  If one is a degree warmer than the other it must be consistently so through the 20 to 35 degree range.

Put both thermometers in a glass two cup measure with one cup of cold tap water.  Wait a few minutes then read the thermometers. They will say 15 to 20 degrees. Add one cup of hot water from that tap and track the change as it will rise from the temperature of house cold water to the higher temperature of the hot and cold water mix.  And, they should move through the range together or with the same difference consistently.  If not return the unit not showing the correct temperature in ice water.

Plastic bottle caps are drilled by a Phillips screwdriver with a 1/4 inch shaft with the tip held over a candle flame for 30 seconds.  The handle insulates heat so you can hold it. The hot tip goes through plastic like butter leaving a hole just large enough for a thermometer.  Both thermometers are pushed into the caps three inches while the plastic is soft.  On cooling they freeze in place, but can be removed later with careful twisting using your thumb and forefinger near the cap.

The volume of the “2.5 liter” soda bottle is actually 2,725 milliliters. Use bottled water, to avoid municipal water chlorine and fluorine, putting 325 milliliters into each for a net air volume of 2.4 liters over water.  This simulates Earth’s air as 71% is covered by water and the green areas put almost as much water vapor into air as do the seas.

2.4 liters is 1/10th “molar volume” of air at 20° Celsius, the normal room temperature in the United States. “Molar” refers to “mole,” a contraction of “molecular” and means the volume of a gas with a mass of one molecular weight in grams.

For experimental work we use molar volumes for accuracy.  The details are cumbersome so we omit them here, but present them completely at:

http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/09/future-atmosphere-notes.html

We set up the two bottles, one with water alone, labeled “2016 AD” air with 390 ppm of CO2 naturally and “2100 AD” with 910 ppm artificially.  This can be done outside, but we favor a window sill as these bottles are easily tipped by a breeze and window glass does not block infrared, IR, energy. When the sun is low little IR comes through all the air. After 10 AM, when the sun angle is above 45 degrees, IR passes through less air and the glass where it cannot when the angle is less than 45 degrees.  Be sure the thermometers are shaded from direct sun with foil “hats,” only reading the temperature of the air in the flasks.

The two temperatures rise as the sun elevates and fall slowly after noon until 3 PM, then fall quickly as solar radiation passes through more atmosphere.

To test the effect of increasing CO2 in our atmosphere from the 390 ppm of today to 910 ppm for the year 2100 AD as claimed by Dr. Joe Romm, we only need to put half a 1/8th teaspoon of baking soda in the “2100 AD” bottle, swirling to dissolve it.  We need 1.25 drops of White Distilled Vinegar and can make a perfect dose by taking two drops of the acid, add six drops of water and then use five drops of that solution in the simulator.

Put the cap with thermometer on and let it sit overnight to react fully to  create the Romm 910 ppm CO2 air of 2100 AD.  Put the two bottles in a window sill and record their temperatures each hour.  What do we see?

According to Dr. Romm the 2100 AD bottle will get hot, going over 40 Celsius degrees, 104 Fahrenheit!  But what happens?  The 2100 AD bottle tracks precisely with the 2016 bottle air with less CO2 in it!  The CO2 was an insignificant component of the atmosphere at 390 PPM and it would be at 910 PPM.  It is just that simple.  As we have seen, “warmists” are prone to overplay everything from polar bear deaths to all the ice melting at the poles when there are more polar bears than ever in history, probably because they are getting fat on the Five Star garbage left by warmist scientists.

For 150 years atmospheric scientists have required a gas must have at least one percent of the atmosphere to be significant.  We can add enough CO2 to make that the case in our simulator.  Our one-tenth molar volume simulator

needs 24 ml of CO2 which we can generate by taking four drops of the acid, adding one drop of water and then using four drops of that in the second bottle for a 20% dilution.

One percent is 10,000 parts per million, ppm, which shows the real effect of CO2 in the atmosphere and by having a “control” bottle tracking ordinary air over water we will see that it is a cooling component.

 

If Dr. Romm were correct the air in the “2100 AD” bottle would heat faster and more than the “2016 AD” flask, perhaps going over 40º C by noon, but it declines!  This dashes all alarmist claims.  Without them they will get no grants, book contracts, TV appearances or tenure.  When realized it will kill the gravy train of academia.  This is an undeniable fact!  Many of academia feel they are entitled to wealth and fame because they are “smart.”

Virtually everything written and published about “global warming” and/or “climate change” has been fraudulent and done by those seeking political power, government grants, high-paying government jobs or academic tenure as the colleges and universities are dependent on Federal money.  It is just another tale of corruption in America and you can prove it with a two soda bottles, a box of baking soda, a bottle of vinegar and one medicine dropper.

Adrian Vance

Adrian Vance is a writer and producer of educational films, filmstrips and audio programs with over 325 productions from script to screen. See a partial list of my credits at http://worldcat.org . And, have written for ten national magazines, been on the masthead of two as an Editor, done a dozen books and am an FCC licensed broadcaster with ten years of on-air experience in radio and television. See my blog, “The Two Minute Conservative” at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com where you will find over 3200 daily pieces, enough material to produce 25 novel length books.

 

 

Obama and the U.N. Collude to “Beef Up” and Nationalize America’s Police Departments – Minutemen News

 logo

This won’t come as a surprise.  Obama and the United Nations are on another quest to “beef up” and nationalize America’s police departments.  This is just another of the numerous initiatives by the U.N. to attack our Constitution and our rights as citizens.

The New American reports – After recently demanding everything from “robust gun control” and reparations for slavery to constitutional amendments altering the supreme law of the land, the United Nations has now publicly endorsed the Obama administration’s illegal efforts to federalize America’s local police departments. A UN official also offered to provide “technical assistance” to the U.S. government in implementing its radical demands.   

Specifically, a UN official from Kenya touted one of the many schemes used by the White House to impose unconstitutional federal regulations on local law enforcement. Dubbed “consent decrees,” the plot involves extremist bureaucrats at the Obama Justice Department threatening, bullying, and suing city governments into submission to Obama’s demands. The UN “lawyer” called for the administration’s commandeering of cops to be “beefed up” and “increased” to help nationalize as many of America’s police departments as possible.

Citing “international law,” the UN figure also attacked gun rights and the concealed carry of firearms. The latest UN assault on the God-given rights to keep and bear arms, protected by state and U.S. constitutions, came after a deluge of similar attacks coming from the global body, and its widely ridiculed “Human Rights Council” in particular. While the U.S. government is not currently represented, some of the most ruthless communist and Islamist dictatorships on the planet enjoy seats on the outfit

The UN bureaucrat boasted of the Obama administration’s “cooperation” in the supposed investigation. However, the reaction to the UN’s attacks was swift, with criticism of the UN, often ridiculed by critics as the “dictators club,” making headlines across America after being posted on the Drudge Report, the world’s top news and information site.  

Read More:  http://www.thenewamerican.com/

March, 2015 (more than a year ago), Rep. Mike Rogers introduced a bill (H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015) The bill had seven co-sponsors and was assigned to the House Foreign Affairs committee (Chariman: Ed Royce). There were no roll call votes, so it basically died in committee.

Here are the names of the original co-sponsors: John “Jimmy” Duncan (R-TN2), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS1), Maggie Thomas (R-KY4), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA3), Ted Yoho (R-FL3), Jeff Duncan (R-SC3), and Walter Jones (R-NC3)

Start contacting your representatives, and even these who supported the bill, to see if we can get this bill reintroduced, or a similar one pushed through.

We must get out of the U.N.!

Independence Day – Tea Party Nation

We at Tea Party Nation wish you a happy Independence Day.  And we encourage you to take a moment and read the document that gave us a free nation.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. —

Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

  • For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
  • For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
  • For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
  • For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
  • For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
  • For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.1377023_632027936839875_306360385_n

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. 

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.Image

Gun Control, Terror Watchlist — The NRA and the Rule of Law

By Dave Dolbee published on June 30, 2016 in News

America witnessed a remarkable and telling legislative showdown last week that revolved around a very simple concept underlying American democracy. That concept is due process. Some were willing to discard it for the sake of politics and the illusion of safety. Others were not. Here is what the NRA had to say about it:

Senate Judiciary Committee

Unable to sway the Congress to enact his gun control agenda, the president is trying to upset the Founding Father’s system of checks and balances by going it alone.

A series of untenable gun control proposals – some which would have placed your Second Amendment rights at the mercy of bureaucratic fiat, black lists, and secret “evidence” – were defeated.

But the degree to which some were willing to abandon foundational principles for short-term and self-serving political gain should serve as a sobering reminder to all that American freedom is not free and that we should never think our government will simply default to it. The Founders understood that, which is why we have a written Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Proponents of gun control tried to portray the showdown as being over those who wanted terrorists to have guns and those who don’t. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), a gun control standard-bearer, disgraced the dignity of his office by claiming “Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.”

Think about how ridiculous that statement is.

And it becomes all the more ridiculous in light of how strenuously President Obama, who embodies the values and agenda of Murphy’s politics, tried to deflect the blame for the Orlando terrorist attack away from radical Islamic jihad, the asserted basis of the attacker himself.

I am a bill cartoon

While the defenders of the Second Amendment have seen significant victories over the past year a couple of recent losses are troubling.

Obama loyalists desperately tried to portray NRA and the Second Amendment as the culprits in the Orlando attacks. During a series of publicity stunts – including Murphy’s “filibuster” on the Senate Floor and a “sit-in” by members of Congress on the House Floor – America heard again and again that gun control is now a matter of national security.

During times of fear and crisis, it’s easy to forget what we’re about as a country. It’s natural for opportunistic and ambitious politicians to grab more power for themselves. It’s natural for entrenched authority to demonize opposition and try to suppress dissent. We saw all of that this past week.

But America has always tried to be better than that, which is why the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is greater than any individual. It is mightier than any institution. And it states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ….” Whatever else Obama, Murphy, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and their surrogates in the media tried to make this past week’s contentious legislative efforts about, that’s what was at stake.

The government cannot arbitrarily deny or withhold rights. When someone’s life, liberty, or property is at stake, the person has a right to notice and the opportunity to respond, and the government bears the burden of making its case before a neutral decision-maker as to why its actions are justified. Without these simple principles, we are not a country of laws.

But that was too much for Feinstein, Murphy, and their anti-gun Senate colleagues. They would settle for nothing less than giving bureaucrats the authority to deny gun purchases at will, without any proving of their case. They would not stand (literally, in the case of their House counterparts) to require the government, if it were later sued over the deprivation, to have to prove anything other than a basis for its own “reasonable suspicion” against the individual. The want to let the government, in other words, retroactively rationalize its decision to abolish a fundamental right – not by actually proving a person is somehow a public safety risk because of nexus to terrorism – but by demonstrating it was not “unreasonable” in “suspecting” so at the time.

05 itshouldnotbecalledguncontrol

That’s not due process.

Make no mistake, the NRA does not want terrorists to have legal – or illegal – access to firearms.  NRA members have fought and died in the war on terror so we take a backseat to no one when it comes to national security.

Freedom endured this week in the U.S. Senate, but it would not have been possible without the dedication of NRA members who were willing to stand up and contact their elected officials in the face of this latest threat.  NRA members flooded Congressional switchboards in just a few short days, and it worked.  Your continued vigilance has always been what makes the NRA the strongest civil rights organization in the world.

At the same time, our victory would not have been possible without the Second Amendment leadership of Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA).  Both senators introduced legislation to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and worked tirelessly against passage of the gun control legislation introduced by Feinstein, Murphy, and others.  We could not have been successful without them.

But let’s be careful to not consider the battle over.  The Senate will remain in session this coming week, so your continued pressure is needed.  Gun control proposals could go well beyond the amendments that were voted on last week, so please contact your U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative immediately and let them know you oppose any new gun control measures. You can call your lawmakers at 202-224-3121 or click here to Take Action.

Did the NRA get it right? What will you do to defeat future gun control measures and support the Second Amendment? Share your plans in the comment section.

Army Ranger at Benghazi: Liberal Media Demonizes Guns After Orlando But Here’s What I’d Do for Them

ORLANDO, FL - JUNE 12: <> on June 12, 2016 in Orlando, Florida. (Photo by Gerardo Mora/Getty Images)

 

Image Credit: Gerardo Mora/Getty

Since the Orlando terror attack, many media outlets have rushed to blame a lack of gun laws for the tragedy. And the calls for increased gun regulation have amplified…

Independent Journal Review chose to get the perspective of someone who had also experienced an American tragedy firsthand.

We talked to Kris Paronto, an ex-Army Ranger, who survived the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Paronto

 

Image Credit: Adam Bettcher/Maxim Defense

The Hollywood film “13 Hours: Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” is based off his and his teammates’ harrowing experiences on the ground.

Paronto didn’t mince words about Orlando or those who rush to blame guns for what is being called the worst mass shooting on American soil ever.

Paronto said:

“It has nothing to do with the weapons that were used. It has to do with the ideology involved with the attacker. Whether he got trained in the states or got his ideology online, the weapons system makes no difference at all.

If I would have been in the nightclub with a M4 or M16 I would have shot the guy before he killed 49 people. The media is trying to demonize the weapon in the name of gun control.

Look, a weapon system is a tool like a hammer. It’s like anything else. In the wrong hands it can be used to hurt people and in the right hands — it’s a hammer.

In every one of these countries where they are terrorists, they have guns. I’ve been to these areas and seen what the jihadis are capable of. And they may be armed with an AK-47, but it’s their belief system and ideology that kills people. The AK-47 doesn’t fire itself.”

Paronto continued:

“Mateen went after a group that he knew was going to be an easy target. I don’t get why liberals keep spinning this into a gun control issue. Maybe it’s because the president can’t say it.

This is terrorists killing innocent people. He would have got that gun in any way. I’ve been around it in Benghazi and elsewhere. I’ve killed terrorists.

It’s always the ideology that drives them to squeeze the trigger or strap a bomb to their chest.

So we need to wake up and figure this out. Or they will be more attacks and we will have more tragedies like Orlando.

We need to have armed security in these places. I’ll stand at a door with a gun. I did it for ten years. It may make people uncomfortable in the club. But guess what, you’re going to go home alive.”

He took a shot at anyone politicizing Orlando:

“The politicizing of Orlando pisses me off. It’s less than human. The reason being is because people died that night and that’s where the focus needs to be. So we need to look at what took place and mourn.

It’s time to heal and making such a tragedy all about blaming the weapon is disgusting. Anyone trying to use it for political gain is worthless.”

A leader doesn’t go on TV and politicize. They take a breath, go in the back room and figure out exactly what happened.”

Then, Paronto told me what he wants the “liberal media” to know more than anything else:

“As the media is demonizing the weapon system in Orlando, they have no idea that if they were under attack, I would pick up a gun.

And I would stand right in front of them and take a bullet. And I’d try to take down as many bad guys as I could even if I was outmatched.”

Paronto concluded, “Because it’s the right thing to do. The American thing to do…”

Paronto

 

Image Credit: Scott Garrett

“And because it’s what I was trained to do as a Ranger — protect the lives of others who are unable to protect themselves.”

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.”

icyalgore