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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Tench Coxe continues,

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

 

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

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

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

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper #33:

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

The Bill of Rights is Missing an Amendment

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

freedomoutpost.com

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

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

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

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

This was clearly not intended by the founders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was Article 16, which read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Daily Signal

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

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

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

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

 

So where do our tax dollars go?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the rest?

Well, interest on the debt is one big culprit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Anti-Gunner Thinks Armed Women Will Get Hurt More

Regardless of what precipitates it, any gun debate will eventually fire up to encompass almost every aspect of firearms. This is just how it shakes out and how it will continue to shake out.

This time around, for example, a school shooting has sparked a debate about how women can use a firearm to defend themselves from danger.

Leave it to the anti-gunners, however, to try and argue that having a firearm makes them get hurt worse.

What these arguments neglect to mention is that when women—and particularly women of color—actually do try to defend themselves against their abusers, they are frequently the ones who end up getting punished.

First, some facts: Women are three and a half times more likely to be killed by a romantic partner than men are. Women are more than twice as likely to be killed by their husband or an intimate acquaintance than by a stranger. And, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Public Health study, “women living in homes with 1 or more guns were more than 3 times more likely to be killed in their homes.”

Ah, this old chestnut that has been debunked time and time again. In particular, there’s no adjustment for lawfully-owned firearms versus criminal behavior. Women who live in the home of a criminal or are a criminal themselves are far more likely to be murdered than other women, enough so that it may well skew the results.

But it continues.

You also can’t look at the problem of domestic violence without acknowledging the even worse problem of domestic violence within the law enforcement community. Studies have found that police officers’ partners and families experience domestic violence at a much higher rate than other families. And women who suffer abuse at the hands of police officers are often afraid to go to the police with their experience, fearing retaliation or simple inaction.

This is what I like to call the “Look! A squirrel!” argument.

No one is disputing that abuse happens. Regardless of where it happens, though, women have a right to self-defense, and there is no better tool for self-defense, particularly for a woman, than a firearm. Period.

The story follows up with a bunch of anecdotal stories of where the system failed, where women who supposedly defended themselves against abusive men were then prosecuted for it. The point, of course, is to show just how women get screwed.

Of course, the stories leave key things out. For example, the story brings up Bresha Meadows, a 14-year-old girl who shot and killed her reportedly abusive father. It talks all about how the system failed her.

Consider the case of Bresha Meadows. In 2016, the 14-year-old girl fatally shot her father—a man who she, her mother, and her siblings all described as abusive. Rather than being praised for her bravery in defending her mother and siblings, Meadows was arrested and charged with aggravated murder. Prosecutors originally considered trying Meadows as an adult, which would have carried a potential sentence of 20 years to life in prison. Meadows ultimately spent 10 months in a juvenile detention center in Ohio, and was released earlier this month.

Horrible, right?

However, that’s not the whole story. You see, Bresha Meadows wasn’t defending herself, according to the law as written. Oh no. What she did sure as hell looks like premeditated murder (emphasis mine).

And as Jonathan Meadows slept in his living room, his daughter pulled the trigger, ending his life and dividing a family, according to interviews and a police report. The relatives of Bresha’s father called the shooting a calculated murder. Those of the girl’s mother called it the end of a husband’s nonstop pattern of emotional and physical abuse that raged on until a young girl exploded.

In other words, at that moment, Meadows was not in fear of her life. Sure, she may have been terrified that someday her father would kill her, but right then he was harmless. He was asleep. She was as safe from him at that moment as she ever would be. And she shot him.

Then there’s this tidbit:

Consider the case of Marissa Alexander. In 2010, the Florida mother of three fired a “warning shot” toward her abusive ex-husband to prevent him from assaulting her. Despite the fact that she was a licensed gun owner and no one was harmed by her shot, Alexander was arrested and charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

There were a couple of problems here. For one, Alexander’s ex-husband was both unarmed and standing with her son when she fired at him, and there doesn’t appear to be any claims that the boy was at risk from his father.

Second, the bullet from the gun doesn’t look like a “warning shot” like Alexander claimed.

The fact of the matter is that, like anyone else in such a circumstance, Alexander had, and failed, to show she was in fear of her life at that moment. Past abuse doesn’t justify lethal force, and thus her Stand Your Ground defense didn’t hold up in court.

The same would have happened if the genders were reversed.

Despite these instances that are supposedly proof that women won’t get a fair shake from the criminal justice system if they use a gun in self-defense, bear in mind that the estimates for the defensive use of a firearm range from 100,000 per year to as many as 2.5 million. There’s no way those are all men defending themselves, either.

Instead, tens of thousands to millions of women successfully defend their lives with a firearm every year and do so without the criminal justice system hammering them.

The fact of the matter is that when a woman is in danger, a firearm is the best option for defending her life. Less lethal options aren’t always effective, and hand-to-hand techniques give way too much of an advantage to the men due to weight and strength differences. Yet even the smallest of women can muster enough strength to pull a trigger.

If they want to avoid difficulties with the criminal justice system, however, they need follow the same rules the guys have to follow.

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter.

How Robert Mueller Sabotaged Counterterror Training in 2012 – Freedom Outpost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was distorted was CAIR’s representation of them.

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

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

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

Others included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 

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

By Suzanne Hamner

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

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

Brokaw continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, I digress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff / Getty Images

 

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

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

What alarmists believe

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

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

Is the science settled?

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence: climate models

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence: alleged dangers of warming

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

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

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

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

Alarmists’ response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the London Times:

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

Note the disingenuousness here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Homewood has their number:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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