Cost of Opposing Climate Caliphate

To get a flavor for the state of the global warming, climate change issue — or the Climate Caliphate State — here is a recent sampling. The cost of opposing their agenda is high, and so is the price of their schemes. Either way costs are adding up.

OMG I’m Going To Jail! Climate Gurus Want Obama To Throw Skeptics In The Pokey

The Lid

OMG I’m Going To Jail! I hope they don’t put me in a cell next to Hillary Clinton.

In a letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren, UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth and 19 other climate: scientists asked President Obama to have the thought police put climate skeptics in the pokey. …/

No really, this is not a joke–Senator Whitehouse who never met a freedom he didn’t want to take away and 20 of his climate friends want the thought police to charge climate skeptics using the exact same RICO statute that sent John Gotti to jail for life. Now granted I was in Sparks Restaurant the same day that Paulie Castellano got whacked, but I was there for lunch, Paulie took a bullet dinner time when I was on the subway heading home.

Read more at http://lidblog.com/2015/09/omg-im-going-to-jail-climate-gurus-want-obama-to-throw-skeptics-in-jail.html

Letter from Scientists and Global Warmists to Obama Pdf

“Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren”

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. //

We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.//

…it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

And the Left and environmentalists seem ecstatic about endorsing this idea.

Why I Am Boycotting Pope Francis’ Address to Congress

Congressman Paul Gosar | Sep 17, 2015 | Op-ed letter – Townhall

But when the Pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician, then he can expect to be treated like one. Artist and columnist Maureen Mullarkey effectively communicated this fallacy stating, “When papal preferences, masked in a Christian idiom, align themselves with ideological agendas (e.g. radical environmentalism) [they] impinge on democratic freedoms and the sanctity of the individual.”

Furthermore, I am a proud Catholic. I chose to attend a Jesuit college in the Midwest, not just for my undergraduate but also my graduate studies (D.D.S.). I received an excellent education where I was taught to think critically, to welcome debate and discussion and to be held accountable for my actions; a trademark of a Jesuit education. And finally, I am a Conservative, a member of Congress, a constitutionalist and adamant defender of our Republic; an American that believes in strict adherence to the rule of law and a firm believer in our First Amendment protections, in this particular discussion, the freedom of religion.

I have both a moral obligation and leadership responsibility to call out leaders, regardless of their titles, who ignore Christian persecution and fail to embrace opportunities to advocate for religious freedom and the sanctity of human life. If the Pope plans to spend the majority of his time advocating for flawed climate change policies, then I will not attend. It is my hope that Pope Francis realizes his time is better spent focusing on matters like religious tolerance and the sanctity of all life.

So now we have at least one call to boycott the joint-session speech of Pope Francis.

It seemed to be a busy week for the Climate Caliphate cronies.

Then Ted Cruz, after the CNN debate, charged the moderator with ignoring him and refusing to allow him to reply on climate change. It fits the mold to shut up opponents of the climatology scam. They suddenly don’t have time, or don’t want to hear your rebuttal. All they want to do is repeat that there is a consensus, debate is over — quite literally in Cruz’s case — and that you are a flat-earth denier if you don’t agree with their political climate change agenda.

So this Marxist left wants us to consider all the convoluted ways in which we are, according to them, causing this state of global warming and climate change. However, they do not want to consider any of the costs of their so-called solutions to climate change. Does that sound reasonable? Of course not. Everything they propose in their Marxist dream-plans comes with a heavy cost. But we aren’t allowed to talk about those costs and they don’t want to factor those real costs into the equation. They are off limits.

The Examiner:

EPA head Gina McCarthy reluctantly admitted to a House Select Committee this summer that Obama’s Clean Power Plan would only avert warming by .01 degrees. McCarthy said the primary goal of the Clean Power Plan was to show strong domestic action which can trigger strong global action, e.g., getting other countries to follow our lead.

Rubio argued against the real, damaging economic effects of their plans and it seemed those are considered out of bounds.

Marco Rubio:

“Here is what I’m skeptical of. I’m skeptical of the decisions that the left wants us to make, because I know the impact those are going to have and they’re all going to be on our economy. They will not do a thing to lower the rise of the sea. They will not do a thing to cure the drought here in California. But what they will do is they will make America a more expensive place to create jobs.”

Chris Christie even:

” I agree with Marco. We shouldn’t be destroying our economy in order to chase some wild left-wing idea that somehow us by ourselves is going to fix the climate.”

Scott Walker said:

“I think it’s something like 30,000 in Ohio, other states across this country, we’re going to put people — manufacturing jobs, the kind of jobs that are far greater than minimum wage — this administration is willing to put at risk for something its own EPA says is marginal.”

The only correct answer left, to the Marxist left, is to agree with them or be forced to shut up. Now it is come out in their play book that they plan to jail you under racketeering laws if you disagree with them.

Then in the New York Times, they directly compared global warming deniers with Hitler and his final solution. More like the final solution is what the left is setting up under the auspices of climatology science. Remember it is them who see people as the problem with our climate. (many of them calling for reducing population as a chief part of their solution)

Normally, the rule on the internet is when Nazi comparisons come out, the conversation is ended. So it is taboo to use them … unless you are part of the Climate Caliphate — in which case they want to end the conversation and opposition. It even said:

Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites.

Ecological panic? Who is causing that and using it as a political tool to control people? Yet somehow the people opposed to their radical agenda are racketeers. It added:

Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world? — see NYT

The choice between scorched earth policies of fear and pandemic, urgency of now, over the reasonable rational approach. But they must air on the side of panic at any and all costs.