People’s Pipeline

When Biden says jobs….
the interpretation is Jo BS

Hey Joe, how many Jobs did you kill today?
Day six …

They should have named the Keystone XL Pipeline the People’s Pipeline because it was the pipeline to our future. It was an economic, community win. Who’s looking out for them?

Immediate job loss from day one.

So by rail it will be transported. And who is a big investor in rail? Soros, cha-ching.

Dangerous?

And Biden’s administration is looking at FEMA’s budget and wants to re-purpose up to 10 billion for Climate projects. America, are you listening?

Comfortable Normalcy

Those who desire the comfort of normalcy have fooled themselves, and likely sold their hearts to slavery.

I think some Muckety-muck somewhere said that. Instead of worrying about the COVID virus, maybe we should start worrying about what Democrats have mutated into.

Mitt Romney put a tweet out days ago. See if you spot the devious flaw in it?

“Despite the differences Americans may have on matters of policy, we share the common goal of ensuring that America continues to be a beacon of hope and freedom for all.” — 10:01 AM · Jan 20, 2021

What pure gibberish. Beacon of hope — who cares about that? Freedom? The Democrats and Left don’t care about all that. It sounds nice but it is not true by any measure.

And there is nothing you can do to make these people care about our country. They only want to beat our heads over it as a useful tool. Other than as a weapon, it has no merit that America is an exceptional country. They compromised that away long ago.

Obama tried to drive the stake in the heart of that. Can we beat it idea into their heads? No, they have to willingly believe that. But it is obvious in everything they do.

They have lost any appreciation for America’s originalism and exceptionalism. Now they only want to be like everyone else. They prefer normalcy over exceptional.

So who in the hell is Romney kidding, and whom is he talking to?

In the first few days, O’Biden attacked and canceled out the 1776 Project. Why take issue with that? I think we know. Why stand against a pipeline now creating thousands of jobs and building the economy? I think we know. Why attach our progress in controlling the border by promising to open the borders? I think we know that too.

Why remove restrictions on foreign interference and equipment in our energy grid?

The National Pulse reported:

”President Biden has revoked a Trump-era executive order that sought to keep foreign countries and companies out of America’s bulk power systems – principally entities associated with the Chinese Communist Party – as part of his “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.”

“The executive order, which executes key tenets of President Biden’s climate change agenda, was released on the former Veep’s first day in office.” Read

Why would Biden do that?

Meanwhile, back at the Fed on December 7, they voted 6-0 to join forces with a scheming green Global cabal.

“Rather Than Focus on Helping the American Economy Prosper, The FED Joins Central Banks in ‘Greening’ the Financial Industry” — Gateway Pundit

“Now the FED is off on another insane journey which arguably has nothing to do with its mandate to the American people. The Hill reported on Dec. 15th:”

But you say, if these people had any appreciation for what America is, they have an awful strange way of showing it. Biden only has appreciation for what he can extort out of it,

As this continues, media is busy commending the brand new O’Biden administration for its return to normalcy. Dan Rather, after being exhumed from his dungeon as a defrocked journalist, says he is enjoying all the quiet comforts of it all.

“As I settle into a Saturday evening I breathe deeply, reflecting on how nice it feels to know that my sanity won’t be tied to the destructive whims of Mr. Twitchy Twitter Thumb.” — 8:59 PM · Jan 23, 2021

Dan, don’t let that security blanket bite you.

What is normal about cancelling restrictions on China and foreign interference with out power grid? Normalcy of open borders? Normalcy of opposing the 1776 Project? Take comfort in that normalcy. The normalcy of selling out America.

Oh, now they also attempt to impeach a president who is out of office.

But if you dare turn on the TV, you will be flooded with the verbiage about normalcy. Isn’t it great to be back in normal? So grab your Orwell and throw another log on the fire.

Ain’t Normalcy grand? I almost can’t wait to see where this normal train takes us next.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

Poll Palooza

I said I am not a big fan on polls anymore. Wonder why? And there are many reasons for it. However, there might be one good use for them.

If you want to know how dumb some people are, or how many of them there are, just read a few polls. That exercise could give you a basic idea.

But funny how polls do not give me a similar idea on how many smart people there are? I remain pessimistic about that number.

Here is a little poll from Rasmussen and Heartland Institute on Climate Change – catastrophe or not?

“61% of Likely U.S. Voters consider it likely that climate change will be catastrophic for humans, plants and animals,”
“ (47%) believe climate change is caused primarily by human activity.”

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/most_say_climate_change_catastrophe_likely_want_government_action

The good news: well at least they do not believe “climate change is the main reason wildfires are spreading.” Though you might have to convince most of the media on that.

Right Ring | Bullright

Biden’s Plan of Doom

Case in point, Joe Biden’s latest tweet:

We need to meet the threat of climate change with the urgency it demands — and seize the opportunity to build back better. Tune in as I introduce members of my climate team who will get it done.”

Well, there you go. I only hope Pennsylvania is paying attention now.

So which word offends you more….. opportunity or seize?

I think we need to meet the threat of Joe Biden!

Settled Science

What is and isn’t settled science? Let’s dispel a couple of these popular faux arguments.

The science debate.

Take the left’s view: that there is no real debate here; that science rules; that it should be the basis of all actions. So science literally rules

Now that translates to science should dictate all decisions. For instance, on COVID or climate change, or anything else for that matter. It is the definitive answer to problems.

The logical side: no one is denying that science exists and it is useful. (that’s the defensive posture) When making decisions on society, many of those are out of the arena of science. Leaders and officials are making decisions on lockdowns and mandates on travel, or on what you can do and buy. What food you eat or car you drive. Is that science?

To say, like Joe Biden, that science declares you should shut down the economy, which is not an area of science, removes decisions from those tasked to make them. Plus “science”- whatever all it includes – is not accountable for those decisions and their consequences.

And people are elected or appointed to make those decisions on all the necessary variables. If it were true that science dictates, then there is no purpose for government or those officials but to enforce a science edict. Simply have science dictate decisions.

One of the first rules on any topic where science is injected is to ask if it is actually part of science or how much of it is? That tells you a lot. Most of it is far outside its realm.

For instance, much of this societal, cultural stuff we are lectured about is not an exact area of science. But that is where leftist social engineers come in. So their social engineers – presumably all leftists – will interpret their science into our society and lives, or into the code we must live by. When anyone resists their code, they hold up the science card. (just like they play the race card) But we are not governed by a board of science.

And if officials are going to issue these edicts, then they better be able to explain them and be accountable for them, because science won’t be. So it is not just science making these decisions, let’s be clear. Don’t hide behind science as if it were unquestionable.

The objective, the left tells us, is and always should be to control the pandemic. Except that controlling the pandemic equates to controlling people. That theorem means simply, you control the people and you control the pandemic.

Often when they tell us science is settled, they really mean their interpretation of science is settled. And it usually is not all science. Unless you mean political science.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

World’s Worst Regime

China is now the undisputed worst regime in the world. Coronavirus only peeled away any arguments to the contrary. The world has been infected and changed by China.

On a personal note, I woke up this morning dreaming how bad things have gotten, seemingly turning everything upside down. Except it is not really a dream. What a difference 2 months have made. We also topped 50k dead in the same time.

If you want to do a simple experiment, try going to a funeral home website in one of the affected areas of the virus. You can look down a list of obituaries, which normally are filled with details about a person’s life, only to see death was related to COVID-19 – no services. It leaves a surreal knot in your throat.

How much has changed in America in a few short months? Well, the list is long from the economy to all the personal matters. Too long to list here. How big those changes are: from funerals to sporting events, schools, to shopping and having family gatherings.

Then last week the FBI Director, Chris Wray announced the major problem across the country is Coronavirus hate speech. Or people hating on the Chinese because of Covid-19. So that is a top priority for FBI to investigate? Of all the urgent priorities to take up, but he had to issue warning and guidance to all their FBI offices to be on the lookout for it.

We can compound that with the problem of getting out Coronavirus economic aid to people and small businesses. Look at the same old typical responses in Congress. Mass exodus, they went to ground but they still clung to those leftist ideological dreams over lives.

But let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. All this, hard as it is to remember, ties directly back to the original China cause of Coronavirus in the first place.

Then we have the whole political perspective problem. Congressman James Clyburn said that Coronavirus was a huge political opportunity. Corona Cuomo said we have to re-imagine our entire economy in reopening it. Re-imagine? Nancy Pelosi held out for weeks for her political agenda of the Left. The users and abusers surround us while we fight off a pandemic. Their rationalizations are absurd, yet we must fight the pandemic disease too. Note to Cuomo, there was nothing wrong with the economy pre-COVID-19.

AOC announced that when the economy does reopen, workers should all boycott it by refusing to go back to work in some sick act of political solidarity. How’s that help?

But in the end, we must remember and never forget the actual cause of this Panditrosity was entirely set off by China. The rest and even the political atrocity are all still symptoms of that whole. Do not lose sight of the origin of this pandemic, regardless of what Dir. Wray says. It was not caused by hate or the economy either. It was the other way around.

Andrew Cuomo said in a daily briefing that the new boutique industry in the US is now mask art. With that he smiles. Have we become a mask-wearing people?

So we have succumbed to wearing masks as a last resort to protect ourselves and others. For years we have seen this strange phenomena in Asian countries of wearing masks in public. We always assumed we don’t wear masks here in public. Well, now for ourselves and because of government guidelines, we are wearing masks. What a change.

Let’s hope the mask fad is temporary. But mask art?

Still that barely touches the surface on all the strange new things brought on by this. I will leave you with one extra thought. We may never know what would have been, we can only guess, but the year 2020 was shaping up to be something else entirely. COVID intervened. Whatever that was would have been better than a pandemic. We will never know. And there would have been 50 thousand more people alive to witness it. Thanks China!

Right Ring | Bullright

Culture Caldron

Every so often one has to reflect and do a little culture check, the crazier things get.

Leave it to Trump, in one statement, to frame the entire issue in a campaign speech.

From a Des Moines, IA rally, Trump said something like “we are living in the greatest years now in history…. and I just got impeached. Can you believe it?” He got laughs and cheers. They got it.

Think about that analogy a minute. So finally, the economy is really on the upswing, opportunities and wages are up. There are a lot of good things happening.

At the very same time, you look what is happening around you and you can’t help wondering what has gone wrong? I mean the crazy things happening with the anger toward Trump and his supporters. People are desperate to take him down.

Government is running amuck in the Swamp fighting back. Deep state is in a fever pitch.

Yet there are plenty of good things on the horizon, life is good compared to the last ten years. Or it should be. What is with all the mixed signals aimed at us?

On one hand, things are finally improving that we’ve only hoped for over the years. But it is all dampened by this cultural turmoil over everything.

Then we’re told the world only has a few years left. Is it down to the countdown yet? Everything is rotten if you listen to these triggered, crazed people. So the secular world is telling us we are on the verge of apocalypse. Now that is rich, coming from that crowd.

Any joy you should feel is bombarded daily by this message of doom and gloom from Democrats and media. There is so much pent up hostility in them that you wonder if they are living in the same world you are, and seeing the same things?

It’s kind of like Trump, who wins the election only to have them try everything to throw him out. But he won’t go and neither will we. Why should we have to?

What’s wrong with this picture? It is a real dichotomy.

On one hand, there should be plenty to be happy about but the last thing they all want you to be is happy. They really try to make that a challenge.

It seems like Democrats’ job is to make mud pies out of all the good things or destroy them. And they have their hands full trying on that mission.

Here are you and I with everyone else, sitting smack in the middle of this whirlwind of discontent. Plus many of these dissatisfied people believe socialism is a panacea that will take all their worries away. Crazy.

If they can believe in some socialist utopia, then they need help. (not the kind they want)

They just seem to want to bring everyone else down to their misery. It looks like we are the ones who have to live and deal with it because it doesn’t seem to matter to them.

So in a crazy way, Trump is right. Life is great, they want to impeach him and throw him out. Ha ha, as if that would fix any of their problems!

Right Ring | Bullright

Gender specific meets realism

I am having a hard time keeping up with culture these days. It could be just me, I’m not sure. I have finally realized that culture does change over time. I’ll give them that. How much it changes though, or should, is still up for debate in my view.

But the one thing that the evolutionists on the left always tell us is science is fact. And that is the way it is. Argue with that and they call you a denier. But if that is the case, then why do they keep trying to change science? I thought science was science.

Here is a simple example. Suppose you got into a time machine and went back to 1935. You walk into a senior science classroom to talk to them. Then you mention the words gender dysphoria and gender expansive. What do you think their reaction might be? No one would know what you are talking about or they could think you are joking.

Do that today and there might be one or two eye rolls but other than that everyone knows what you are talking about. “Oh, that.” They would probably get the drift pretty quick.

I decided since I am one of those people liberals always call a denier, phobic or neanderthal, then I should have an appropriate term for myself. I will label myself gender euphoric — which means I am very happy with gender the way it is, and have no inclinations to change it or the science behind it. I’m at peace with it and prefer people not try to redefine what is already defined. It should be settled science, as far as I’m concerned. .

But that would probably be exactly the wrong thing to be today because the left can accept any new definitions for sexuality, but they cannot accept or permit that one. Though in their way of defining it, a person’s final sex shall not be determined until they die. Then the evolution or chances of it are over.

Even in their way of thinking, my problem is not in keeping up with culture. No, they would label me a maladjusted adult due to my failure to adjust to their new definitions and standards. A cultural abomination. They can call it what they like and I’ll call it reality.

Right Ring | Bullright

Turn For The Worst In Roman Church?

People who know me or have read my ramblings know I am not a big proponent for conspiracy theories. The more elaborate ones rampant in marginal politics anyway.

However, I’ll make an exception and go full conspiracy mode here in one case. And former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now present Pope Francis, is right smack in the middle of it.

Before I get too far down the path, I have to say I followed many of his statements. I see the lectures. Like everyone, I shake my head at the ridiculousness of Pope Francis.

If you are looking for a reference of other write ups then try this one from Townhall:
The Fool in the Vatican — It’s a good start.

After all that going on for years, I wonder what is behind it or if there is more to it? I conclude there is, but I am not sure exactly what. Let me offer a few ideas. Another disclaimer is necessary: as always, this is not a Pope bashing agenda. I would ask Jesuits to seriously question what is going on here? After all. it is their home field.

I don’t have to list all the controversial things he has said, which would seem to go against the Catholic precedent and doctrines. He has not been shy about making remarks that has him acting more like Obama than the Pope of the Catholic Church. No, then the reasons for this? And there could be many. I racked my brain trying to come up with some.

But Francis has to know he is turning off many of the “faithful”. Those are ardent, proud traditional Catholics. So what’s the deal: does he care, is he ignorant to it, or is he in denial about it? Is he aware he is stepping outside usual CC lines by venturing into controversial, politically charged areas? Why does he feel obligated to do it?

I could easily plead the ignorant case. I could also say he is in denial. But I won’t. I give the man credit for knowing what he is doing. But why?

I come to the conclusion he just doesn’t care if he is pissing off (or pissing on) a lot of that “faithful” flock. I believe he is well ware. So is he intentionally trying to be divisive? I do believe there is intent behind it. Is it a not so secret anti-Catholic agenda?

I think he has calculated that he doesn’t care about numbers. He really doesn’t care about orthodoxy either. I think, while it might be malicious. he has decided if many people balk and walk away in protest or disgust, so be it. I think he decided that the remnant left (a pun) would be better off thinning the ranks. If dissatisfied leave, it’s better for him. He obviously has no interest in either pandering to the disgruntled or appealing to them. In fact, he may be out to send them a strong message that they are not welcome.

If it comes to a point of choice between him and and them, it is them who are not welcome in the Church — not him or his leftist allies. And he has dug in on that note. Is it a full throated takeover of the CC? You might call it that.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always had my disagreements with the Roman Church, which is why I am a protestant evangelical. But, like Catholics, I look for reasons and explanation why he is doing this? No, I don’t believe it is really God’s call he is following. I think there are other voices, and it’s not divine revelation. In fact, I don’t see anything divinely inspired about it. It is secularism (humanism) he seems to follow. It’s equally divisive.

At any rate, he has already decided that alienating a whole lot of Catholics is justified. As I said, what will remain in who likes it is more important to him. Actually, it is the only thing that does matter to him. He is adhering to a worldview, not necessarily a Church-view. And the Church can take a hike.

What gives me the idea those dissatisfied are not welcome? Look at his statements. Time and again when he makes a wild statement on current policies of governments and says “you are not Christian” if you don’t agree. So if you don’t like open borders, you are not a Christian. Next, if you don’t like socialism, you are not a Christian. He always frames it in those terms. Basically, he is saying if you disagree with you are not a Christian and also a bigot. You are both. He marginalizes anyone who does not accept Leftist orthodoxy. (far left at that). Now we come to the genesis of it all.

Politics. He has determined politics is the act of the Church. He would rather see the Church playing politics than following God’s commands. And he is out to make the CC chief Church of Politics. That is because everything he is concerned or talking about is part of a politically-driven agenda. He is fine with that. In fact, he is endorsing it in what he is doing. He is telling you disagreement is not an option and you are not Christian if you disagree.

So if that Secular Humanism corrupts the Catholic Church, too bad. Celebrate it!

Now I made my case about it. What is yours?

Right Ring | Bullright

Obama Factor, Live From Berlin

Talk about misinterpretation by media, now even Fox is doing it.

Obama goes to one of his favorite places, Berlin. Ah, time to lecture the Europeans on politics. And to talk trash about American politics.

He talked about division but in a partisan way. He complained some people turn it into a circular firing squad, as the Democrat primary heats up and expands. So he warns of inter-party fighting,

Then media, like Fox, falls for the easy bait and says Obama is sounding moderate now. They jump at the chance to agree with him. What was the event? It was his Obama Foundation doing a Townhall at Brandenburg Gate. From the Foundation:

(Mission) “Obama join[s] hundreds of emerging European leaders for a town hall conversation to discuss the future of Europe and the importance of leadership in creating lasting change across the region.”

Well, nothing overtly political about that, is there? No doubt about what he is doing.

The statement he made about a circular firing squad:

“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States and maybe it’s true here as well, is a certain kind of rigidity. Where we say “ah ha, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be” and then we start, sometimes, creating what’s called a circular firing squad where you start shooting at your allies, because one is straying from purity on the issues. And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens.

So I think whether you are speaking a s a citizen or as a, you know, political leader, or an organizer, whether you are in a non-profit space, a civic space, or you are in the political arena; you have to recognize that the way we’ve structured democracy requires you to take into account people that don’t agree with you. And that, by definition, means that you are not going to get 100% of what you want. But you should take some time to think in your own mind and continually refine and reflect “what are my core principles” because the danger is if you don’t know what your principles are that’s when you compromise your principles away.

So you have to know ahead of time “here’s what I am willing to compromise on and here are the things that I’m not.” You can’t set up a system in which you don’t compromise on anything, but you also can’t operate in a system where you compromise on everything – everything is up for grabs. That requires a certain amount of internal, ah, reflection and deliberation.”

The only thing is theory does not overcome reality for Obama. He never was that compromiser. He was always a rigid my way or the highway person. He told McCain, the election is over, “I won.” He did not compromise on Affordable Care Act. He repeatedly lied about what was in it. His advice is not for himself. He’s such a hypocrite and phony. They would only eat that up in Europe, where he could get away with it.

Don’t buy the crap sandwich though. Obama’s only fear is that infighting of Democrats could weaken the party. Wait, that is not moderate when you think about it.

But we’ve seen that movie before. In past primaries, Democrats made a friendly arrangement deal between candidates not to attack each other. That’s how they operate, under normal circumstances. And likely what will happen this time. Look, Obama being objective or wise is hogwash.

Actually if they can ever get a chance, they love to stoke infighting on the right. They even find candidates on the right to do it. Obama is just worrying out loud that the Democrats might hurt themselves. But hey, we saw that even Hillary and Bernie could not bring themselves to attack each other. Obama does not sound moderate, and that is not his position to moderate. He just doesn’t want any infighting to start. In other words. let the hard left run rabid. Kow-tow to it rather than buck the hard left. How about Chuck and Nancy on the wall? Their objective is not to compromise.

That is the same message he is giving them on quasi-political operations. In fact, the effect of what he says is meant to weaken the other side. He knows the loudest radical voices get the attention and action because they drown out others – by design. They don’t want any other voice heard. You don’t compromise if you are the only voice in the room. Still Obama is embarking on a global political structure, much like the Soros machine. The other thing he is really selling here is incrementalism. Start something, no matter how flawed, that your opponents cannot get out of and then just keep piling on it. (he calls it building)

It is disguised as sounding moderate. And he knows full well the dangerous momentum of the socialist left. He must be ecstatic. He knows if anyone must stop the criticism it would be moderates speaking against that far left. It’s those moderates that should be forced to bite their tongues and not make waves.

This word salad only gives the appearance of moderation, when it is the opposite. He doesn’t want Democrats to rise up against the commie left.

You only have to look at who Obama backs to see which side he is on. He loves “Beto,” Robert Francis. He’ll do nothing to get in Bernie’s way either. He’s down with all the commie crap. And look, he organized a coup against Trump, so don’t think he is not strategically aligned with the hard left. He said it there, he does not want a weakened party or movement. Now does that sound moderate?

So Fox can prance around all it wants trying to paint Obama’s remarks as a voice of moderation. But that doesn’t work. We know who he is and so does the left. They also misrepresented the intended message. Does the context not matter of who he is talking to? They are still playing down the threat Obama poses, well into the future. I thought that crazy mantra was debunked by now.

Right Ring | Bullright

Morality of the Beast

It’s a strange new world, and the religion of the left has taken center stage.

AOC lectures us about the morality of Climate Change, while they joyfully push for late-term abortion even infanticide as hard as they can. But we are the deniers?

Reality check! Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore.
Politics of evil.

Right Ring | Bullright

Climate Of Religion

What we have seen is the overt politicization, weaponization and religiosity of the climate, or climate change, and the propagandizing of it. It should be no surprise that they politicized it to the max. That’s why so many people are outraged. But that was only the first step. Then they weaponize the climate, against the people of course.

Then they use the climate as the apocalyptic fear-mongering vehicle

When even the former head of Green Peace has to go on Hannity and call out the apocalypse hysteria of the Left, we are in a strange place.

He actually said that if we do the fossil full elimination they are calling for, it would decimate civilization. Or maybe that is what they want? He also said that our coal fired consumption is about 90% cleaner than it was decades ago.

But he said that today we still rely on fossil fuels for 80% of our electricity. Apparently they didn’t realize that when they tell us they want to switch to electric cars. Imagine the reaction when they all plug them in.

But they are telling us something with these Big Green Plans. They show us it is a religious movement now, full stop. The former Green Peace guy said what they are doing in incorporating kids into their message is equal to child abuse. Well, it should be criminal. The same person also said that the direction they are taking it, including using children (and emotions), is just to push their radical socialism or social justice platform.

I guess they don’t realize that we see exactly what they are doing. They turned it into a political issue, weaponized it, then made it a religious one. And they now feel comfortable turning that weapon on anyone they need to propel their political agenda.

Wouldn’t you think using and scaring kids would be a bit over the top? Not for them. In fact, it is right up their alley. The same way they have been using kids in their socialized healthcare schemes. Just roll out the children. What’s next, having children lobby and protest for late term abortion rights? Don’t be surprised.

As I said some time ago: is there anything too radical and extreme even for Democrats? Not anymore. Remember Claire McKaskill let the dirty secret out of the bag in the campaign, before she lost? She said those are the crazy Democrats and she was not one of them. But now that the election is over and AOC has taken over the party, with an assist from Bernie Sanders, it looks like they are telling us loud and clear that really all Dems are crazy Democrats. That’s the way it works.

We used to hear them say on the campaign that they would not be a lockstep vote, and they were independent minded, and that they would represent the people. Remember Trump called them out at rallies and said if they get in, they will only be Pelosi puppets and vote in lockstep. Rubber stamps. Again, Trump was completely right. But it only took a few short weeks for that to happen and prove it.

Bottom line is these people are not at all about preventing a catastrophe, they are all about creating one. And the faster they get there, the better. Have kids believe that the world is going to incinerate. We used to hide under desks in schools, remember. Now just tell them it is over. So we might as well blow through a hundred trillion dollars trying because it’s a lost cause unless. Unless they can save planet earth from destruction. Well, I wonder what kept planet earth from destruction years ago before they came along? They sort of sound like a revised version of Heaven’s Gate people over the Hale-Bopp Comet.

It does show us something. That the climate change and socialists, besides getting in bed with each other, are reading from the same script. It is all about belief. It is only based on that. Throw in a few anecdotes and current events to make your case, then round up the kids and give them their lines. Send them out to the public and watch people get sucked in. Or so goes the plan. However, what it really is based on is belief.(echoes of Obama) Have enough people to believe it and you can even summon a Hale-Bopp comet to come and rescue them. And they are betting all their marbles, and our money, on it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Weather Fruits at it again

Just how deceiving are the global warming climatologists? Well, take it from one of their propagandists at Accuweather.

Headline: “2018 officially ranks as the 4th hottest year on record for Earth

We all know how media uses sensational headlines. But this is beyond sensational.
Note the words “officially” and “for earth”- not for their records.

It is not until you read within the article that it actually says:

“The year 2018 followed the pattern of higher-than-average annual temperatures, as the Earth experienced its fourth hottest year on the 139-year record.”

Anyone has to admit that 139 years of record keeping is a pretty short blip on the earth limeline, even by Noah’s standards. Speaking of which, where were these people back in Noah’s day when he could have used a little weather forecast affirmation?

Anyway, here they are trying to send the powerful message that at no time in the earth’s history has there been a warmer year. Wow, 2018 must have been a real stoker!

And they sprinkle that message with agencies like NASA and NOAA to lend more “official” credibility to it. Heaven knows you are a denier if you don’t believe them, or if you are even skeptical. Then they call you a “science denier”…. when they only base their model on 139 years of records. Records that have been under some scrutiny.

See:

Climate experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) independently released new data on the global temperatures for 2018 and the most important climate trends of the year on Wednesday, Feb. 6.

Is that also the same science I hear that refuses to call a baby in the womb a baby? Yet even in the Bible it says about Virgin Mary that she was with child, not a blob or a zygote.

Now who would you rather believe? They call that science?

I was waiting for the part that would blame Trump for it. That’s a joke but they were not.

Welcome to the empty head club

Where sanity has been abolished. So add another firecracker to out roars against Trump. Now he is to blame for wildfires in California. When will it end? When will it ever end?

A leftover talent from yesteryear speaks out adding his voice to the anti-Trump sentiment.
Wild fires equal wild talk.

ET “Neil Young Slams Trump After Losing Home To California Wildfire

Neil Young wants action on climate change after losing his home to wildfires in California.

As fires in the state rage on, claiming homes and lives, the Canadian singer has written a post on his website slamming Donald Trump for denying climate science.

Read here: https://etcanada.com/news/385851/neil-young-slams-trump-after-losing-home-to-california-wildfire/

 

[Cue the soundtrack:]
Listen my children and you shall hear
The moronic hubris and the fears,
Of pompous jerks and talking heads.

You may not comprehend, at first,
All it portends for us;
But eventually you’ll see
All that is descent and good they flee.
©2018

Check with my agent, I’m sure someone can put a few chords to that.

Funny they can visualize that but can’t see the swamp gas kicking us in the ass.

Earth Prophecy from Hawking

Stephen Hawking says the Earth will be a fireball by 2600

By Margi Murphy, original – The Sun

Mastermind Stephen Hawking has warned that the human race will perish on Earth after we turn it into a sizzling fireball in less than 600 years.

He declared that humans must “boldly go where no one has gone before” if we fancy continuing our species for another million years.

If we don’t, the world will become overcrowded and increased energy consumption will turn the planet into a ball of fire because of our soaring energy consumption as the population rises.

Making a video appearance at the Tencent WE Summit in Beijing on Sunday, Hawking appealed to investors to back his plans to travel to the closest star outside of our solar system, with the hope that a livable planet might be orbiting it. …/

Continue: https://nypost.com/2017/11/06/stephen-hawking-says-the-earth-will-be-a-fireball-by-2600/

So that’s all she rode. Unless they figure out the next star. And when Loyd’s of London figure that out and confirm it, everything will be set to end.

Climate Change Red Team: deep bench forming

Trump Solicits Help From Conservative Group To Develop Climate Change Red Team

Chris White — 7/24/2017

The Trump administration has asked a conservative group known for promoting climate skepticism to help recruit academics for a “red team” on global warming, the Washington Examiner reported Monday.

President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have enlisted the help of the Heartland Institute, a group widely considered to be the central hub for the academic push against what conservatives call “climate alarmism.” The institute has become a type of boogeyman in liberal circles, mostly because of its skeptical position toward manmade global warming.

“The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency have reached out to the Heartland Institute to help identify scientists who could constitute a red team,” Jim Lakely, the group’s communications director, told reporters Monday. The Heartland Institute accepted the Trump administration’s offer.

“This effort is long overdue,” Lakely said about Trump’s idea to build a “red team vs. blue team,” which essentially pits climate skeptics against academics who argue that human beings are the primary drivers of climate change. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt first announced the idea in June, and has since suggested that the debates should be televised.

“The climate scientists who have dominated the deliberations and the products of the IPCC have gone almost wholly without challenge,” Pruitt said. “That is a violation of the scientific method and the public’s trust.”

Military and intelligence agencies use similar tactics to expose vulnerabilities to strategic systems. Skeptics say it would give needed balance to climate science, a field of research many believe has been monopolized by activists.

Environmentalists and scientists, meanwhile, say it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices that disagree with them on global warming.

“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientists Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.

They argue that the existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project. The authors also said that scientific bodies, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, provide a forum for scientific debates.

Elements within the Obama administration promoted the idea. Steve Koonin, a former Energy Department head during Obama’s tenure, for instance, suggested a red team-blue team approach in an April editorial to put the issue to rest.

“A Red/Blue exercise would have many benefits,” Koonin wrote. “It would produce a traceable public record that would allow the public and decision makers a better understanding of certainties and uncertainties. It would more firmly establish points of agreement and identify urgent research needs.”

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter

At Daily Caller

Know who your friends, enemies are

One of the campaign issues Trump sounded a bullhorn on, at least to evangelicals, pastors and churches, was getting rid of the Johnson Amendment.

That is the one burdening pastors and pulpits under political restrictions to the first amendment, by using 501 status as a lever against them. Holding them hostage you might say. Also placing restrictions on churches. Well, seemed popular didn’t it?

But over the years, so many have become programmed and indoctrinated to this policy. Like a lot of liberal theology, it becomes normalized. No excuses, plenty of complacency.

That’s where it is comes time to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, And so often the latter are closer than you think.

Hundreds of religious groups call on Congress to keep Johnson Amendment

Harry Farley Journalist 05 April 2017 | Christian Today

Nearly 100 religious groups are urging Congress to keep the ‘Johnson Amendment’ which limits churches’ political activities.

President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the law which blocks ministers from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or religious organizations from donating to either party. Many Republicans back him and argue the amendment infringes on religious groups’ free speech.

But 99 different groups have written to oppose the move.

‘The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws,’ they write.

The strongly worded backlash comes from across the religious spectrum from The Episcopal Church and Baptist groups to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu movements.

‘Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system,’ [they] say in a letter to top members of Congress.

……./

Continue reading at Christian Today

Here they come, in the name of ‘protection.’

Or basically all your liberalized arms of churches. We know how to interpret that. Many are the proud who call for boycott, divest, and gov’t sanction actions toward Israel.

Funny, they never seem restrained at all in pushing the progressive political line in churches. That, of course, was never really restricted. We see no applied restrictions on black or leftist churches. They don’t have to worry.

Though even speaking about abortion and protecting life has been deemed political, and too taboo for prime-time pulpits. Except if you want to protect baby killing that’s okay.

So now they reveal who they are. Take note. They will stand and defy the action we want. Just as the sanctuary cities stand in defiance to the law and will of the people. Or should I say much like the activist Sanctuary Churches? Get the idea? Or let them preach Climatology from pulpits. That is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?

Proverbs 27:6
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

RightRing | Bullright

Spring Cleaning in Climate Change Isle

Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch blows away the golden thesis of the Climate Change, Global Warming crowd. Turns out it may not be ‘crowd-sourced’ as well as they say it is. This is the number one phrase they base all their actions on: i.e. debate is over, the consensus is, scientists all agree, it’s an established fact, blah blah ad nauseam.

Let’s Talk About The ‘97% Consensus’ On Global Warming

Michael Bastasch — 03/05/2017 | Daily Caller

We’ve heard it time and time again: “97 percent of scientists agree global warming is real and man-made.”

Question one aspect of the global warming “consensus” and politicians and activists immediately whip out the figure. “You disagree with 97 percent of scientists?”

The 97 percent figure was often used by the Obama administration to bolster its case for phasing out fossil fuels, and President Barack Obama himself used the figure to undercut his critics. NASA even cites studies purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on the issue.

More recently, Newsweek included this figure in an article fretting about “climate deniers” in state legislatures trying to influence science curriculum. The author couldn’t resist noting that “97% of scientists who actively study Earth’s climate say it is changing because of human activity.”

Liberals use the figure to shut down debate around global warming. After all, how can you disagree with all those scientists, many of whom have spent their lives studying the climate?

But how many proponents of “climate action” have actually bothered to read the research that underlays such a popular talking point? How many realize the “consensus” the research claims to find is more of a statistical contortion than actual agreement?

Probably not many, so let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.

What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?

Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.

To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.

In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.

But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors self-rated 2,142 papers.

Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.

Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.

Other studies written before and after Cook’s attempted to find a consensus, but to varying degrees, finding a range of a 7 to 100 percent (yes, no disagreement) among climate experts, depending on what subgroup was surveyed.

Cook’s paper is probably the most widely cited, having been downloaded more than 600,000 times and cited in popular media outlets.

Criticisms

Left-wing politicians and environmental activists pushing for laws and regulations to address global warming unquestioningly embraced Cook’s study.

But not everyone agreed. Some global warming skeptics took a close look at Cook’s work and found some glaring issues.

Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation authored a major critiques of Cook’s study in 2013.

Montford argued Cook’s “97 percent consensus” figure was meaningless, since it cast such a wide net to include global warming skeptics in with hard-core believers.

To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent.” Neither of these points is controversial, Montford wrote.

It’s like claiming there’s a consensus on legalized abortion by lumping pro-abortion activists in with those who oppose all abortion except in cases of incest and rape. That “consensus” would be a meaningless talking point.

University of Delaware geologist David Legates and his colleagues took a crack at Cook’s work in 2015, finding the numbers were cooked beyond a basic wide-net consensus.

Legates’ study, published in the journal Science and Education, found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950.

Cook basically cast a wide net to create a seemingly large consensus when only a fraction of the studies he looked at explicitly stated “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” or something to that effect.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called Cook’s work “propaganda” created to bolster the political argument for economically-painful climate policies.

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age,” Lindzen said in 2016. “Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”

“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” Lindzen said.

Is There A Consensus?

Cook’s paper has become the trump card for alarmists to shut down those who disagree with them. Rarely a day has gone by without some politician or activists citing the 97 percent consensus, but few probably realize how meaningless the figure is.

But there’s a more fundamental problem with Cook’s 97 percent figure — consensus is not proof.

Experts can all agree, but that doesn’t mean they are right. Most political pundits and pollsters predicted Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential race, but were proven dead wrong Nov. 8.

Trying to shut down dissent by arguing “well, all these smart people disagree with you” doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t win anyone over. In fact, most Americans don’t even believe there’s actually a “97 percent consensus” among scientists.

“Just 27% of Americans say that ‘almost all’ climate scientists hold human behavior responsible for climate change,” according to Pew’s new poll from October.

That being said, most climate scientists likely do agree humans are contributing to warming in some way.

The throngs of climate researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) certainly believe most global warming, though not all, since 1950 was driven by humans.

That still leaves us with a lot of possibilities. Is 51 percent of global warming attributable to humans or is 99 percent? Scientists can guess, but no one knows for sure.

On the other hand, a 2016 George Mason University survey of more than 4,000 American Meteorological Society (AMS) members found one-third of them believed global warming is not happening, mostly natural or only about half-caused by humans. The survey found 29 percent of AMS members thought global warming was “largely or entirely” caused by humans and another 38 percent believe warming is “mostly” due to humans.

Other scientists, like Lindzen, see humans as having a minimal influence on the Earth’s climate. Climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute — where Lindzen is now a fellow — have shown climate models incorrectly predicted global temperature rise for six decades.

Climate models currently show twice as much warming as has actually been observed — a problem many scientists have only recently come to terms with.

 
Follow Michael on Twitter @MikeBastasch

**Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
Original article: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/05/lets-talk-about-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

 

H/T and thanks to Dave for forwarding — (who is still sipping lemonade at his villa somewhere in the Caribbean until spring – as opposed to the Fake News Spring.)

Groundhog Day: state of climate

In this current climate, my friend says it is time to protest Groundhog Day. Okay:

I’ve been to Punxsutawney and YOU, sir, are no Punxsutawney Phil.

No offense to other ground hogs out there. Stop ‘normalizing’ Phil.

Word is Phil is rightfully concerned. He saw what they are doing to “Fili” the Filibuster using the nuclear option. What could they do to him? His climate prediction is: six more weeks of ‘dangerous’. That’s par for the course in this scorched-earth political climate.

Hey hey, ho ho…. it’s off to protest we go!

No climate denier here.

RightRing | Bullright

CFACT exposes GW gurus latest tactics

As Solomon said, there’s nothing new under the sun. Global Warming gurus roll out new program — which is a lot like their past ones — to Use kids.

Weather Channel goes Orwell

CFACT

Friend,

The Weather Channel released a video featuring kids lecturing their parents about global warming.

Just how much should we believe these children understand about the complexities of climate science?  Where did they get their information?

Indoctrinating children and using them to influence their parents is something right out of a dystopian novel.  It is a favored technique of tyrannical regimes of all stripes.

Here are some examples of the erroneous “facts” (and their refutations) recited by children in the video that Marc Morano posted at CFACT’s Climate Depot.  (His coverage made the Drudge Report):

Dear Mom and Dad:

CFACT’s readers know that these are propaganda talking points that do not stand up when studied under the unforgiving lens of real-world scientific observation.

Increasingly adults are not falling for the climate campaign’s false arguments.  Leonardo DiCaprio’s new climate film couldn’t rank higher than number 61 in the ratings as Anthony Watts pointed out at Watts Up With That.

That’s why they target children.

Hey Weather Channel, 1984 was a warning not an instruction manual!

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director
See more at: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=87b74a936c723115dfa298cf3&id=5a6a4e31f9&e=72a9829d77