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

Hurricane Matthew not bad enough for GW gurus

GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS DISAPPOINTED THAT HURRICANE MATTHEW WASN’T WORSE

Government Slaves Info

[10/26/16] J.D.HEYES– Only the sickest, most warped and ideologically polluted minds would secretly hope for greater death and destruction to their own people and country, but such is the case with “climate change” zealots.

As pointed out by Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), it was former President Obama crony and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel who once infamously remarked that political leaders should never let serious crises “go to waste,” because they can use them to advance a political agenda where they could not do so before.

As for the recent Hurricane Matthew, it appears as though a number of political operatives and true believers in the global warming religion likely wanted it to be worse than it actually was (which, to many people, was bad enough).

See more: http://www.govtslaves.info/global-warming-alarmists-disappointed-that-hurricane-matthew-wasnt-worse/

And they had such high hopes and plans for massive catastrophe. Never let a crisis go to waste, you know.

Papal Protests and 2016 Elections

Pope Francis nas taken the liberty to weigh in on the election and call Trump a non-Christian in one swoop.

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel,”– Pope Francis.

He seemed to do it as Obama is also attacking Trump as being “unelecatable”.

Trump replied from Carolina that:

“They [Mexican government] are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.”

I know, some people frown on public criticism or commentary on the Pope regarding politics. But that is not me. In fact, these comments just beg a response to them. And I’m just one to accommodate it. Now it appears fashionable for this “Vicar” to do public cut and run comments from his Papal paradise, yet people are to supposed to remain silent.

This is not a matter of political correctness either. However, it is considered politically incorrect to criticize the Pope or Francis. Sorry for the disclaimer. I don’t hear him warning ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” No, he endorses the public stoning of non-compliant individuals, metaphorically.

Rather this Pope went on the campaign trail when he came here, aligning his position and public ad campaign with Tom Steyer and the far Left joining their big-government, Global Warming agenda.(Steyer sponsored his ad campaign message) Some may regard that as courageous or welcome his critique in our policy and political process. But I for one do not, especially as it is a one-sided, double standard approach.

Where are the Papal excommunications of Leftist politicians who support abortion, even up to and including the infanticide of partial birth abortion? Where is that public flogging or that multi-million dollar ad campaign? Don’t point me to general comments selectively littered in some of his speeches between his pros on Climate Change.

Show me where he singles out someone on the Left and calls them a non-Christian — or excommunicates someone. He might just start that one with the Oval Office Occupant and his anti-Life voting record. There are times when hypocrisy just stands up and screams.

I am grieved today because of what Francis said on Donald Trump. Not because of my predisposition toward either side of it. If it were someone other than this Pope, then he might possibly regret those statements. But that won’t happen. As with the uber-Left, unfortunately, shame is not a factor in their sentiments.

Remember, in August 2015, Pope Francis was said to have excommunicated Donald Trump, citing it “behavior recognized as un-Christian to the community of the faithful,” barring him from partaking in sacraments of the Church. ***(Update: Apparently it was a satirical site post here though in effect this is much the same thing)

So Pope Francis and the Vatican endorses the illegal invasion of our southern border.

Let the mass excommunications begin. Has a sort of an Inquisition tone to it.
But deporting illegal invaders is compassionateless.

Note: (my apologies for the mention of the satire excommunication) Later, the Presbyterian Church was calling on people to denounce Trump’s statements saying his church should look into his standing.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s Rendezvous with Terrorism Speech

Dr. Evil acted the part delivering his post terrorism address. But after assorted tries he finally attempts to nail down a message — a message but not a strategy. 4-Point BS.

First, was his comment he would call the president of France later to express his sentiments on the Paris attack. Then, when in Paris, he had a failed press conference getting hammered by questions on terrorism. Then he went to Manila and made statements on the terrorism attack, refusing as he does to call it Islamic terrorism. Then after San Bernardino was labeled an act of terror, he delivers his Saturday address talking about gun control So third bite at the terrorism apple, he has an address on terrorism. He finally called it terrorism only when he could not deny it.

Obama needed to mute the criticism of not making a formal announcement about it. Alas, still, maybe it is Americans fault for the non-inclusive prejudice against Muslims and our rampant Islamophobia? Hardly, they threw the terrorist couple a baby shower just months before. That’s a sure sign of Islamophobia.

All’s fair in warfare, or maybe not.

Obama has become the problem in the way Islam has become the problem. Complacency has led to being complicit. If he wants to manage this homeland terrorism how he managed ISIS, then we are certainly in for more pain with no gain. Obama’s complacency has brought us to this point. So if Sen. Blumenthal can declare Congress complicit for failing to enact gun control, then he should see the reality that Obama is complicit by his failures.

Islam is complicit by their complacency for years to do anything about it. There is a war within Islam, except there is only one side fighting it. Radical Islam is at war with us and only one side is really fighting it. But Obama is building a Climate Caliphate saying that will prove something to ISIS and Islamists.

The San Bernardino attack proved the fallacy in the administration’s terrorism theology. Remember that one? They claimed terrorists are caused by lack of jobs and poor socioeconomic conditions. Syed Farook was working for the government, with all the perks, as a so-called public servant. Scrap that theory, or label government employment a prerequisite for terrorism too. Nope. Oh, then it was droughts are the cause terrorism. There must have been a drought in San Bernardino. He was a health inspector of restaurants. But if only we could give them good jobs and good economic conditions, and prevent the climate from causing droughts. Then stop them from being victims, too.

Obama spoke from the Oval office:

Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.

Again he refers to it as a tragedy. Can we move on to the terrorism it was?

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.

Yes, thank goodness the FBI already determined it was terrorism, so you are a little late informing us of that. Still he emphasizes coworkers, as if that really had anything to do with it, except to provide them an opportunity for a soft target. But there he goes parsing the words that we have no evidence of connection to a wider conspiracy at home. (Disclaimer alert) Tell that to the dead and victims in San Bernardino. We know they were connected to terrorism abroad and she swore allegiance to the Caliphate. Pay no attention to that or his trip to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The obvious money connections mean nothing either. Oh, it must have been a lucrative government job to amass that arsenal of supplies by his lonesome, making that socioeconomic cause even more ridiculous. They must have dumped all that income into Islamic radical terrorism. So just lip service calling it radical terrorism.

Then he finally admits it is an act of terrorism, born of a radical religious ideology. The “perverted interpretation” some argue is more common and mainstream than many people accept. So this was cover for Obama’s ass to call it terrorism and implying a radical element to it. They were not just walking along, minding their own business, and fell victim to this perverted radical Islam, as victims themselves. No, there were only those real victims and the shooters were not victims. An ISIS spokesman prayed God would accept them as martyrs. Yep, martyrs that kill 14 and wound others in an ambush attack? Definitions shift like Obama.

Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure.

Wait, you mean the War On Terror term that you abolished in political correctness and naive strategic failure. A war you tried to undermine by scrubbing any reference to radical Islamism in our strategy, plans, or rules. And your war on the term “terrorism?”

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe.

Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been hampered and crippled by your P/C-fied policies and playing politics with our nations security. Treasonous by nature. If someone would have hindered our response after Pearl Harbor would we have allowed it? You mean those counter-terrorism measures our people carried out in spite of your undermining the central objective to root out Islamic terrorism in and out of the country. Kudos to them for that.

And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

No, most of us know that, though it could be called a cancer, there is a cure even a short term one you are unwilling to commit to. And making statements calling it a JV team is not the prescription, nor is the denial about the source of this terrorism and ideology. That even inspires the cancer to grow. Pampering Muslims does little to combat it in the immediate future and makes it harder to confront in the longer term. An effect not lost on the terrorists.

Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.

You do not have to tell us the threat is real. That is confirmed in real time. You’ve been in denial about it all along, deceiving, saying things like the world has always been a dangerous place. Seems you have no issue with tough talk when it comes to Republicans or even shutting down the government, or getting your way — any way you can, even abusing the Executive-Order pen. Tell us what groups like ISIS are hoping for. Inaction is what they are hoping for and counting on. We are being smart, then, by denying the severity of the threat, by relentlessly criticizing our own people for calling it a threat? Drawing upon every aspect of American power? Really, that is the height of deception you’ve been engaged in. You have constrained and criticized the use of American power. Instead, you use the bully pulpit to chastise American patriots. You take shots at Congress from foreign shores and play politics with our resources, including our military.

So in that manner we will succeed? This blind faith in you strategy has not been working to date, but still you say just believe and stay the course. (the one that brought us to this point) Strong, smart, resilient, relentless. Being strong and smart is not something we lack. It is you that has buried your head in the sand, as in Benghazi blaming it on a video for political reasons. Being nowhere to be found on the night of the Benghazi attack. Or going into Libya by sidestepping Congress. And look where that has led. Or your support and direct involvement in the Arab Spring from the beginning, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, a fruitful exercise.

Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary.

But it is not just the social planners of terrorism who are a problem. It is the terrorists on the street, in sleeper cells that do the damage, and lone wolves.

In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.

You mean the lackluster politically correct effort you made so far? But now France and others have stepped in to do something besides return armed bombers. Since now you have finally allowed hitting oil tankers. Wouldn’t it have been achievement if you had done some of that before, when ISIS columns were moving into the neighborhood?

Second, training and equipping to the tune of 500 million that produced four warriors.

Third, working with friends and allies sounds a lot like the first. Wait for others, lead from behind. Works every time.

Fourth, more American leadership from behind in the international community “to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all.” Let’s hope that proves more productive than the Iran deal. A leadership that you, Obama, have failed to demonstrate so far. I only wish you would show the same passion for that as you have for the global warming agenda.

This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done.

You mean those changes you have been so stubbornly against? Yeah, more of that. Or you mean the job of leaving it for the next president to deal with after you removed the thousands of support troops from Iraq and grew the numbers and support for ISIS?

That’s why I’ve ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Finally, after an DHS spokesperson said they stand by that policy, you will now “review”(look at) that visa program. Lets hope you don’t look at it like you did the Keystone Pipeline.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

It is actually a red herring. A great talking point on the left. We have a program plagued with problems now which you want to use to control gun screening.

Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.

Another red herring, the Constitution or anything else has not stopped or prevented you before from acting, such as in Libya.

We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield.

That makes no real sense. If they cannot defeat us on the battlefield, why would they want us there? I get it, you are not interested in a war, even if they have declared one on us. Yet you call on Congress to declare authorization for you to act.

Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional.

Right never forget what makes us exceptional, while denying we are exceptional. That makes sense. By the way, a good many people wish they could trust you.

Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear;

Let’s talk about that. We aren’t forgetting and haven’t. Just that we value our freedom and sovereignty more than you do. You want to entangle us and give away our sovereignty. How does that make us free or freer?

Now that you mention fear, you are building a Climate Caliphate based and founded on fear. And it seeks to limit our freedom and economic freedoms. How is that compatible with what you advocate? More specious words meant more to deceive rather than heal a climate of frustration with your use(abuse) of power.

RightRing | Bullright

Gas emissions thick in Paris

Obama goes to Paris to break wind at the Climate Conference Summit. As usual with him, the flatulence was flying.

“One of the enemies we will be fighting at this conference is cynicism. The notion we can’t do anything about climate change,” Obama lectured.

Obama’s only enemies are his critics. He claimed to have seen “the effects change first hand in Alaska, where the sea is already swallowing villages and eroding shorelines….where glaciers are melting at a pace unprecedented in modern times.”

It will be compared to the MLK speech where he said “I’ve been to the mountain top.”

What is unprecedented in modern times is the amount of flatulence Obama is spreading from the US all the way to Paris, along with his global carbon footprint.

Sickening really to hear this much hyperbole spewed at once. Obama claimed in the last 7 years we made “ambitious investments” in green energy. If you translate that he made some ambitious spending on his enviro-agenda that speaks for itself. Big shout out to Solyndra. What some call stupid Obama calls ambitious, but spending just the same.

There were two good statements as the pious president exited Paris. Krauthammer told O’Reilly that even if they had a principled strategy to deal with ISIS, Obama cannot be trusted to carry it out. Then Bolton said it was not a meeting on Climate but a religious event and Obama was delivering the last sermon. Bookend statements that say it all.

Reference: see USA Today

RightRing | Bullright

Climate Caliphate on the march

Move over ISIS, there’s a new Caliphate in town. It’s called the Climate Caliphate and it’s about ready to bust a move all over the global stage. Exhibit A: Climate Conference, Paris.

“Look, I think it is absolutely vital for every country, every leader to send a signal that the viciousness of a handful of killers does not stop the world from doing vital business,” Obama said in his latest press conference, with the president of France, on the upcoming Paris summit.

I guess what that really says is that the climate is a far bigger threat than the Christians and infidels could ever be. Take that ISIS.

“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,” Obama told the Coast Guard earlier this year.

John Kerry is definitely on the advisory board for the Climate Caliphate.

“When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them,” Kerry noted in February 2014.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/23/obama-climate-change-summit-paris-message-terrorists/

In honor of that here is a catchy tune. (Circa 1982)

ISIS, you got some heavy competition.

Obama sees fear in rear view mirror

November 22, 2015 The Hill

Obama says GOP doing the terrorists’ work for them

President Obama said Sunday that the Republican running for president and in Congress continue to respond to terror attacks are doing what the terrorists want them to do.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/261031-obama-criticizes-house-legislation-on-refugees

Obama says “if Republicans running for president and in Congress continue to respond to attacks by playing off fears, they are doing what the terrorists want them to do….fear.”

Of Course Obama is only consumed by the fear of Global Warming. That’s perfectly rational. Everyone should be scared to death of global warming. The more of that the better.

And The Hill

Approximately 66 percent think Obama has no clear plan for defeating the terrorist organization, according to the CBS News poll.

Crazy Obama-hood

Welcome to the wacky world of Obama. Cue the Twilight Zone theme. A place where a clerk goes to jail for not issuing a marriage license but an entire city in California refuses to follow federal law and nothing happens. A place where incompetence is the excuse and justification for more incompetence.

In fact, when the Attorney General is asked about sanctuary cities going on for decades, Loretta Lynch claims that she needs time to study it. Time is not on our side, people.

The IRS targets people politically and the DOJ claims there is no grounds to prosecute Lerner or anyone else. The administration lies to everyone to get Obamacare passed but you lying to the government will land you in jail. The government breaches a dam contaminating an entire ecosystem but it calls you a denier threat if you don’t buy their global warming propaganda. The DOJ will launch an immediate civil rights investigation if you don’t sell a cake to someone or participate in their wedding ceremony. But a city openly refuses to cooperate with federal laws and statutes, and DOJ says we’ll have to “study” up on the matter.

Obama tells people to quit popping off about the circumstances or criticizing his ISIS policy. Instead, he says, put out their own strategy and show him. That’s election campaign rhetoric. It is radical Alinsky rules: make your opponent put forth a plan or strategy to prevent him from criticizing yours. The thing is he is the president, with access to all the information. He doesn’t want you to criticize his strategy unless you put forth a plan of your own, which he can then criticize and mock taking the focus off his. Just read Rules for Radicals, it’s just like the ISIS pr Al Qaeda terrorist manual. Then he deports five more detainees from Gitmo back to the ME, while also conniving a scheme to bring remaining Gitmo combatants to US mainland prisons. And imports tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, with a fictional screening, just to add a little more spice to it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch: (the capitol)

Tick, tick, tick…

Search for Competency

How do you start a post that is filled with sanctimonious hubris, self-serving political interests, elite establishment powers and politics? Maybe you just dive in.

The recent debate taught some of us that the media is an important player in that process. But it was evident from the beginning when CNN wanted to use old polls in placing candidates on the two different tiers. It proved media can and does have some influence in the debates — not to mention the questions.

Elite establishment likes to pick the winners. Should I say they like to decide? With all these influences coming together, the one thing that unifies them is the establishment. Why don’t we just have an Establishment Party? It would be simpler.

Even despite all this influence peddling, I have a few observations that stand out to me:

Both Parties are having primaries, why does it appear the media only cares about one, the Republican primary? No one is interested in Dems’ views on current issues.

The media competes on what probing questions to ask Republican candidates, especially the outsider ones. No one asks any tough probing policy questions to the Democrats, including Hillary. In fact, Hillary had refused to state her position on the XL Pipeline for months. No one pushed the issue. Then suddenly, in the face of dwindling polls and the Pope”s visit highlighting the climate change agenda, she vows to oppose it.

Media is casting its vote all the time. They don’t like Trump. They all would like him out, but they do like the ratings he brings them. But don’t talk about Hillary’s opponents.

All these factors together help create one atmosphere of unrest. People were already angry enough, which is why Trump got on top. Democrats are too, but they look to a big government socialist like Sanders for solutions — more government. But people are not just angry with government or Congress. It’s toward media, too, long a point of contention with conservatives, and anything connected with old-guard establishment.

So we have the government not trusted, in any branch. Media is distrusted more and more and under suspicion. The economy is no pillar of stability, not to most people anyway. The world is destabilized with refugees now flooding all across Europe. And Kerry already announced we are going to take a 80,000 and 100,000 the following year. Putin is putting on the blitz.

IRS was targeting people, EPA is running roughshod. Hillary is a ham sandwich short of indictment. We still have the border crisis which people are ticked off with. Mad but no, they do not just want new immigration law. We can’t trust the government to enforce current laws. So we have that old festering wound which doesn’t trust government on anything. Nor the media. We can’t trust the government to investigate itself.

They are angry with the effects Obamacare has had. They are angry with the debt and budget, and Planned Parenthood. They are angry with the effects government has had over their lives and liberty.They are angry with the abuse of power. They are angry that they elected representatives who forgot what they came to Washington for. They are angry at their Party who shortstops their voice in elections. Pissed off would be putting it mildly.

Then you have career politicians vying to fix the problems, with the track records they already have — generally making things worse — while the establishment runs interference to pick them. Then there are the denials about many of the problems we take seriously and they don’t seem to. Talk about icing the cake!

The President, the Pope and Politics

…and the Castro brothers.

“You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. [5] Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?” —
James 4:4-5

Does the Pope understand, as he should, that the global warming-climate change agenda is really a political one? A seductive one at that. It has been exposed.

It’s just like a bait and switch. You may think you are taking a scientific approach, but science has been trumped by political, reason has morphed into political agenda. You can think you take a modern Christian perspective only to have the creation replace the Creator.

Just as the bait and switch above:

“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. “–Matt 6:24 (Sermon on the Mount)

The old God vs. Mammon applies to the creation – worshiping crowd. Even though the Pope may think he is taking the righteous high ground, the whole agenda has been corrupted, and evolved into a socialism tenant. Who, or whom, is he really serving?

“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” –Rom 8:22

As much as Pope Francis is immersed in politics of the Climatology agenda, he goes to Cuba and meets with Castro but he is barred from meeting with dissidents. Of course.

Even the Leftist media can’t help but question the Cuba visit asking:
Is Pope Francis too soft on communism?

(CNN)But for the most part, the Pope has steered clear of overt political statements — much more so than his predecessors, says veteran Vatican-watcher John Thavis. And some conservatives are accusing Francis of going soft on communism.

Let’s see if he steers clear of political when he comes to the US? Going to the UN could put the lie to that notion. I doubt he will restrain political inferences.

BBC is asking questions too.
https://twitter.com/bbcworldservice/status/645404379474997248/photo/1?ref_src=twsrctfw

Is the Pope a Communist? (Listen to their inquisition – in new tab)

Social sin, unemployment, false god, money, liberation theology — it’s all packed in there. The conclusion to the piece is no he is not a communist, but what he is no one is quite sure.

But if he shares the propensities of Raul Castro, along with other communists and socialists, like Obama and radical leftists, then how far removed is he from communism? Or if he is a willing tool of the same, what difference does it really make? Used he will be.

Seems the Pope has plenty of Marxist, socialist friends. Whether he sought them out in the same way Obama did is a question. One wonders if that same fatal attraction Obama has for Marxist radicals he proudly admits to, could be the same element that welcomed Francis to the Papacy? The flirtation can be fatal.

For Obama’s part, he can intentionally play up the political agenda, especially with Francis, in order to later have the political references roundly criticized. Nothing could make Barry Soetoro-Barack Obama any happier than stirring critique of the RCC, or the Pope. (for his Islam friends) But then Francis comes from the same social community organizing background. It sets a rivalry on a large scale. One wonders if the subject of the Crusades comes up too?

Also see:

“Welcome to our big, messy religious debate, Pope Francis”
By Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor
“We have a tradition in this country of avoiding discussion of religion and politics at the dinner table, and Pope” Francis soon see why.

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.

Sharpton sees climate change opening in Ozone

What Sharpton is up to: Breitbart has the story on Sharpton’s incarnation as climate change/civil rights guru. That’s right, his job is to unify them.

Sharpton said, “it [climate change] is an issue of justice, and it is an issue of human rights. African-Americans are at a higher risk of being close, or predisposed to areas of carbon, as well as other poisonous pollution in the air. And we have a disproportionate interest because we suffer disproportionately.”

For instance, when blacks riot they are disproportionately exposed to such hazards many times more higher the average person. A burning car for instance, or an arson fire of a CVS can be almost toxic. So yes, they are a hundred times more at risk.

He added, “You cannot, not deal with climate change as a health issue, as a moral issue, and as a civil rights issue.” — see video

Oh yes you can “not deal with climate change,” if you are mayor of Baltimore issuing stand down orders giving rioters “space to destroy,” loot and burn – scorched earth. But it is desirable to “not to deal with it”. As a moral issue, their strategy is lying. Only for the right reasons, I suppose.

Civil rights? Well, if the Climate Caliphate does not get their way they make it a living hell. But it’s the government pushing it. Civil rights activism is usually standing up for people against oppression and discrimination, not endorsing them. What happened to speaking truth to power? They shout down, threaten, bully, stifle and destroy opponents.

Here we go again. I wonder how much Al’s making for the Climate Change gig while he’s been destroying our political climate for decades — what is really warming. I know, Al heard it was the “green agenda” so he said “that’s my agenda!” Al goes Ozone for that. “Preach it, Rev Al.”

Pope, Mayors, climate change, and the Left

You know how the Left (progressives, anti-Christian bigots et al) complain endlessly about cozy alliances or collaboration between Christian leaders and government regarding “separation of Church and State,” or more specifically Christianity and politics.? Well, the hypocrisy meter explodes at what is planned on the 21st and 22nd of July.

The Vatican and Pope Francis will host a meeting with mayors from around the world, plus other dignitaries of the left and global warming communities, to “discuss global climate and modern slavery.” See complete write up here.

The Eponymous Flower has the full story: “Vatican and the UN Organize Event With Leftist Mayors on Climate Change — Rapprochement Continues”. (Excerpt):

“He [Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo]organized ahead of the encyclical, the concept of an international workshop of “climate change and sustainable development” in the Vatican. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will give the opening speech. The keynote speaker will be his right hand, the UNSDNS Director Jeffrey Sachs (UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network). Thus, not only will the representatives who believe in manmade global warming will gather in the Vatican, but also the neo-Malthusians. Not only that, but climate skeptics were systematically removed from the registration list. The Vatican has been (see the promoters of a guided, one-sided meeting in accordance with the UN World Warming thesis Climate skeptics Excluded From Vatican Meeting – Other Opinions Undesirable ).”

60 Mayors from Around the World Meeting in the Vatican – are “Exclusively” of the Left

“The UN is not the Devil, but the Opposite”, said Sanchez Sorondo to a journalist’s question, whether it was not strange that the Vatican was harboring a UN event. […More]

I shall now sit back and await the huge outcry from progressives and media over the cozy collaboration, with the inevitable nasty protests to follow from mayors and the left. This fallout will be big. Any minute….

Love it when a plan comes together, not

The Global Warming fanatics are still pushing their snake oil. But who is buying it? That could be a problem, or so you would think. This article encapsulates a series of comments at one recent attempt to refute the truth.

Commenters excoriate a Science paper that denies global warming ‘pause’

By S. Fred Singer | July 1, 2015 | American Thinker

Perhaps the most inconvenient truth for global warming theorists has been the absence of any statistically significant warming trend in the past 18 years – in spite of rapidly rising atmospheric levels of the greenhouse-gas carbon-dioxide. Many are simply ignoring this unanticipated result – for example, the encyclical letter issued by Pope Francis on June 18. Conventional climate science, as employed in IPCC models, has been unable to explain these observations.

Coming to the rescue, Dr Tom Karl, head of NOAA’s National Climate Data center (NCDC) asserts that the temperature plateau (aka ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’) is simply an artifact of the data. After he and colleagues adjust some recent SST (sea-surface temp) readings, they claim an uninterrupted warming trend in the 21st century. […/]

I loved this one comment in particular.

Scott Martell

“In all this they are not seeking for theories and causes to account for observed facts, but rather forcing their observations and trying to accommodate them to certain theories and opinions of their own.” – Aristotle, On the Heavens II.13.293a

[See list of dissent comments]

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/commenters_excoriate_a_emscienceem_paper_that_denies_global_warming_pause.html

Lots of questions raised by their claims but don’t expect any explanations from the G/W – Climate Caliphate.  These days it is all about “settled science” and “settled law” responses to any problems, questions, or skepticism. Both of which are pretty unsettling.

Climate Change cluster-muck

Bernard Goldberg has written a stimulating column on the Papal pronouncements, albeit endorsement, of Global Warming and Climate Change.

He argues against the Pope getting involved in the politics. So has Jeb Bush insinuated he does not march to that tune. Here’s an excerpt of the column hoping others check it out.

Liberals will love that message too. But here comes the uh oh alert. This was also in the encyclical on global warming: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”

I’m guessing liberals weren’t too happy with that part. But abortion is also a moral issue at the core of the church’s teaching. And so is gay marriage and to some extent, Bruce Jenner too.

– See more at: http://bernardgoldberg.com/the-pope-global-warming-and-the-elusive-meaning-of-morality/

No Bernard, right, he is not going to lose sleep that you aren’t buying the snake oil.

Speak loudly and carry a big threat

That should be the new motto for the Marxist, militant left.

Michele takes to the campuses to exact her vengeance on America — structural racism in particular, since that is the left’s new code word no matter who is in office.

And in the face of all of that clamor, you might have an overwhelming instinct to just run the other way as fast as you can. You might be tempted to just recreate what you had here at Oberlin -– to find a community of like-minded folks and work with them on causes you care about, and just tune out all of the noise. And that’s completely understandable. In fact, I sometimes have that instinct myself — run! (Laughter.)

But today, graduates, I want to urge you to do just the opposite. Today, I want to suggest that if you truly wish to carry on the Oberlin legacy of service and social justice, then you need to run to, and not away from, the noise. (Applause.) Today, I want to urge you to actively seek out the most contentious, polarized, gridlocked places you can find. Because so often, throughout our history, those have been the places where progress really happens –- the places where minds are changed, lives transformed, where our great American story unfolds.

Then came the lecture on social justice (their definition) and the get out to vote message. Is that all they care about: politics, elections, and political power? Some “struggle” that is.

So get out there and volunteer on campaigns, and then hold the folks you elect accountable. Follow what’s happening in your city hall, your statehouse, Washington, D.C. Better yet, run for office yourself. Get in there. Shake things up. Don’t be afraid. (Applause.) And get out and vote in every election -– not just the big national ones that get all the attention, but every single election. Make sure the folks who represent you share your values and aspirations.”

Raw raw sis boom bah!
Hold them accountable? Unless you elect Hillary Clinton, then ignore accountability just like now. And while she’s running, give her a big wet-kiss pass.

If Michele was pounding the bigotry of racism, social justice, and revolution; then Obama is pounding the Global Warming propaganda just as arrogantly hard to Coast Guard grads.

“Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.”

“Many of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our Coast Guard stations. Around Norfolk, high tides and storms increasingly flood parts of our Navy base and an air base. In Alaska, thawing permafrost is damaging military facilities. Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.”

“You are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us. Climate change will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, today and for the long-term.”

So let me combine Obama’s cliff notes for the military. Do not talk about or mention Christianity or Jesus. That gets you in big trouble. Do put faith in the religion of global warming. Swear on the altar of climate change, talk about it all the time. Mission #1.

 

Well, Obama had already done his own rage routine earlier.

Luther, Obama’s anger translator:

HOLD ON TO YOUR LILY-WHITE BUTTS !!!

Oh don’t worry, Barry, we will… we are! (he couldn’t even say it himself)

When in Rome, 2015 and the climate it’s a changin’

Well, 2015 is already shaping up as a significant year. It’s gotten off to a rocky start as we see, in the first quarter we had 0.2 percent GDP growth. (subject to later revision) That could basically be considered flat-lining and a few whiskers short of contraction. Hey, what’s a few tenths of a percent? Everything .

Then politically it is filled with the same turmoil that got us a new and improved Congress in 2014, and the disenchantment the left and the White House has over that. It’s a little more than a year before the next presidential election, without an incumbent — unless you consider Hillary an incumbent. All of it raising questions about the future.

We’re already deep into protest-palooza spreading across state lines, across the country. They are now a greater threat than natural disasters and storms. National security and terrorism is right back on the front burner with all the hot items the left would like to accentuate.

But then there’s Obama, in whatever scorched earth agenda he has left, trying to navigate the issues in the social chaos he ushered in. His favorite theme of late is there is no greater threat to the world than global warming or climate change. But its a crowd pleaser. Among his leftist base it is on par with income disparity and their demonize the rich campaign. (except for uber-rich leftists)

Reminds me of the old song, Times they are a changin’ (’64). In the words of Bob Dylan, “There’s a battle outside, And it is ragin’.”

Then there’s the creation-worshiping cult of the left. Speaking of religiosity of the faith-based global warming, climate change, or its broader globalism theory, the Pope of Rome has decided to weigh in on the subject.

Pope Francis poised to weigh in on climate change with major document

By Michelle Boorstein — April 27 | Washington Post

The largely secular climate movement is about to get what some predict will be a historic boost from an intriguing source: Pope Francis.
Francis is putting the final touches on what may be the most authoritative papal teaching ever on the environment, a topic bound up with economics, global development and politics and thus very controversial. …/
The encyclical is expected to be published in early summer and,… to influence a civil process — in this case, a major U.N. summit in December on climate change. …/
Continue reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pope-francis-poised-to-weigh-in-on-climate-change-with-major-document/2015/04/27/d5c268b2-df81-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html

So we’ll be in a holding pattern for the encyclical, and the left will be building the hype and suspense until it comes. Meanwhile, they can cite the Pope as a global warming colleague.

Just when you thought the year seemed chock full of turmoil and political fodder — dark enough to block sunlight — it is going to get a whole lot more “heated” before it’s over. If you thought smoldering buildings and looting from protests-gone-rad were bad, stay tuned for the uber-sized battle of global warming coming down the pike – scorched earth style. Now that the Pope is officially joining the fray, it will enlist all the resources it can.

The Climate Caliphate is getting very restless. Jihad is on. If Obama has an unwavering appetite for war on anything, it is for war on coal, energy, the economy, rural America, conservatives and anything standing in his way — he takes no prisoners. It’s a nice diversion from real, immediate problems and threats. ( like an 18 tillion-$ diversion)

Deniers’ delight: a rare inside GW/CC look

From inside the beltway and inside the global warming, climate change movement is a glimpse of the organizers. See Real Science piece here. But here are a couple videos.

Aptly named “Merchants of Smear,” first video here conveys the message:
It really comes down again to the hearts….it comes down to who we think we are.

In part 2 they discuss the movement and target, smear their opposition.

See: “There is a very well funded disinformation campaign”

What a picture of their activism in action. Sometimes these leftists are their worst advertisers. Note the extreme projection and hypocrisy going on there.

“Eventually we’re going to turn the corner,” they say. Turn what corner, total control? Note all the religious overtones. There’s a prime inside look. Being Michael Mann is elevated to sort of a god, I’m surprised he is making any personal appearances.

Big H/T to Steve Goddard for the efforts.