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

Advertisements

Sneak attacks from Paris Accord train

I read this op-ed in the NYT, preferred toilet tissue for those in the know. However, it does pay to see what they say once in a while, even with a jaundice eye and flexing eyebrows.

The Times Editorial Board describes Trump’s jump off the Paris Accord train as “America in Retreat.” But then it does it while a terrorist attack goes down in London. See there is no time that is not a good time to attack Trump. And that is all it was.

You would think it might be laced with the benefits of staying in the Paris Accord. No, it was only a criticism for leaving it. How dare you. But it failed to mention any benefits that we would get out of it.

Sure, we know the world gains from US being in it. They want our money. Another Globul scheme that we will chiefly fund. Excuse me, aren’t we having those problems in other world organizations? So no painful losses for us bailing out of the latest Globul scheme.

Their biggest point was that we are shirking, or ceding, our leadership by fleeing from it. That’s the big problem, and that is reprehensible to their ideological view.

We just got rid of a president who believed in leading from behind, who was all for this agreement, but somehow we are foregoing our leadership by withdrawing? In all his twisted foreign policy failures, Obama never once put America first and certainly did not prove his theory correct. He gained nothing from all the apologies he spouted from Cairo to Russia. Yet now we are abandoning our leadership position? Even at home he did not put the will of the people or our priorities first. Instead, he set his priorities of green energy first at the expense of everything else, and wasted countless millions on programs that didn’t work or went belly up, along with our money. Then he branded it a success.

(NYT) Still, Mr. Trump and his team, embroiled in controversy over Russia and other matters, have shown no inclination, much less skill, to do the hard thinking that must precede any decision to alter America’s role in the world.

So right on the heels of having given the world a tragedy of an Iran deal, which benefited Iran, Obama headed straight down his homestretch to get into a Paris Deal that offered nothing but another giant expense for us. That, he claimed, was leadership. Setting up any global slush fund is now called leadership — the bigger the better.

But we were always supposed to be cautious of foreign entanglements that threaten our sovereignty. That is exactly why Obama and the left like to dabble in them so much.

Perfect example: it didn’t take long, when Trump was contemplating the withdraw from the Paris accord, for media and press to ramp up means that you would not have thought possible. Yes, they insisted that to withdraw from the Paris treaty — can we now at least call it that — was, in fact, a threat to our sovereignty. Oh yes they did! Every reason we gave for withdrawing they tried to reverse to make it a reason we should stay in it.

The exact opposite of their rhetoric was true. It was a treaty masquerading as an executive order. If it was so popular they would have had no problem getting Senate approval, which they wouldn’t do because it would not pass. It was the same Constitutional principle they avoided on the Iran deal. Yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

Now they claim we are giving up our sovereignty by withdrawing. But no one explains why that is true, just like they don’t explain all the benefits of staying in. Other countries had to do nothing. So they, namely the left, are angry because there is no replacement for our funding. Their claim is that without us in the treaty everyone else is going to reap the benefits now. But they were the ones who were going to benefit anyway.

It is just one more deal which doesn’t consider America’s priorities. Yet they lie and say getting out does not preserve our priorities, it threatens them. Then there is Democrats’ universal closing argument for everything that “people are going to die.”

Ironically, the only thing that seems to usurp media’s attacks on Trump are intermittent terrorist attacks that the world has no immediate answers to. So maybe if their Paris plan was framed as a terrorist plot, would they finally see the error in it — or at least the drawbacks? Or probably not even that would alter their Globul perspective. It’s futile.

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

Hillary’s vitriol for miners

Hillary now lectures Trump on the campaign trail that “When you are running for president, you better mean what you say.” How’s that work for Hillary? She told her rally: “I will stand up and speak out for every American that he attacks and insults.”

Clinton: “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.

So she meant what she said. Oh, then she apologized by saying it was “taken out of context from what I meant.” She didn’t mean it? No, it was in context the way she meant it. The fact is since 2009 Boone County, W Va has already lost 4500 jobs.

The problem she has is the same one Obama had with “bitter clingers.” (which happen to be the same people Hillary is having problems with) It comes down to the same thing:

Barack Obama was speaking frankly to supporters, saying something popular with them. Hillary was saying what is popular with her supporters and Dems. It happens to be very offensive to the people she is speaking about. But who cares about them?

See, on one hand they know that message is received with cheers among supporters. On the other hand, it is intentionally insulting to the people he or she are speaking about. She merely slipped by giving the wrong people the real message. Now anyone can see how divisive their politics are. Their agenda requires the sacrifice from other people.

Then she expects to buy off the people she is attacking, coal companies and miners.

It is funny how they never say such a thing to bureaucrats in Washington: “we’re going to put all you out of business.” Oh, that wouldn’t go over well. How about a “retraining program” for old career politicians and bureaucrats? (there’s an expensive program)

She claims that she wants to throw 30 billion in aid at miners. Meanwhile, she also wants to pump in 60 billion to prop up energy alternatives. “Renewable energy” is very expensive and requires a lot of money. She’s only upset for taking heat over it. Stand up?

ref: http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/14/hillary-clinton-has-a-message-for-coal-miners-youre-fired/

RightRing | Bullright

CFACT: Out of Control & Lawlessness

Out of control


CFACT

Friend,

Is our government out of control?

Unelected bureaucrats are seizing control of our energy industry, killing jobs and hamstringing our economy.

No sector appears safe.

CFACT’s Paul Driessen lays out the staggering facts at CFACT.org:

“No one even knows how many Executive Branch agencies there are – estimates range from 60 to 438 – much less how many new rules they implement and impose each year. Officially, [CEI’s Clyde Wayne] Crews says, they issued a staggering 3,554 new rules in 2014, while President Obama signed ‘only’ 226 new laws enacted by Congress. Worse, of the 53,838 (!) formal final regulations included in the Federal Register from 2001 through 2014, only 160 (0.3%) received a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis; we have no idea how the rest affect us.”

Ironically, President Obama is attempting to invoke the rule of law as requiring a vote on his nominee to the Supreme Court.  Yet the Constitution requires no such thing.

“The Constitution is not a living organism,”  Justice Scalia reminded us,  “It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

Take a look at the full report Paul Driessen has compiled at CFACT.org.

He makes a frightening case.  We need to reduce the size of all this government and get it back under control.

Craig Rucker
Executive Director

 

Read Paul Driessen’s report: http://www.cfact.org/2016/03/23/washingtons-despotic-lawlessness/

Washington is out of control. Legislators, judges and unelected bureaucrats want to control our lives, livelihoods and living standards, with no accountability even for major errors, calculated deception, or deliberate, often illegal assaults on our liberties and on citizens who resist the advancing Leviathan.

These themes animate Republican and conservative politics because they are happening – regularly. [more..]

 

Years back, Fmr jurist Sandra Day O’Connor said that about 85% of SCOTUS cases deal with federal regulations, despite all the public attention certain cases receive.

Obama is Sincerely Wrong

We were bombarded by images of Obama and his tears as he said every time I think of those kids in Newtown “it makes me mad.” Then he turns toward the camera to show him wiping his tears. Whatever you thought of his performance, he made it obvious so we couldn’t miss it. (I wondered how much practice it involved)

But such is the news cycle, it took on a life of it’s own. Surely that one will be enshrined in his library one day. Just in case people say he was emotionless or cold, they can have that starring people in the face.

What happened though in the coverage was a consensus formed quickly. Most people came along to say “well, he may have been sincere.” Of course libtards would say he was very sincere and moved.

That started me thinking. Is that the only point, whether he was sincere or not? So he may have been but he was sincerely wrong, too, if so. It’s as if we are supposed to judge his plans and ideas on whether he was sincere — or sincerely crying. Remember they made fun of Boehner for getting emotional. He just can’t control himself, he’s a wreck. But this was Obama so they were righteous tears. (can’t have too many of those Obama tears) And we are supposed to pay attention to those like punctuation marks.

His ideas on gun control are wrong, his motives for doing them are wrong(at least very highly suspect), his use of power is wrong, and his rationale was wrong. But they all want to focus on whether he was “sincere” or not. Sure he believes in his cause and reasons. But whether he is “sincere” or not about them does not change what they are. So the majority of people in media missed that point. Since when do we want someone creating law out of their emotions?

But that is what libs want (and Jeb Bush too). Make amnesty plans on emotions, do Obamacare on emotions. Then say, well no one can deny he was sincere. So no one can deny you were wrong because they cannot deny your emotions. I can’t help thinking that’s just how the WH planned it. We’re supposed to control our borders based on emotions. We’re supposed to run the economy on emotions, and taxes on tears. Policy, education, defense, environment, resources, justice, and even elections on emotions. But hey, they are “sincere” that’s all that matters.

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…

Al Gore okay in Paris

Well, as long as Al Gore was okay, which is what we were all wondering. He and Michael Bloomberg were both in Paris, as was someone from the Weather Channel.

Brian Williams got confirmation about their safe whereabouts in his Paris coverage.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/during-paris-attack-brian-williams-oddly-breaks-news-about-the-deftones-al-gore/

He didn’t account for the rest of Paris’s population, but at least those were okay.

Obama Kidnapped America

The US and American people are being held hostage to Obama’s personal political agenda. You can stop reading there because that’s the whole point in a nutshell.

As a matter of his personal political ideology we see country collapsing around it. The Left can’t compare it to Bush and say it is the same thing. The only suitable comparison is to Putin. But even that does not work because Vlad is acting in Russia’s interest, whether you agree with what he is doing or not. Putin does believe in his country at least.

With Obama the only thing that matters is Obama’s ideology, corrupt as it is. Any means to the end. So now we see Obamacare collapsing. Not a problem to Obama. 12 out of 23 states had their co-ops crash. The initial seed money is lost. Silence from Obama. The agency said enough people were not forced into the ObamaCare by loosing their employee insurance. Jonathan Gruber admitted the plot was to lie to the people just to ram it through. Obama basically said what’s it matter, so what? He sends earthquakes again into medical coverage. Did he say anything?

His comrades have declared a war on cops. Again, not a problem for Obama. Even when the FBI director tells us that police are backing off due to all the social chaos and cop-killing, so crime is up. Obama says you cannot cherry pick data or use anecdote to make public policy. But Obama is doing exactly that: cherry picking and using anecdote to make policy.The FBI is not making policy but stating the trend, facts.

Obama declares the Keystone Pipeline dead. The Climate Caliphate is gearing up for a year-end push of their agenda. All he cares about is his environmental agenda. Meanwhile, months back his own administration contaminated a pristine river and region in Colorado.(an interstate disaster)  Obama said nothing. He was not up in arms firing people. No, it was business as usual: lie and make excuses. First they denied the amount and damage.

He told the EPA to go ahead and roll out his anti-business agenda and war on coal regulations, despite whether it is Constitutional. Who cares about the effects, or their impact on people? He weaponized the IRS and used it against his political opponents. He said there is not a smidgen of corruption. then his DOJ declared there was nothing to prosecute Lerner for.

This all and government is just an extension of Obama’s personal ideology. And he’ll go to any end to force it on the people.

Invasion of illegal immigrants, Obama’s executive orders, his forced amnesty, gun control, racism, riots, and even his scandals are all a product of his personal political agenda.

Whatever you think about all that, one thing is clear: Obama is holding America hostage to his own, personal political agenda.

Global Warming groupies meet Ted Cruz

A simple question of how is it wrong becomes such a tough unanswered one except that “we concur with 97 % of scientists [who]concur that there is global warming.” That’s what we got from the Sierra Club president. They have no answers for what they call “the pause”.  Sounds more like an episode from Rod Sterling.

Ted Cruz Exposes The Deception Global Warmists Have Been Peddling

Justin Koski October 8, 2015

See Western Journalism video

Ted Cruz questioned Sierra Club President Aaron Mair, and his assertions that the Earth is warming, despite satellite data showing otherwise.

Video Transcript:

Cruz: Is it correct, that the satellite data over the last 18 years demonstrate no significant warming?

Mair: No

Cruz: How is it incorrect?

Mair couldn’t answer the question. He instead needed a sidebar with a colleague to formulate a cop-out answer.

I do find it highly interesting that the president of the Sierra Club, when asked what the satellite data demonstrate about warming, uhm, apparently is relying on staff.

Cruz then pressed Mair on the phenomenon known as “the pause.”

Cruz: Global warming alarmists call that “the pause” because the computer models say there should be dramatic warming and yet the actual satellites taking the measurement don’t show any significant warming.

Mair: But senator, 97 percent of the scientists concur and agree that there is global warming.

Cruz: Your response is quite striking. I asked about the science and the evidence – the actual data. We have satellites. They’re measuring temperature. That should be relevant. And your answer was, “Pay no attention to your lying eyes and the numbers the satellites show. Instead, listen to the scientists who are receiving massive grants who tell us do not debate the science.”

Mair then uttered what was interpreted as the Club’s official position.

Our planet is cooking up and heating and warming.

For the remainder of the questioning, Mair blindly repeated his talking point, refusing to retract the position when confronted with the damning evidence.

Mair: I’m saying I concur with 97 percent. We concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming.

Cruz: But, but, but sir, would you, would you answer the question?

Mair: We are concurring with the 97 percent of the scientists. We concur with 97 percent.

Cruz: So does that mean you’re not willing to answer the question?

Mair: We concur with the preponderance of the evidence. But I concur with the 97 percent of scientists who concur that global warming is a fact.

Cruz: That undermines the credibility of any organization if you will persist in a political position regardless of what the science shows, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence and regardless of the data. That is not consistent, I would suggest, with sound public policy.

They sound like they concur with the 97 percent of scientists they pay to support their own position. Are we supposed to just trust them?

Article at: http://www.westernjournalism.com/ted-cruz-exposes-the-deception-global-warmists-have-been-peddling/

Isn’t that like pleading the 5th amendment to every question asked? So: ‘we agree with those that agree with those that agree and pay us.’ What’s the problem with that?

Agenda 2030 and the Pope

Agenda 2030 And The “New Economic World Order” – Coming This Year?

Dire economic prognostications exist simultaneously

by The Sleuth Journal | September 23, 2015 | Infowars

With Q3 of the 2015 fiscal year just around the corner, one cannot help but notice unprecedented unease in both financial and social spheres, and perhaps with good reason; with alternative media forecasters, national banks, and supranational institutions alike heralding the coming of “global depression” by the end of 2016, this consensus of seemingly strange bedfellows almost universally agree that something wicked this way comes.
These dire economic prognostications exist simultaneously in a world in which energy and development prospects, both nationally and transnationally, are being reworked – with equally profound implications as the aforementioned financial trend analysis. Be it the Obama Administration’s “Clean Power Plan” or the EU and China’splanned Neomalthusian 2030 carbon emission cutbacks, national entities the world over are positioning themselves for profound shifts in energy, development, trade, and even currency ahead of COP21 in Paris this December, or as some have deemed it, “Agenda 2030.”
Read more: http://www.infowars.com/agenda-2030-and-the-new-economic-world-order-coming-this-year/

Into this backdrop the Pope descended and spoke at the UN mentioning the Agenda 2030.

“Education conceived in this way is the basis for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for reclaiming the environment. At the same time, government leaders must do everything possible to ensure that all can have the minimum spiritual and material means needed to live in dignity and to create and support a family, which is the primary cell of any social development. In practical terms, this absolute minimum has three names:lodging, labour, and land; and one spiritual name: spiritual freedom, which includes religious freedom, the right to education and other civil rights.”

At the UN, Pope Francis said:

“In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged … The poorest are those who suffer most from such offenses, for three serious reasons: They are cast off by society, forced to live off what is discarded and suffer unjustly from the abuse of the environment. They are part of today’s widespread and quietly growing ‘culture of waste.'”

What about the abuse of government, or global government, and the effects people suffer at the hands of it? We can dismiss that evil for the greater evil of environmental abuse.(relativism) Or so that is the implication. But funny how the emphasis is on enviro-abuse when there is a long track record, indeed agenda, from the UN or global politics begging criticism and suspicion. The same poor who will be adversely and negatively impacted by this agenda, drawn further into the cracks, suffering marginalization. Are we trying to create more of a burden on society, or less?

He tells us their noble ambitions and efforts risk becoming “idle chatter which serves as a cover for all kinds of abuse and corruption, or for carrying out an ideological colonization by the imposition of anomalous models and lifestyles which are alien to people’s identity and, in the end, irresponsible.

What about when they succeed in their lofty goals and agendas? He worries about idle chatter. Well, I worry about their actions and goals, and corrupt power and resources. But notice how the chatter against that is marginalized, ignored, dismissed as extremists, or labeled deniers. Their UN extreme agenda apparently is not a threat, to Francis, only if they do not follow through.

How irresponsible is an agenda which further victimizes downtrodden people while expanding the power of the political elite?

“The present time invites us to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society, so as to bear fruit in significant and positive historical events.  We cannot permit ourselves to postpone “certain agendas” for the future. The future demands of us critical and global decisions in the face of world-wide conflicts which increase the number of the excluded and those in need.

“The praiseworthy international juridical framework of the United Nations Organization and of all its activities, like any other human endeavors, can be improved, yet it remains necessary; at the same time it can be the pledge of a secure and happy future for future generations. And so it will, if the representatives of the States can set aside partisan and ideological interests, and sincerely strive to serve the common good. I pray to Almighty God that this will be the case,…”

Referring to the Iran Agreement, and controversy:

“The recent agreement reached on the nuclear question in a sensitive region of Asia and the Middle East is proof of the potential of political good will and of law, exercised with sincerity, patience and constancy. I express my hope that this agreement will be lasting and efficacious, and bring forth the desired fruits with the cooperation of all the parties involved. In this sense, hard evidence is not lacking of the negative effects of military and political interventions which are not coordinated between members of the international community.

“For this reason, while regretting to have to do so, I must renew my repeated appeals regarding the painful situation of the entire Middle East, North Africa and other African countries, where Christians, together with other cultural or ethnic groups, and even members of the majority religion who have no desire to be caught up in hatred and folly, have been forced to witness the destruction of their places of worship, their cultural and religious heritage, their houses and property, and have faced the alternative either of fleeing or of paying for their adhesion to good and to peace by their own lives, or by enslavement.”

He seems to make the whole Iran deal contingent and dependent on the US breaking its ‘partisan and ideological’ divide — an ironic lecture from the Pope of Rome. But never mind the Constitutional, legal, economical and moral reasons for this disagreement. Tenuous partisanship it is not.

“Our world demands of all government leaders a will which is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment and thus putting an end as quickly as possible to the phenomenon of social and economic exclusion, with its baneful consequences: human trafficking, the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and girls, slave labour, including prostitution, the drug and weapons trade, terrorism and international organized crime.”

And let’s not forget the consequences of this Iran deal, as well as consequences of UN’s entire agenda, including 2030. Those consequences cannot be ignored any more than he says the human rights or environmental issues can be ignored.

“Certainly, many grave problems remain to be resolved, yet it is clear that, without all those interventions on the international level, mankind would not have been able to survive the unchecked use of its own possibilities. Every one of these political, juridical and technical advances is a path towards attaining the ideal of human fraternity and a means for its greater realization.”

I hear mankind would not have been able to survive its unchecked liberty, without the international intervention. The danger is unleashed liberty, which must be held in check.

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.

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.

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)