Climate Of Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

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

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.

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

War on coal, West Va front

What’s left to do but pray, for the damages inflicted on states and people in the coal region?

Daily Signal

CHARLESTON, W.Va.—There’s little separation between church and the fossil fuel industry in West Virginia’s coal country. Still reeling from recent mine shutdowns, the state legislature has set aside Jan. 31 as a “day of prayer for coal miners.”

On Sunday, a congregation of pastors, businessmen, and lawmakers will seek divine intervention in one of the nation’s hardest-hit coal economies. Doubtless, though, many will ask for deliverance from what they consider a man-made crisis.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/27/west-virginia-turns-to-prayer-as-obamas-clean-power-looms/

Even if the day is past, keep on praying.  Well, this administration won’t be any relief to anyone. Obama is not going to stop. He’s done more damage than King George could have ever done to us.

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

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

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?

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.

Pope incites cultural revolution

Pope urges revolution to save Earth, fix ‘perverse’ economy

VATICAN CITY (AP) — In a sweeping environmental manifesto aimed at spurring concrete action, Pope Francis called Thursday for a bold cultural revolution to correct what he described as a “structurally perverse” economic system where the rich exploit the poor, turning Earth into an “immense pile of filth.”

Francis framed climate change as an urgent moral issue in his eagerly anticipated encyclical, blaming global warming on an unfair, fossil fuel-based industrial model that harms the poor most.

Citing Scripture, his predecessors and bishops from around the world, the pope urged people of every faith and even no faith to undergo an awakening to save God’s creation for future generations.

More: AOL news

I’ve already sufficiently expounded on the subject, but the groans seem to be getting louder from the Vatican.

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.

Blown away in global warming

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

Michael Bastasch – 03/31/2015 | Daily Caller

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

What do aerosols have to do with anything? Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires. There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog. Aerosols tend to reflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions.

Continue: http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/

What does it mean? It seems to come down to they didn’t really know what they thought they knew, when they thought they knew it. Could all their ballyhooed global warming ” scientists” have been wrong all along? Science is settled, debate is over? They call us the deniers. But then that only means that the political apparatus will kick into higher gear to compensate for the negative news.

A message from CFact

China’s rise

China’s development is astounding.

India, Brazil and other nations hope to copy it.

There are many tragic flaws when international global warming agreements are penned. Among the worst is the willingness of the leaders of the West to turn a blind eye to how useless their economy-wrecking global warming policies are when considered in a global context.China coal use

While President Obama is waging war on coal and oil, China is building coal plants as fast as it possibly can. Chinese coal use is poised to surpass the entire rest of the world’s use of coal combined.

China and the other so-called “BRIC” nations are more than happy to step up as the developed world steps down, and will happily produce the goods that our escalating energy costs and regulatory burden make too expensive to produce at home.

President Obama’s recent global warming deal with China is totally one-sided. The U.S. committed to capping emissions (and damaging the economy) now, while China has until 2030 to maybe, if they feel like it, consider capping emissions then. 2030 is when China projects its emissions will peak in any event.

This deal was naive.

Meanwhile, global warming regulations will drive up prices for Americans, while any miniscule effect on emissions is dwarfed by China’s increase.

cement consumption USGSConsider this astonishing fact that Bill Gates blogged about and the Washington Post picked up:

China used more cement in the last three years, than the U.S. did in the entire 20th century!

That’s how fast China is expanding.
Sure, five percent of human greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to cement (if emissions are your thing), but what that tremendous growth really tells us is that global warming policies that depress the economy may advance the agendas of the developed world’s warming-Left, but will have no real impact on global emissions.

If you think Obama’s deal with China was bad, just wait to see what he’s prepared to sign at the big UN climate conference in Paris this December.

The need to educate the public has never been greater.

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director

P.S.   China’s rapid, massive industrialization is exactly the kind of crucial fact that global warming pressure groups do not want discussed in the context of climate.  Sign the petition to stop climate censorship.  Share it with as many people as possible.  There is too much at stake to allow the warming-Left to muzzle speech and hide the facts.

How China used more cement
in 3 years than the U.S. did
in the entire 20th Century

Cement

Source: USGS, Cement Statistics USGS, mineral industry of China

Read the facts at the Washington Post

and from Bill Gates

I admit what got my attention was the amount of cement China used. Tell-tale signs of a country under construction. But take a look at that picture, it is astounding.

Let that mental image sink in with the concrete facts. Just incredible, isn’t it?

UN on climate: tough job, struggling on

UN Climate Chief: We Are Remaking The World Economy

Daily Caller — 2/5/15

The United Nation’s climate chief says that reordering the global economy to fight climate change is the “most difficult” task the international body has ever undertaken.

This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,” Figueres said.

“He[Obama] has not only spoken about his commitment both to his national agenda on climate change, but also to the international process, and has been quite clear in his political leadership,” Figueres said, touting the EPA’s success cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

More: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/05/climate-chief-world-economy/

Of course there could be a reason that it is so difficult. (I for one am happy it hasn’t proved easy) But nothing deters them. It is necessary for government to control all markets. Climate Change is code for control and change the economic system under global despots.

And they are complaining it isn’t easy?

Not only do they detest resistance to their agenda, they want to make it impossible. We should start calling it the climate change caliphate.(aka Climate Caliphate)