Now Even The Climate Is Racist

It has long been known that cities are hotter than the countryside. Some of the ‘scientists’ measuring global warming have purposely put some of their temperature measuring devices near air conditional exhausts or runways where planes idle to make sure that the surface stations show an increase in temperature. In 2012 a study was posted at WattsUpWithThat explaining that half of the global warming in America is artificial. Yesterday CNN posted an article explaining that urban heat is worse in black neighborhoods in Atlanta, Georgia, due to racism.

The article reports:

On a warm September afternoon, Mona Scott sat on the front porch while her home baked like an oven. As she ran a frozen water bottle across her forehead and arms, Scott told CNN her air conditioning broke 10 days earlier and had not yet been fixed.

“The windows are painted shut,” Scott said. “We come outside at night to sleep because it’s too hot inside.”

Like Scott, residents in the low-income communities across south and southwest Atlanta are struggling to cope with the hottest summer since the Dust Bowl period of the 1930s.

Why are the windows painted shut? Can’t you scrape the paint off and open them?

Note: “the hottest summers since the Dust Bowl period of the 1930’s.” If global warming has been happening so rapidly, why was this the hottest summer since the 1930’s? How many SUV’s were driving around in 1930?

The article continues:

Across America’s largest cities, Black homeowners are nearly five times more likely than White families to own homes in these historically redlined communities, according to a study by Redfin. These communities, like where Scott resides in South Atlanta, endure the greatest burdens of our rapidly warming planet, and now tend to be the hottest and poorest areas.

Extreme heat threatens the health and well-being of underserved communities today, while predominantly White neighborhoods reap the cooler benefits of decades of investment.

“I went to get groceries the other day and I thought I was going to pass out.” Scott told CNN. She said she suffers from high blood pressure and diabetes, which are underlying health conditions made worse by excessive heat.
Keeping the lights on is hard enough financially for Scott, and so many other disadvantaged community members, let alone having access to reliable air conditioning.

Do these residents have jobs? If not, how much do these residents receive a month in housing assistance, food stamps, and basic welfare payments? Are they required to work for these payments? How is that money spent?

The article also notes:

Some cities, like New Orleans and New York, suffer from the worst urban heat in the nation, according to a recent study by Climate Central. Atlanta, affectionately known as “Hotlanta,” is also particularly hot.

Spelman College, a historically Black college in Atlanta, partnered with a NOAA campaign and other universities to map the hottest and most vulnerable communities. Spelman’s involvement is significant because it is the first time a historically Black college or university has led an initiative such as this, Na’Taki Osborne Jelks, assistant professor of environmental and health sciences at Spelman College told CNN.

“As we think about global challenges like climate change, this is one of the issues that disproportionately impacts Black and other communities of color,” Jelks said. “So, it’s very important that we are at the table.”

Am I supposed to believe that global warming seeks out minority communities and makes them hotter? I don’t think so. Not all of the poor who live in urban areas are minorities. Not everyone who lives in a southern urban area is a minority. Everyone who lives in a city lives in a place where it is warmer than the corresponding rural area. That has nothing to do with race, creed, or color–it is simply science. I object to the idea of trying to turn climate change (the climate has been changing since the earth was created–why else did they find evidence of plant life under the ice in Greenland?) into a racial issue.

Lied To Again

Louisiana just experienced its first major hurricane of the season. Ida left a path of destruction–flooding, wind damage, power outages, etc. The cleanup has begun and Americans are pitching in to help those impacted by the storm. The usual voices are claiming that this is the hottest summer ever and hurricanes are stronger than they have ever been. Not so fast.

CBN posted an article today that provides some historical perspective on climate change.

The article notes:

What if what we’ve really had this year is nothing more than what folks used to call a “hot summer,” and not even close to the hottest summer this nation has ever experienced?

The Hottest Summers Were Long Before SUVs

The summer heat this year wasn’t even close to 1936.

“The 1930s were really when the terrible heatwaves were,” says Tony Heller of RealClimateScience.com.

Heller is an environmentalist who, as an electrical engineer, helped develop the modern computer microprocessor. His website has become a collection of weather history which shows it was a lot hotter 90 and 100 years ago than it is now. 

“The claims that summers are getting hotter are simply not true,” Heller said. “During 1936, 21 states had their all-time temperature records, and none set them this year.”

In the 1930s most of the nation saw temperatures over 100 degrees. Without air conditioning, it was common for families to sleep outdoors.

Many thousands died, and what would become known as the Dust Bowl forced the migration of three and a half million climate refugees out of the Great Plains and Midwest; many of them to California.

Heller said, “Places like Wisconsin were seeing temperatures of 114 degrees. North Dakota saw 121 degrees. 100-degree temperatures were very common in the Midwest prior to about 1960, but since 1960 they’ve become much less common.”

The article also notes:

But what about wildfires? News reports suggest they’re getting a lot more common. But the record shows wildfire burn acreage is down 90% from the 1920s and 30s. 

One reason wildfires seem to have increased is that the wildfire data before 1983 has been erased. 

The website of the National Interagency Fire Center used to show how wildfires were much worse in the 1920s and 30s. That has been removed. The reason given by the National Interagency Fire Center?  “Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes.” 

So now, when the media visit the website, it shows wildfires steadily getting worse. 

Heller also documents how NASA has changed its historic weather data. NASA’s temperature graph from 1999 showed the warmest temperatures in the early 1900s.

Sometime later NASA’s graph changed and now shows U.S. temperatures getting warmer.  

So what is the purpose of the lies? Left on its own, government increases its power and control. Americans have not paid enough attention recently to our government’s power grabs. If climate change can be sold as an imminent threat, the government can control how much energy you use in your house, what car you drive, how large a house you are allowed to own, and how far you can travel. That is a scary prospect, but if the idea of an imminent threat can be sold, it is our future.

Does Anyone Actually Believe This?

Yesterday Newsbusters posted an article about some recent reporting done by Newsweek. Newsweek posted the following headline, “Seeking World Recognition, Taliban Vows to Help Fight Terror and Climate Change.” I am willing to believe that the Taliban seeks world recognition. I am not willing to believe that they will help fight terrorism and climate change.

Newsbusters reports:

Newsweek Senior Writer of Foreign Policy Tom O’Connor pushed how Taliban Cultural Commission member Abdul Qahar Balkhi “told Newsweek that his group sought worldwide recognition of the Islamic Emirate.” Balkhi propagandized to the outlet how the organization’s drive for “recognition” would be bolstered in part by the terror group’s commitment to “fight terror” and so-called climate change. “‘We hope not only to be recognized by regional countries but the entire world at large as the legitimate representative government of the people of Afghanistan,’” Balkhi said in part, according to Newsweek.

It is damning that a U.S. publication would lower itself so far down the eco-extremist cesspool that it would attempt to humanize an Islamic terrorist group currently slaughtering people in Afghanistan as a result of President Joe Biden’s massive foreign policy failure.

The article at Newsbusters concludes:

Newsweek’s decision to provide a megaphone to the Taliban wasn’t the first time a prominent outlet has tried to nonsensically lump the terrorist group and climate change together. Recently, CBS News published an outrageous story blaming climate change for the Taliban’s rise. CBS News climate and energy reporter Cara Korte’s absurd story was headlined: “How climate change helped strengthen the Taliban.”

But O’Connor’s Taliban spin was horrific in another context as well. The United Nations reported in July that “[m]ore women and children were killed and wounded in Afghanistan in the first half of 2021 than in the first six months of any year since records began in 2009.” The UN said these records followed “the Taliban offensive to take territory from Government forces.” But that didn’t stop O’Connor from summarizing the Taliban’s absurdity that “militants would never again be allowed to launch attacks against other countries” in the first paragraph of his story.

Conservatives are under attack. Contact Newsweek and hold it to account for pushing the Taliban’s talking points.

Anyone who relies on the mainstream media as their only news source at this time is not hearing the truth. The lies that they are hearing endanger themselves and our country.

Congress Evidently Has It’s Own Concept Of Reality

Yesterday One America News posted an article about some recent comments by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi stated that she blames President Trump and climate change for the current border crisis (she refuses to call it a crisis–she refers to it as a “humanitarian challenge.”

The article reports:

She said the Biden administration inherited a broken system, and even went as far as to say migrants were fleeing Central America because of so-called “climate change.”

“My most recent trip to the Northern Triangle, that would be Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, you saw the impact of the climate change,” Pelosi stated. “Mind you, these people were leaving because of the drought they couldn’t farm.”

Critics are now pointing out how Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been promising amnesty to illegal migrants, ultimately enticing the thousands of people to flood the United States in droves.

When you stop construction of the border wall and dangle amnesty in front of people in incredibly poor countries, they see hope for a better life by coming to America without waiting in line. I don’t blame them for wanting a better life, but breaking the law to enter a country is not a good way to start your life there. We are sending large amounts of money to the countries these migrants are from, and obviously the money is doing nothing to help the people in those countries. It is time not only to review our immigration policies but also to review our foreign aid policies. If the money we are sending is only going to corrupt leaders and not to the people who need it, why should we send money?

This Is Not Good News

The energy independence America achieved during the Trump administration had a lot of impact internationally. It allowed America to make decisions based on our own interests rather than worrying about whether a decision would affect our supply of oil. It gave us leverage with countries that were importing our oil and natural gas. It also helped some countries reduce their dependence on countries that would use their oil supply to coerce their government into bad decisions. Unfortunately with the change of administration, we are moving back to the place where we will not have the influence or security we had as an energy independent country.

Yesterday The Daily Wire reported the following:

Gazprom, a majority-state owned Russian energy company, resumed work in laying pipeline in Danish waters over the weekend after the project was halted during the Trump-era over the threat of sanctions.

“The pipelay vessel Fortuna has started pipelay works on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in Denmark’s Exclusive Economic Zone today, following the start of works in the construction corridor there on 24 January and successful completion of sea trials,” a Nord Stream 2 spokesperson said via email.

This pipeline will have a serious impact on international affairs:

“Construction of the pipeline is mostly complete but around 120 km is left to be laid in Danish waters as well as 30 km in German waters, before it makes landfall at the northern German coastal town of Lubmin, near Greifswald,” Reuters reported. “The United States has long said the pipeline will increase Russian leverage over Europe and will bypass Ukraine, depriving Kyiv of lucrative transit fees. The United States is also keen to sell its sea-borne liquefied natural gas to European countries.”

The news generated backlash for the Biden administration after they canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline during Biden’s first week in office, which killed the jobs of many of Americans.

Meanwhile American pipeline workers are unemployed. One thing to remember here is that America has cut its carbon emissions in recent years (largely through fracking and the use of natural gas). It is folly to believe that drastic cuts that cripple our economy will actually make a difference in the earth’s climate when other countries are not cutting their emissions. The science is questionable to begin with–do we actually have the power to change the earth’s climate? I doubt it. I am in favor of clean air and clean water, but I am not in favor of crippling our economy for unproven science.

So Why Are We Doing This?

In a rare moment of honesty by a politician, President Biden’s climate czar, John Kerry, stated that America’s reducing its carbon emissions to zero wouldn’t really make a difference in the fight against climate change. Wow. So why are we wrecking the American economy for no apparent reason? I really don’t have a problem with virtue signalling as long as it doesn’t actually harm anyone, but this is going to hurt a lot of Americans–many Americans that the Biden administration promised to help.

The New York Post posted an article about the statement yesterday.

The article reports:

Kerry’s remarks were made ahead of Biden’s signing of a host of executive actions on Wednesday pushing his $2 trillion Green New Deal-inspired climate agenda.

“He knows Paris alone is not enough,” Kerry told reporters at a White House press briefing, referring to Biden re-entering the US in the Paris Climate Agreement in one of his first acts as president.

“Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” Kerry conceded.

The former secretary of state, now Biden’s climate envoy, acknowledged that it would be difficult to bring the world’s top polluters to the table, including China, which produces 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.

Why is a man with a private jet and a yacht lecturing us on carbon footprints and climate change?

I Need Someone To Explain The Logic Of This

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article with the following headline, “Incoming White House Climate Team Blames ‘Systemic Racism’ for Climate Change.” Wow. Who knew?

The article reports:

A pair of top incoming White House environmental aides has blamed “systemic racism” as a driver of climate change in an attempt to justify a government-led economic overhaul.

President-elect Joe Biden named progressive policy adviser Maggie Thomas as Office of Domestic Climate Policy chief of staff and climate advocate Cecilia Martinez as “senior director for environmental justice” on Thursday. Both Thomas and Martinez have cited racial inequality as perpetuating climate change, arguing that the Biden administration’s environmental policy must be centered on “racial and economic justice.”

“Unless intentionally interrupted, systemic racism will continue to be a major obstacle to creating a healthy planet,” Martinez said in a 2019 press release touting her “Equitable & Just” climate platform. “The only path forward is to design national climate policies that are centered on justice.”

For Thomas and Martinez, such policies require “massive” government spending and the “realignment of public dollars at all levels.” Thomas’s climate plan demands “trillions” in public investment—not only to “crack down” on oil production and shift away from the nation’s “fossil fuel economy” but also to fund welfare programs, including rent and utility relief. Martinez’s platform calls for much of the same, including increased government investment into “affordable and quality housing.”

Has it occurred to the policy makers that oil production provides tax revenue that funds the ‘social justice’ programs they are touting. The oil industry provides well-paying jobs for people who pay taxes that support the welfare system.

The article notes:

Power the Future founder and executive director Daniel Turner accused Biden’s climate team of using “racism” and “justice” to “nationalize the nation’s energy industry.”

“Punishing America’s energy workers will do nothing to address climate change and it will do nothing to address injustices. It will, however, cause the prices of gas and utilities to rise sharply, and that will punish the less privileged most of all,” Turner told the Washington Free Beacon. “We do need to talk about housing, employment, and racism, but doing so under the pretext of energy policy will deliver muddied, expensive, and pointless legislation.”

This is insanity that will only hurt the people President-elect Biden claims to want to help.

Just two final questions, “How much of what I earn is someone else entitled to? Why isn’t wanting to take money from someone who earned it considered greed?”

 

 

The Following Was Posted On Facebook By A Friend

 

Some of these goals are very worthwhile goals; however, we live in a representative republic that is supposed to be governed by the people. Using a disease to jam through policies without the approval of the people is not acceptable. There is also the aspect of the viability of some of these goals.

I love the idea of no poverty. However, people make decisions that result in their living in poverty. Does it help them for the rest of us to continually bail them out, or should we help them learn from their mistakes?

Clean and affordable energy is a great idea, but how realistic is it with the current technology? How clean is it? What about the children working in the Lithium mines? Are they part of clean and affordable energy?

Reduced inequalities also sounds like a great concept. The Pilgrims thought so too until they almost starved to death. People have different levels of ambition. Those who work the hardest need to be rewarded the most. Otherwise no one will bother to work hard. Read the history of the Plymouth Colony for further illustrations of that point.

Peace, justice, and strong institutions also sounds great. Who would be in charge of those institutions? Does justice include freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of assembly? Who determines what justice is?

This little chart of wonderful ideals actually illustrates the wisdom of the Founding Fathers of America. All of the ideals listed in the chart are possible under the government our Founding Fathers created. Poverty is still with us because people have the freedom to make their own decisions. A number of years ago, an American author pointed out that there are three things that you can do that will give you a 90 percent chance of avoiding poverty–finish high school, get a job, and get married before you have children. Statistically if everyone did that, we could end poverty.

The chart above is simply an illustration of the wonderful-sounding concepts those who would take away our freedom would use to advance their agenda. Don’t be fooled.

Climate Change Does Not Start Fires

This has been a warm year everywhere. However, in places where good forest management has been the rule, forest fires haven’t been a problem. I live in an area where the forests are routinely cleared of underbrush and controlled burns are used to keep any fuel that would feed a massive wildfire at a minimum. That doesn’t mean there will never be a fire here, but it does lessen the chances of an out-of-control event.

There are some opportunists who have jumped on the opportunity to claim that the fires burning up our western states are the result of climate change. Somehow they have chosen to overlook the fact that environmentalists in California have blocked the clearing of the underbrush that feeds these massive fires. In Washington, it has become obvious that climate change is not responsible for the first.

The Gateway Pundit is reporting today:

Spokane police arrested serial arsonist Christine Comello for starting fires in East Spokane last week. Comello was arrested on Monday. She was also accuse(d) of burglary and arson at a local business in Spokane.

The article notes:

Spokane Police arrested a woman for allegedly starting fires in East Spokane while crews were trying to fix fallen power lines and put out electrical fires on Monday.

An officer was responding to a fire call by Magnolia and Riverside; there had been several fallen power lines that day, so he went to investigate.

Instead, he found grass and a pallet on fire outside of a business, with no way it could have started outside of arson, according to Police. A few blocks away, the same officer spotted another fire in an alleyway, next to an old oil drum by a garage and some trees…

…Officers eventually identified 36-year-old Christine Comello, who lied to police about her name. Comello had a felony warrant for burglary and reckless burning, tied to another incident a few weeks prior where she reportedly started fires at a Spokane Valley business.

Comello appeared on the surveillance video and was identified by witnesses. I guess the fires were not started by climate change.

Policies Proposed By The Biden Campaign

Issues & Insights posted an article today about one of the proposals of the Biden campaign. All of us understand that politicians often do not keep their campaign promises, but in this case that might actually be a good thing.

The article reports:

Joe Biden’s $2 trillion climate change plan, released this week, was described by one liberal outlet as “the Green New Deal, minus the crazy.” We beg to differ. Just look at Biden’s plan to eliminate the internal combustion engine.

Biden says that on his first day in office, he will develop “rigorous new fuel economy standards aimed at ensuring 100% of new sales for light- and medium-duty vehicles will be zero emissions.”

…Aside from fuel economy mandates, Biden also wants to extend and expand the EV tax credit, pump federal money into charging stations, and create a new “cash for clunkers” program for those who trade in a gasoline-powered car for a plug-in.

The cost of all this? Who knows. Aside from the $2 trillion price tag that Biden put on his entire Green New Deal plan, he hasn’t broken down his EV mandate scheme. But Sen. Chuck Schumer has already proposed a cash-for-clunkers plan, which would cost $454 billion over a decade.

The article continues:

And for all this, the electric car mandate will have a negligible impact on CO2 emissions and zero impact on the climate.

For one thing, the CO2 advantage of electric cars is vastly oversold. These are not “zero emissions” vehicles. They simply change the source of the emissions from the car to power plants — most of them powered by coal and natural gas.

A study by the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute found that when you factor in CO2 emissions from electricity production, the average plug-in produces as much CO2 over its lifetime as a gas-powered car that gets 55 miles per gallon.

The CO2 advantage of electric cars diminishes even more when you consider the entire lifecycle of the vehicle, including the environmental impact of mining required to manufacture the batteries. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that CO2 emissions from manufacturing electric cars was 68% higher than gas-powered cars.

We already did cash-for-clunkers in 2009. The cars turned in had to be disabled or scrapped. The ultimate result of the program was that it artificially inflated the cost of used cars, hurting the people who couldn’t afford to buy new cars.

Wikipedia (not always a reliable source, but in this case cited sources) reported:

The Economists’ Voice reported in 2009 that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion. Edmunds reported that Cash for Clunkers cost US taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold, that nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold, and that only 125,000 of vehicle sales were incremental. Edmunds CEO concluded that without Cash for Clunkers, auto sales would have been even better.

I think we need to learn from our mistakes.

Not A Cabinet I Would Vote For

The deep state wants its power back. They see the road to that power in the election of Joe Biden as President. As the campaign continues, there are some valid questions as to whether or not Joe Biden is mentally up to the task of being President, but that hasn’t slowed the momentum of the deep state in trying to put him there.

Breitbart posted an article today based on an article in Axios, a liberal-leaning source, about possible cabinet picks by a President Biden.

The article notes:

…Many of the names would return from the Obama administration, constituting an effective “third term.”

Axios says that former Secretary of State John Kerry could return in that role, or be appointed to a new Cabinet-level climate change position.

Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice — who was never nominated for Secretary of State because of fears she would not survive confirmation after misleading the nation about the Benghazi attacks — could find her way to that position in a potential Biden administration, Axios claims.

There would also be room in the Biden Cabinet for some of his former 2020 rivals, including former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who could be UN ambassador, or U.S. trade representative.

Several are also currently under consideration, Axios reports, to be Biden’s running mate, including Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). The final choice may be up to Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), who delivered the key endorsement that helped Biden win South Carolina and change the direction of the entire Democratic primary.

Susan Rice lied about Benghazi; John Kerry lied about the Iran deal. President Obama did serious damage to the American economy in eight years because of over-regulation and increased taxes. Do we really want to bring the deep state back into power?

Blacklisting In The Scientific Community

Climate change seems to be an issue that will not die. Even when science refutes it, the call for crippling our economy in the name of the environment continues. Climate change enthusiasts seem to overlook the fact that America has reduced its carbon footprint significantly in the past few years. Meanwhile, the march toward green energy that so far is unworkable continues.

Today Issues and Answers reported the following:

“A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled ‘climate misinformers,’” Pielke recently wrote in Forbes. “The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist.” 

Pielke says we know this through a Skeptical Science blogger “named Dana Nuccitelli.” According to Pielke, Nuccitelli believes that Judith Curry should be “unhirable in academia” based on her statements about global warming.

Nuccitelli tweeted that “Curry’s words, as documented … are what make her ‘unhirable.’” Both the blog and Nuccitelli of course deny there’s a blacklist.

The “unhirable” Curry is no crank. She is the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is a fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. She stepped down from her position at Georgia Tech at the insistence of an administrator, she told Pielke. The Earth and Atmospheric Sciences dean had heard from “several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to” the dean’s office, and had expressed their “extreme displeasure” over Curry’s presence at the school, she said.

Curry looked into positions at other universities, interviewed for two, but was never hired. According to her headhunter, “the show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate.”

Follow the link to the article to see more examples of this blacklisting.

This is even more concerning when you consider the following the following comments about the true agenda of the climate-change movement:

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

This quote is posted in an article at rightwinggranny on March 30, 2016. The quote was from Investor’s Business Daily.

 

Another Unsung Accomplishment By President Trump

Hot Air is reporting today that America reduced its greenhouse gas emissions in 2019.

The article reports:

Increased natural gas consumption helped bring down U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, according to a recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Chances are you haven’t heard. That’s because the mainstream media and environmentalists insist on condemning the Trump administration for championing fossil fuels even though the United States is doing a better job at reducing emissions than many other countries that signed the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

The public can credit much of this success to the fracking boom, which has made natural gas much more plentiful. Cheap, abundant natural gas has gradually been displacing coal, which emits about twice as much carbon dioxide. A recent Rhodium Group study found that coal-fired power generation dropped by 18% last year, the lowest level since 1975.

The article concludes:

Meanwhile, thanks to a huge abundance of cheap natural gas (generated via fracking), America reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2% in 2019 after previously cutting them by the same amount the prior year. In fact, U.S. emissions went down by 12% between 2005 and 2017. By next year, American emissions are projected to be the lowest they have been since 1991, a time when the population was much lower than it is now.

By comparison, how are the “good” countries who signed on to the Paris accord doing? As it turns out, France Germany and the United Kingdom all missed their emissions reduction goals last year. Germany’s emissions actually increased after they started gutting their nuclear power program and were forced to restart some coal-fired plants to keep the lights turned on.

The only countries that are given high marks for meeting the climate agreement’s objectives are very small nations with low populations and not very much economic or industrial activity. So who are the real bad guys in this story? Before any global consortium starts trying to dictate to us how to handle our greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps they should get their own houses in order and follow our example. Rather than just talking about reducing emissions, we’re actually doing it. And we didn’t need a treaty with anyone else to get the job done.

The reason the success of America in reducing greenhouse gases is not heralded is that the success goes against the purpose of the climate change agenda–it doesn’t allow tyrannical countries to shake down democracies and republics.The goal of the climate change rhetoric is to redistribute the world’s wealth–to take money from countries that have prospered under the free market and give it to countries where the government controls the economy. America’s success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions simply does not fit the desired template.

This Should Be An Interesting House Race

Hot Air posted an article yesterday about one of the Democrat candidates for the 2nd U.S House district in New Jersey. The person currently holding this seat is Representative Jeff Van Drew, who recently switched from Democrat to Republican. The Democrat candidate is Amy Kennedy, ex-wife of former Representative Patrick Kennedy (son of Ted). Patrick Kennedy represented Rhode Island from 1995 to 2011. Patrick Kennedy has confessed to struggling with alcohol and has worked to combat drug addiction since leaving the House of Representatives.

The article reports:

Amy Kennedy released a video announcing her candidacy Monday.

What I see in that video is a candidate who knows exactly who she needs to win over to get elected – other women. She goes straight to our “moral compass” with a photo of Van Drew and Trump. She includes the soccer mom lingo of showing kindness, treat others with respect, and show compassion. All of this is heard in every household with kids every day. Then she pivots to the economy. She says people in south Jersey can’t find jobs. According to this chart, unemployment is higher in south New Jersey than the northern part of the state where it is more industrialized. The ‘richest corporations” she references are located further north. South New Jersey is more rural and always has been. Back in my college days, my first roommate was from Bridgeton. Her family owned a farm and her parents were active Republicans. In other words, it is traditionally a conservative part of New Jersey. Apparently, Kennedy thinks that inserting some far-left class warfare into the race is the way to go.

She speaks to the deregulation of the energy industry and mentions climate change. She’s really checking off all the boxes, isn’t she? She goes on to mention the mental health and addiction epidemic, too. “We continue to ignore the biggest public health emergency of our time — the mental health and addiction crisis that affects virtually every family.” Well, at least she didn’t succumb to the opinion of the most woke among us and say that climate change is the biggest emergency of our time. That will probably come later.

The video overall will certainly appeal to the audience for which she strives. She’s a former teacher and the mother of five. She’s the mom next door. She can fight the patriarchy and the bad Orange Man without breaking a sweat. Liberal voters are not prone to hold Kennedys morally accountable as they do conservatives. Conservatives see the irony of a Kennedy lecturing about the loss of morality in public life but liberals do not. We only have to look to the career of her father-in-law to see that.

It will be interesting to see how the voters of New Jersey react to Representative Jeff Van Drew’s decision to become a Republican and how they react to the candidacy of Amy Kennedy.

The Following Was Posted On Facebook On Sunday

DNM’s World posted the following on Facebook on Sunday:

Say what you like about the Star Trek: TOS episode “And The Children Shall Lead” but I am going to use it as an aid to make a real world point. More often than not, someone is using the children to advance evil causes and agendas.

In the episode Gorgan, a noncorporeal being (and anything BUT a “Friendly Angel”) is using the children of Federation scientists to advance his desires. Through these children, he has manged to kill those very scientists, and now Gorgan has his sights on Marcos XII and its population of children to recruit for his cause to rule the universe. Kirk was able to stop Gorgan by showing his evil to the children (using the videos of them with their families…and their deaths) and what this monster really did to their parents and the children called Gorgan’s bluff.

Now we have to deal with a similar evil and unlike the noncorporeal Gogan, the environmental statists of flesh and bone are using children to destroy our liberties and freedom. They are using the children not just in America, but the whole world (which for the most part has embraced Marxism) to advance their cause.

On September 20, 2019; with the approval of public school administrators and teachers (and the parents that agree with them), coupled with our major media news outlets with MSNBC leading the charge (remember they are trying to convince you that climate change is real and we must give up our freedoms for the greater good); most public high school students walked out of class to protest on behalf of our natural environment. Not just American governments (local, state, national), but governments all over the world to demand that they step up and do something to deal with our changing climate. 

“As You Believe So Shall You Do, As You Believe So Shall You Do, As You Believe So Shall You Do, As You Believe So Shall You Do…”

Here is a question to ponder. Would our schools grant dismissals if the children would go to some kind of rally in support of America or perhaps go in support of something like say…the Second Amendment or something that supports the true intentions of the First Amendment like freedom of faith and religion? The short answer is No, while my answer would be “I Don’t Think So.” The progressives leftists are truly in control of most of the educational institutions on the planet and that includes our so-called public/government (Common) elementary and secondary schools.

Spock and Dr. McCoy said it best regarding the evil that our “green blooded” hero and his best friend and captain would have to face very soon regarding Gorgan’s ‘adopted children;’  

Spock: “Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth.”

McCoy: “Or by misleading the innocent.”

While Swedish born Greta Thunberg, the 15 year old face of the movement; we adults have to question about the adults who are pulling the strings as the children do their “fist pounds” to make the rest of us submit to the powerful ‘Gorgans’ of the world who would not only impose terror and fear into our lives, but make us all slaves to the permanent underclass forever in poverty and forever needing the “help” of the rich elites everywhere in the world.

Thunberg has been given lots of publicity by our major media, and like any leftist either a mastermind or some kind of “useful idiot,” you know that the our own American Democrat Party Press (if not most major international media outlets that lean progressive) will jump on any opportunity to advance the progressive cause. Thunberg also has the blessings of Ellen DeGeneres, Michael Moore, Bette Midler, Whoopi Goldberg and Melissa Fumero.

Right now one of the biggest environmental causes at the moment is the very communist-socialist concept that is named the “Green New Deal” (by the way it does not impress our young environmentalist leader), which is not about saving the planet but rather setting back the human race a thousand years or so when we did not have electricity or food that could actually kill us and not because it’s processed but it was rancid.

Even the food inspectors will not be able to help the masses should the Green Statists have it their way…and chances are those very same statists will be able to enjoy the comforts of electricity and healthier food (processed or not) as they rule over the masses with Iron Fists of greater power. It seems they will never be happy until the masses are miserable…and even then they are not happy, but want to impose more suffering.

As with Captain Kirk and Spock, we must tame our own beasts and demons and do what we can to fight these children and their puppet masters who have enslaved them and their desire to enslave the rest of us…for if they are not stopped, we will not only be stripped if our liberty but our children’s liberty will be stripped as well.

Our environment will truly be worse and filthy if these Communist Greens have it their way.

Just look at what has happened to California. Rest assured the elite will have their personal clean environments and comfortable lifestyles as they look down on the “dead waste of civilization” who they view as neanderthals.

 

I Guess This Is Not A New Problem

In April 2015 TruthorFiction posted an article stating the following:

It’s true that newspapers across the country published a story about climate change in the Arctic Ocean in 1922.

The article appeared on page 2 of the Washington Post on November 2, 1922, under the headline, “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.” The text of the article reads:

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

“Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”

The article, which was written by the Associated Press, appeared in scores of newspapers around the country in November of 1922. A researcher named John Lockwood found the article archived at the Library of Congress in 2007.
The article was based on a report that appeared in the November 1922 edition of the Monthly Weather Review. The original report says an expedition was sent by the Norwegian Department of Commerce to the Arctic Circle to survey land and to make “oceanographic investigations.” According to excerpts from the report:

“Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted … This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.”

“…It is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. MartinIngebrigstaen, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917.”

The article notes that this article does not prove that climate change is a hoax. It notes that changes in temperature from year to year can result in significant changes in ice levels. I posted this article to prove that we really don’t know as much as we like to think we do about how climate works. I suspect that the amount of carbon emissions flowing into the atmosphere in 1922 was considerably less than it is today. We can therefore conclude that there might be other factors involved in our changing climate. Put simply, man is not important enough to control the climate.

When They Always Go After My Cheeseburger

The latest sin named by the church of climate change is eating meat. Why do all of these fringe religions always go after cheeseburgers?

The Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday about some of the antics of the climate change extremists.

This is a short video about the Iowa steak fry:

The article at The Gateway Pundit points out:

The Democrats grilled 10,500 steaks this year at the annual event in Des Moines.

 This is the same party that is pushing a meat tax.
On the one hand, the Democrats are saying that Americans need to change their diet in order to stop climate change. On the other hand, the Democrat candidates are having a steak fry to raise money. That sort of logic makes my head hurt.

Is This A Winning Issue?

Andrew Yang is running for President in the Democrat primary. He is currently polling at about 3 percent. He has some interesting ideas on changing the American culture.

Hot Air posted an article today about some of those ideas.

The article reports:

MSNBC held their latest “climate crisis” event for 2020 Democratic hopefuls yesterday and when Andrew Yang took the stage he brought up one possibility that all the candidates should weigh in on. When asked by the host what the world would look like in 2050 after the everyone began dealing with climate change and carbon emissions, he suggested that the end of private car ownership was probably on the horizon.

…Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang said the United States may have to eliminate private car ownership to combat climate change during MSNBC’s climate forum at Georgetown University Thursday morning.

He told MSNBC host Ali Velshi that “we might not own our own cars” by 2050 to wean the United States economy off of fossil fuels, describing private car ownership as “really inefficient and bad for the environment.” Privately owned cars would be replaced by a “constant roving fleet of electric cars.”

Somehow I don’t see this happening.

The article concludes:

There are two sides to this proposal, consisting of the practical and the political. Being as we are in the midst of a presidential race, the political may be more important in the short term. The fact is that the Democrats seem to keep coming up with ideas that may look good on paper at liberal cocktail parties but are not at all popular with the voters at large. Eliminating private car ownership is just such a proposal.

People love their cars. Nearly everyone realizes that they are expensive luxuries and account for too much pollution, but we still live in a car culture. It’s a status symbol and a totem of our freedom of movement. No matter how well-intentioned you may be, if you come along and say the government needs to take away all your cars, the public is going to be up on their hind legs. This is the way you lose elections.

On the practical side, I will grudgingly admit that Yang is probably at least partially correct about this. If he was saying there would be nothing but mass transit, that would be nuts. Mass transit simply isn’t practical for most of the country unless you live in a densely populated urban area. But he’s also picturing fleets of electric, driverless vehicles that anyone can summon when they need to go somewhere. Uber and Lyft are working on just such a plan right now and sooner or later it may become our new reality.

But having said that, electric vehicles still need to be powered. Until you answer the question of where you’re going to come up with all of the electricity needed to replace the power currently being generated by gasoline, you’re not going to be doing much for the climate. As I mentioned yesterday when talking about efforts in California to eliminate natural gas usage, the state derives roughly half of their electricity from natural gas plants. If all of the cars are suddenly running on electricity, they’re going to be burning a massively larger amount of natural gas to meet the demand.

Yet again, we’re seeing the Church of Climate Change forcing Democrats to toss out expensive, impractical ideas that most people will rebel against. And they can’t seem to help themselves.

There is a lot more to the relationship between Americans and their cars than transportation. Somehow I can’t see taking away our private cars as a winning idea. We also need to consider that American carbon emissions are only a part of the world’s carbon emissions. We are a small percentage of carbon pollution. Unless the countries that are not concerned about the environment cut their emissions, nothing we do will have much of an impact. Keep in mind that China and India, the world;s biggest polluters, we essentially exempt from the climate treaty for a number of years. Maybe the treaty wasn’t really about climate.

When You Are Totally Out Of Step With The Voters

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about the current Democrat primary campaign for President. The writer refers to a New York Times article noting that the ideas the candidates are espousing are not popular with voters.

The article reports:

Here’s a hot new tip for Democrats wanting to win the presidency next year: Lie about what you believe!

That piece of advice comes from liberal New York Times columnist David Leonhardt, who on Sunday warned Democrats that they have lately been professing policy views that “alienate most American voters.”

It turns out that eliminating private health insurance and opening up the southern border to all of the world’s poor aren’t home runs with the electorate. But these are precise examples of what the 2020 Democratic field has been pushing.

In each of the Democratic debates and in media interviews, the leading candidates have said they support decriminalizing illegal immigration and replacing all private insurance with one government-run plan.

Observing that public opinion on those proposals isn’t rocking through the stratosphere, Leonhardt wrote that Democrats need to stop talking about what they truly believe and do the opposite: “The best strategy for Democrats,” he said, “is a populist one that speaks to voters of all races.”

That is actually really good advice for the candidates. I am hoping that they won’t take it.

The article concludes:

That sounds nice, but it would require that Democrats shut up about reparations, abandon their immigration fetish, and discontinue their climate change fearmongering.

There’s absolutely no chance any of them will do that. Democrats may routinely lie about the chaos at the border and about the cost of their healthcare plans but they’re being completely honest when they say they want open borders. They’re telling the truth when they call for government-run healthcare.

Those may not be winning positions in the general election but at least they’re honest ones.

In this case, I am not sure honesty will win the nomination or the election.

When Global Warming Just Doesn’t Work

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about what seems to be a recurring event.

The article reports:

Arctic tours ship MS MALMO with 16 passengers on board got stuck in ice on Sep 3 off Longyearbyen, Svalbard Archipelago, halfway between Norway and North Pole. The ship is on Arctic tour with Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with Climate Change and melting Arctic ice. All 16 Climate Change warriors were evacuated by helicopter in challenging conditions, all are safe. 7 crew remains on board, waiting for Coast Guard ship assistance.

The article reminds us of previous incidents:

In May 2009 two global warming activists were hoping to reach Greenland’s polar ice cap in a solar and wind powered yacht.

Unfortunately, they ran into cold and stormy weather and had to be rescued by an oil tanker.

In December 2013 a Russian expedition ship carrying global warming scientists got stuck in ice. And a Chinese ice breaker sent to rescue the scientists got stuck in the ice just miles away.

I love the irony.

The climate is always changing. There are plant fossils under the ice in Greenland, an indication that the climate there was much warmer in a previous period of the earth’s history. There are sea fossils under the American southwest deserts, indicating that the area was under water at some point. There is an area in eastern North Carolina that is a great place to collect fossilized shark teeth, indicating that at some point it was under water. The planet is always changing. It is pure ego for man to believe that he is important enough to be in charge of weather. We have an obligation to keep the planet as clean as possible, but we also have an obligation to balance that obligation with the well being of the people who live on the planet.

Do These Candidates Really Want Your Votes?

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about one of the environmental policies recently espoused by one of the leading Democrat candidates for President.

The article quotes Bernie Sanders:

Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator running for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, took anti-human environmentalism a step further on Wednesday night. A schoolteacher rose at CNN’s climate town hall and brought up population control. Would Sanders have the “courage,” the teacher asked, to “make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe.”

Sanders said yes, and then he went straight to abortion — “especially in poor countries around the world.” He cursed America’s Mexico City policy, which prohibits international family planning funds from funding abortions. Again, all in the name of saving the planet.

Here, Sanders is dancing dangerously close to federally funded eugenics. To say that overpopulation is a problem, and then to immediately call for more funding of abortion in, say, Africa, is a rather startling position to take — maybe even “courageous,” in the sense that it is risky to appear so callous an cruel.

Sanders may have meant something else. He seemed to believe the Mexico City policy curtailed access to contraceptives. (It does not.) He spoke the language of autonomy. So maybe Sanders sees himself as just wanting to empower poor women to control their fertility. Even so, Western enthusiasm for reducing the number of African babies has always had racist and colonialist undertones.

The article notes:

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” Paul Ehrlich wrote just one generation ago. “In the 1970’s and 1980’s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Ehrlich was dead wrong. Just as Martha and Bernie, Ehrlich saw humans as only hungry mouths and stomachs, not as useful, innovative hands and brains.

Human life is better today than it was 100 years ago, by far, and it had improved from 1000 years before that, and so on. What has improved mankind’s state? It wasn’t climate change. It wasn’t aliens. It was human ingenuity.

In other words, humans are a net positive. At least, that is so, if what you care about is human health and happiness. Too many environmentalists think people are a net drain. Or at least they think some people are.

Let’s back up a minute and note that Bernie Sanders is a socialist running to be the Democrat party candidate. I must admit that I never thought I would see a socialist as a serious candidate for President in America. That is a scary thought. America as a republic has been one of the most successful countries in the world–generally speaking we have fed our people and treated the environment kindly. There are some exceptions, but on the whole Americans are more prosperous than people in any other country in the world. Why would we consider moving from a successful business model (freedom and capitalism) to a failed business model (socialism)?

When The Numbers Are Just Not Cooperating

As the climate change hysterics from the Democrat presidential candidates continue, some of the actual facts seem to have gotten lost in the discussion.

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog yesterday with the following headline, “No U.S. Warming Since 2005.”

The article reports:

Even when measured, temperature records are not very reliable. The U.S. is generally considered to have the best records, but surveys show that over half of our weather stations do not comply with written standards. Some are located in places that obviously will be warmer than surrounding air, e.g., next to airport runways. Many are in cities, where temperatures are artificially inflated by concentrations of people, motor vehicles, buildings, etc. And on top of all of that, the alarmists who curate weather records have systematically fiddled with them, lowering temperatures that were recorded decades ago and raising recent ones, to exaggerate the supposed phenomenon of global warming.

The article continues:

In order to address some of these problems, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented, beginning in 2005, a new surface temperature measurement system in the U.S.

[The U.S. Climate Reference Network] includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations.

So–not to keep you in suspense–what does the USCRN show so far? No warming:

I guess we might have a little more than twelve years left. Please follow the link to the article to read the rest of the information.