Tag Archives: Climate change

Climate Indoctrination

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

All totalitarian governments have relied on the indoctrination of children to stay in power. This was true in Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, and Mao Tse Tung’s communist China. Alarmingly, we see the same strategy occurring in this country. What is the primary tool being used today to indoctrinate our children into compliance with government dictates? Climate change. Indoctrination is best accomplished by allowing discussion of only one side of an issue and using emotions such as fear. I think we would all agree that mankind functions best when engaging in calm, rational thought and debate. That is the basis of all valid science and sound decisions based on verified facts and not pretend or pseudo-science.

Now, ask yourself one question: Are we engaging in rational scientific enquiry about climate change in our public schools? The answer is a definite No! If you ask any child attending a public school what is the major issue facing mankind today, you will get one answer: manmade climate change caused by CO2 emissions. If you watched the Republican candidate’s debate, you would have observed one of the moderators present a question posed by a youth which was essentially that the primary concern of the youth in this country is climate change. Fortunately, at least one of the candidates, Vivek Ramaswamy, was willing to come out and say that manmade climate change is a hoax. Good for him!

I have also labelled the so-called climate crisis as a “hoax” in previous articles. Importantly, the Epoch Times, in a recently published article summarized a declaration by 1,609 international scientists (including two Nobel prize winners) stating that: “There is no climate emergency and that climate science should be less political and more scientific and that politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures”. They go on to say, that not only is CO2 not a pollutant but it actually enriches the atmosphere and is beneficial; essential to all life on earth; and boosts the yield of crops! You will never hear that from the fake media.

Back to indoctrinating children. The Left is using the climate change hoax because children are easily persuaded into thinking the government experts know what is best. If a child does not answer the questions on an exam about climate change in the correct way, they fail the test. Public schools must be made to stop this indoctrination. Here’s how: since most of the administrators and teachers themselves believe in manmade climate change, the only option is for the elected local Boards of Education to do the right thing and stop this. The following needs to be done: a) manmade climate change is merely an unproven theory, and the other side of the debate that climate change is naturally occurring must be taught; b) stop scaring children by claiming that climate change is a threat to their existence; c) limit climate change discussions to science classes and stop introducing this topic to lower grades that are not part of a science debate.

It is past time that we fight back against the indoctrination of our children.

 

The Other Side Of The Story

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Epoch Times posted an article about carbon dioxide and climate change.

The article reports:

International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth.

“There is no climate emergency,” the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August. “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.

The article notes:

The coalition pointed out that Earth’s climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.

“Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming,” the declaration said.

Warming is happening “far slower” than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In March 2021, Science Daily reported:

Scientists stunned to discover plants beneath mile-deep Greenland ice

Long-lost ice core provides direct evidence that giant ice sheet melted off within the last million years and is highly vulnerable to a warming climate

Date:  March 15, 2021
Source:  University of Vermont
Summary:
Scientists found frozen plant fossils, preserved under a mile of ice on Greenland. The discovery helps confirm a new and troubling understanding that the Greenland Ice Sheet has melted entirely during recent warm periods in Earth’s history — like the one we are now creating with human-caused climate change. The new study provides strong evidence that Greenland is more sensitive to climate change than previously understood — and at risk of irreversibly melting.

The article explains the value of carbon dioxide to the environment and also notes that the panic over ‘climate change’ is driven by faulty models. Please follow the link to read the entire article. It contains a lot of good, unreported information.

Protection from Climate Change

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

As usual the leftist Democrats are taking action that is destructive to our country. They are apparently incapable of building or advancing civilization and prefer to destroy what has made our country great and the envy of the rest of the world. Open borders, indicting a former president, and destructive ways of dealing with climate change are what they are about. Let’s look at what a constructive plan for climate change should look like.

As I have written in prior article, there is no scientific evidence proving that climate change is being caused by mankind. There is absolutely no cause for the alarmist scare tactics they are using. They rely on computer model predictions that have been over-predicting climate disasters for years. Actually, due to the global economic progress resulting from industrialization, the number of people worldwide who died as a result of climate catastrophes dropped from 500,000 in 1900 to 11,000 in 2022. This dramatic improvement due to man’s ingenuity is totally ignored by the Left. They refuse to acknowledge the benefits of industrialization made possible by cheap abundant energy from fossil fuels, increased food production, longer life spans, and increases of standards of living worldwide.

The Left are always destroyers and never builders. This is very clear in their approach to dealing with climate change. Now it is absolutely true that the climate is always and has always changed. This is demonstrated by the eight documented ice ages/warming cycles the earth has experienced, none of which could have been caused by man’s actions. Rather, these changes were caused by natural factors. Historically, it is clear that man’s ingenuity and creativity have resulted in protecting us from temperature fluctuations. Critically, the ability to deal with climate changes requires access to plentiful and inexpensive energy sources which the Left desperately wants to curtail. The Biden regime has canceled pipelines, stopped drilling and made us dependent on other countries. Instead they push solar and wind sources which will never be able to meet the needs of modern society and present their own environmental risks such as dead birds, whales and mining for rare earth minerals. Instead of inexpensive energy to heat and cool our homes and work places, they want us to pay more for energy and to drive electric vehicles that are not only expensive but have limited utility for the average family. Meanwhile we become more dependent on our adversary, China that provides 90% of solar panels and wind turbines. THIS IS SOCIATAL SUICIDE!!! How do they get away with this? FEAR. They constantly bombard the American public with predictions of climate disasters and blame any negative climate event on climate change. They also label anyone who questions their conclusions as “climate deniers” and try to shut us down.

We must fight back and encourage creative ingenuity to solve whatever nature sends our way. We need more nuclear power which the Left always blocks as well as using all available fossil fuel so we can return to energy independence that was last achieved by the Trump administration. The emissions from coal plants in this country have been reduced dramatically by innovation. We need to stop all the tax incentives and subsidies for solar and wind. Encouraging innovation is the best way to deal with climate change not retreating to a primitive way of living.

Training the Sheep

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

Freedom is not a permanent state in any society. It is better visualized as something that has to be nurtured and defended constantly if it is to survive. The Founding Fathers recognized this truism. For example, Benjamin Franklin when asked what type of government had been created by the newly written Constitution, he replied: “A constitutional Republic if you can keep it.” Sadly, recent actions by the Biden regime raise the question of whether we are going to show the courage to fight for freedom or act like sheep.

The expansion of the welfare state and people’s willingness to be on the government dole, which would have been rejected by prior generations, shows that many Americans do not treasure their independence as much as we once did. All government handouts come with strings attached that limit our freedoms. Federal government funds provided for Medicaid expansion recently moved many states, including unfortunately North Carolina, to accept increased government control of our healthcare.

The use of fear by the Biden regime resulted in many people caving to the curtailment of their freedoms during the COVID outbreak. Similarly, they are using the fear of catastrophic climate change to get people to accept restricted freedom and a reduction in their standard of living. For example, recently proposed, impossible to achieve, restrictions on emissions from internal combustion engines will effectively result in only the production of electric vehicles by 2032. Freedom of choice is eliminated when the government allows only one option. That is also the case with gas stoves and other household appliances. The regulatory agencies are increasingly the way the Biden regime is controlling our lives and curtailing our freedoms.

Freedom of speech is the basis of all our freedoms. As the revelations made by the Republican controlled House have shown, the Biden regime, with the assistance of the FBI and the DOJ, colluded with platforms like Facebook and Twitter to interfere and block our freedom of speech. Questioning vaccines or man-made climate change were enough to get one blocked on these internet sites. Now, they have gone so far as to charge former president Trump with multiple criminal offenses because he dared to express his opinion that the 2020 election results were fraudulently obtained. Say something the Biden regime disagrees with and you are blocked on social media, or now, potentially indicted for a crime! If it can happen to an ex-president it can happen to all of us.

The youth of this country are being indoctrinated with the Marxist agenda. Make no mistake about it. This not only occurs at all grade levels in our public schools but also in our public libraries. Recently, I was in the public library in Boone, N.C., and observed a group of children on a scavenger hunt. The theme was the coming man-made climate catastrophe. The library staff conducted this program. No balanced information was given about the evidence that climate change is continuous and is caused by natural phenomena. Of course not!

Although the young people in our country seem oblivious to their loss of freedoms, we older people know better and must step up to fight against the Biden regime. Contact your elected officials and tell them you want the regulatory excesses stopped and the agencies that promote them de-funded. We must show them we are wolves not sheep!

Sometimes You Just Have To Wonder

Posted on by

On Friday, Breitbart reported the following:

On Thursday, CNN hosts Poppy Harlow and Boris Sanchez blamed climate change for the recent surge in gas prices with the former saying that the surge in prices is a reason “to get it in check when it comes to climate change.”

On “CNN This Morning,” CNN Chief Business Correspondent Christine Romans stated, “There [are] a couple of things happening here: They’re still well below last year. Last year, at this time, we were hitting record highs, right? $4.30, last year, at this time, today, they’re $3.71. They’ve been jumping overnight. Some of these jumps have been pretty big. One of the reasons is the incessant heat means these refineries have to — are going offline for maintenance, they can’t run full throttle when it’s 115 with the heat index, just like people can’t work full throttle outside or on factory floors when it’s so, so hot. So, that’s one of the reasons. The other reason is, Russia backed out of this grain deal. And so, you had a rise in all kinds of commodity prices, corn, wheat, barley, all these prices have been going up. And sometimes, you tend to see commodities move together. But mostly, this heat thing has some of these refineries either slowing down or offline for maintenance. And that means they’re not processing as much gasoline.”

We have summer every year. During the summer it gets hot. I remember back in the 80’s when they had to close the Phoenix airport because it was too hot and there wasn’t enough lift in the air for the planes to take off. I also know that they have found plant fossils in Greenland, a place where no one can currently plant anything. Can we assume that Greenland at some point was subject to global warming? If we are so warm now, why can’t we grow crops in Greenland in the places that are now iced over? I would also like to remind everyone that weather is cyclical and tends to average out. No one is currently mentioning that we had an unusually cold June this year. Don’t the temperatures generally average out?

Does This Surprise Anyone?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Townhall reported that the California wild fire that was blamed on climate change was actually the result of arson.

The article reports:

Last summer, a large wildfire that came to be known as the Oak Fire scorched its way across California’s Mariposa County and threatened Yosemite National Park. First reported on July 22, 2022, the Oak Fire burned more than 19,000 acres of land, cost more than $90 million, and evacuations forced the displacement of thousands of Californians and visitors in the fire’s path as it rapidly expanded.

“Experts say dry air, strong winds, parched trees and grass and soaring temperatures caused the Oak fire to expand rapidly through the rugged foothills in recent days. The area has experienced nearly two weeks of triple digit temperatures and low humidity,” The Guardian reported of the Oak Fire as it spread. “All this comes at a time when the state is seeing increasingly destructive and deadly blazes and the climate crisis creates conditions ripe for destruction.”

Taxpayer funded (in part) PBS emphasized that the Oak Fire was one of the “devastating consequences” of the “global climate crisis.”

Not so fast.

The article quotes the Washington Free Beacon:

Authorities busted a Democratic donor for allegedly starting a “ginormous inferno” in Yosemite National Park. Democratic politicians had insisted climate change was to blame for the blaze, which destroyed more than 100 homes and injured several firefighters in July 2022. 

Edward Fredrick Wackerman (his actual name) of Mariposa, Calif., faces a number of charges including aggravated arson following his arrest on Friday.

By the numbers: The arson suspect has donated $1,775 to Democratic candidates and committees since 2020, government records show, including a $1,000 donation to Tim Ryan’s failed U.S. Senate campaign in 2022 and $400 to the Lincoln Project, a disgraced liberal super PAC.

The article notes that all of the restrictions being put on Californians in the name of climate change would not have stopped the Democrat donor who used a match to make it appear that climate change was a major threat. People who have no regard for the property or the welfare of their fellow Americans are a bigger threat.

Money Talks

Posted on by

On Monday, Newsbusters posted an article about some of the money flowing into the Associated Press from groups that promote environmental extremism.

The article reports:

The Associated Press has been running wild with leftist climate change propaganda while being paid millions by eco-extremist organizations. And yet AP still has the audacity to pretend it’s engaging in objective reporting. 

 MRC Business analysts found that from Feb. 15, 2022 through Feb. 15, 2023, The Associated Press (AP) pushed climate change alarmism and promoted woke environmental, social, governance (ESG) efforts across 64 climate-related stories after the legacy outlet received an $8 million grant from leftist nonprofit organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation, Quadrivium (the activist organization of News Corp. Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch’s estranged son and climate activist James Murdoch), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation (Walmart) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

AP announced Feb. 15, 2022, that it would “significantly expand its climate coverage” with the goal to “infuse” the media landscape with climate journalism backed solely by private interest groups. AP called the new development a “sweeping climate journalism initiative” and claimed in its press release that it would retain “complete editorial control of all content.” AP also claims on its “About Us” page that it is in the business of “unbiased news,” which is little more than a pathetic joke. The so-called “journalism” AP has been doing on climate involves behaving like the de facto mouthpiece for its major left-wing donors who have an obsession with pushing apocalyptic climate narratives on the internet.

The article also notes:

The Rockefeller Foundation’s history in supporting causes fixated on overpopulation is a case in point why AP’s monetary tie to the organization is extremely problematic. One Jan. 5, 2022, Rockefeller Archive blog ridiculously stated that “Issues of family planning and concerns over population growth have long interested the Rockefeller family and their philanthropies. But deciding how to give funding, and to which aspects of the ‘population problem,’ has not always come easily.” The article included a 1967 statement doom mongering about overpopulation from late Rockefeller Foundation president J. George Harrar:

It is doubtful whether there is any problem in the world more threatening in its implications than uncontrolled population growth. Its effects are already, either directly or indirectly, touching the lives of almost every man, woman, and child.

MRC Business previously reported in October 2021 how Murdoch in particular was already heavily invested in a climate reporting hub at AP. MRC Business analyzed that Murdoch’s Quadrivium gave a whopping $14,250,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) between 2013 and 2019. EDF is a left-wing “nonprofit environmental group known for its advocacy for public policies concerning global warming and a left-wing political agenda,” according to Influence Watch. 

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is frightening to think that money controls what we read that is supposed to be objective news, but unfortunately that is not a new idea for most of us.

The Food Police Are Coming

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Breitbart posted the following headline, “Nolte: NYC to Track Household Food Consumption to Fight Climate Change.”

The article reports:

“The Adams administration has announced a plan to begin tracking the carbon footprint created by household food consumption,” reports the Gothamist. This will aid the fascist mayor’s goal to “reduce their food-based emissions by 33%” by 2030.

Please note that the 33 percent goal is specifically related to “food”— the food the people of New York choose to consume.

Further note that if you live in New York City, Mayor Eric Adams will track your food consumption.

I should add that Climate Change is a hoax.

Who would have thought New York City would elect a mayor that made Big Gulp Bloomberg look like a raging libertarian?

The sad thing is that you know the slaves of New York will be A-OK with the government monitoring and manipulating what foods they eat and then shaming them over anything that tastes good:

Mayor Eric Adams announced the plan on Monday along with the Mayor’s Office of Climate & Environmental Justice as part of the city’s ongoing pledge to reduce the impact of climate change. At the same event, the Mayor’s Office of Climate & Environmental Justice published a new chart in the city’s annual greenhouse gas inventory that publicly tracks the carbon footprint created by household food consumption — primarily generated by meat and dairy products.

…

For Adams, who was once diagnosed with diabetes, the recognition that food choices affect climate change dovetails with his push for New Yorkers to eat more plant-based meals. During his tenure, the city’s public hospital system has made plant-centric foods its default offering for patients. Public schools last year added a second day of vegan offerings — although initial reviews were not great.

I am glad that Mayor Adams has his diabetes under control, but that does not give him the right to tell me what I can or cannot eat.

The article notes:

All of this over a hoax.

If Climate Change were real (it’s not), we would not be talking about reducing New York’s greenhouse emissions because the *** “experts” *** told us New York would be underwater eight years ago.

So, as you read above, New York school kids are already forced to eat two vegan meals a day—which is a perfect example of how you lose your rights if you’re dependent on the government.

Families not dependent on the government don’t have to eat two yucky, disgusting, unsatisfying vegan meals a day. Instead, if they wish, they can pack their kids a lunch with a big slab of healthy red meat stuffed between two Twinkies.

If Americans do not wake up soon to the dangers of government overreach at all levels, we will not recognize our country in three years.

The Risk Of Upside-Down Priorities

Posted on by

On Saturday, Red State posted an article with the following headline:

As China’s Blue-Water Navy Continues Massive Expansion, US Navy Secretary Says Climate Is His ‘Top Priority’

Wow. Doesn’t that make you feel well-protected?

The article reports:

Let’s begin with a sobering — to the sane among us — reality.

China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) surpassed the U.S. Navy in fleet size sometime around 2020 and now possesses roughly 340 warships, according to the Pentagon’s 2022 China Military Power Report, released in November. Moreover, China’s fleet is expected to grow to 400 ships by 2025.

Meanwhile, the U.S. fleet consists of fewer than 300 ships, with a Pentagon goal of 350 manned ships by 2045, according to the U.S. Navy’s Navigation Plan 2022, released last summer.

Incidentally, a blue-water navy is a maritime force capable of operating globally, essentially across the deep waters of open oceans. While definitions of what actually constitutes such a force vary, the constant is a requirement for the ability to exercise sea control at long range. In other words, the more dominant a nation’s blue-water navy, the better chance that nation has of controlling the world’s strategic sea lanes.

So, what is the U.S. Navy under Joe Biden doing about this sobering reality?

As reported by the Washington Examiner, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro has said, multiple times, that fighting climate change has been one of his biggest priorities since taking office. During a recent trip to the Bahamas to meet with Bahamian Prime Minister Philip Davis, the two men talked at length about… wait for it… climate change, and what the United States is doing to fight it. Here’s Del Toro:

As the Secretary of the Navy, I can tell you that I have made climate one of my top priorities since the first day I came into office. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps team has been working on climate and energy security for a long time, and we are accelerating and broadening those efforts.

If they were truly working on energy security, they would be telling the government to resume drilling in America. It would be really nice if the Secretary of the Navy cared about protecting America from foreign aggression. His priorities as he explains them are upside-down.

Holding On To Our Freedom By A Thread

Posted on by

On Monday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted the following headline:

Is THIS the key to tackling climate change? Scientists claim World War II-style RATIONING of petrol, energy and meat could help countries slash their carbon emissions ‘rapidly and fairly’

Does anyone really believe that the quest to end our carbon emissions will be fair? Let’s start with private jets–it’s much less damaging to the environment to let people travel in airplanes that hold more than five or six people–sort of like mass transit only in the air. Are we going to limit the size of people’s houses–how many square feet do the Obamas and Bidens have? Should they be forced to take in people to average out their square footage? Don’t hold your breath.

The article reports:

Climate change could be tackled with the help of a World War II-style rationing of petrol, meat and the energy people use in their homes, UK scientists say.

They claim that this would help countries to slash their greenhouse gas emissions ‘rapidly and fairly’.

Researchers from the University of Leeds also said that governments could restrict the number of long-haul flights people make in a year or ‘limit the amount of petrol one can buy in a month’.

A population that can’t travel anywhere is much easier to control.

The article notes:

In much the same way as during World War Two, the researchers argue that carbon rationing would allow people to receive an equal portion of resources based on their needs, therefore sharing out the effort to protect the planet.

Lead author Dr Nathan Wood, who is now a postdoctoral fellow at Utrecht University’s Fair Energy Consortium, said: ‘The concept of rationing could help, not only in the mitigation of climate change, but also in reference to a variety of other social and political issues – such as the current energy crisis.’

The researchers add: ‘Rationing is often seen as unattractive, and therefore not a viable option for policy-makers. 

‘It is important to highlight the fact that this was not the case for many of those who had experienced rationing. 

‘It is important to emphasise the difference between rationing itself and the scarcity that rationing was a response to. 

‘Of course, people did welcome the end of rationing, but they were really celebrating the end of scarcity, and celebrating the fact that rationing was no longer necessary.’

I had not realized how far down the road to socialism we actually are.

Did He Accidentally Tell The Truth?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Legal Insurrection posted an article about a recent statement by former secretary of state John Kerry.

The article reports:

While speaking at the World Economic Forum this week, former secretary of state John Kerry seemed to inadvertently admit that the issue of climate change is all about money.

It makes perfect sense. Climate change and all of the activism around it have become big business. All those private jets in the parking lot aren’t going to pay for themselves.

This is the full quote:

“I’m convinced we will get to a low-carbon, no-carbon economy — we’re going to get there because we have to,” he said.

“I am not convinced we’re going to get there in time to do what the scientists said, which is avoid the worst consequences of the crisis,” he added.

“And those worst consequences are going to affect millions of people all around the world, [in] Africa and other places. Of the 20 most affected countries in the world from [the] climate crisis, 17 are in Africa.”

In his remarks, Kerry also spoke about the task of keeping the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius alive.

“So, how do we get there? Well, the lesson I’ve learned in the last years and I learned it as secretary [of State] and I’ve learned it since, reinforced in spades, is: money, money, money, money, money, money, money. And I’m sorry to say that.”

Actually, I doubt that he is sorry to say that. How many government-subsidized green energy companies is he invested in? You did notice that the majority of the delegates (if not all) to the WEF in Davos flew there in private jets. Where is their effort to save the planet (other than to impose restrictions on the rest of us)?

To illustrate how the political left plans to make money by forcing the rest of us to depend on green energy, please read about the collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange in 2010 (article here).

That article reports:

“The biggest losers have been CCX’s two biggest investors – Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs – and President Obama, who helped launch CCX with funding from the Joyce Foundation, where he and presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett once sat on the board of directors.”

If you have questions about climate change and global warming, the two best sources of truth are Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts. Joe Bastardi has written a number of books about climate cycles and how they impact our weather, and Anthony Watts blogs at wattsupwtihthat.com. Both authors provide scientifically valid information on the earth’s climate.

An International Propaganda Effort

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Fox News posted the following headline, “Biden admin is funding foreign reporters to write climate stories, emails show.”

The article reports:

The Biden administration funded a foreign “reporting tour” last year, sponsoring several overseas journalists who cover climate change, internal State Department emails showed. 

In March 2021, high-ranking State Department officials discussed a proposal to sponsor foreign journalists to “have experiences that educate them on reporting on climate change,” according to the emails obtained by Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) and shared with Fox News Digital. In the email exchange, officials from Special Presidential Envoy for Climate (SPEC) John Kerry’s office and the Office of Global Change (EGC) praised the program as a “fantastic” and “great” idea.

“Jean Foschetti at the FPC mentioned this to me about a week ago,” a State Department official whose name was redacted wrote in an email on March 23, 2021. “Sounds like a great reporting tour idea; basically, the FPC will sponsor multiple foreign reporters to have experiences that educate them on reporting on climate change. Can EGC and SPEC take a look and clear?”

“Thanks for sharing … I think this sounds like a fantastic FPC (virtual) reporting tour and I’m looking forward to the stories that will come out of this,” a second redacted official responded one day later.

The article continues:

The FPC reporting tour — titled “Combating the Climate Crisis Through U.S. Innovation” — ultimately took place during a two-week stretch in May 2021. The event was designed to “promote the Administration’s goal of prioritizing the fight against climate change through global efforts to reduce emissions,” according to the State Department.

“The FPC … offered this virtual program to enable journalists to remotely develop their reporting about the United States’ renewed approach to addressing the climate crisis and its innovation and research, particularly in the areas of reducing emissions and renewable energy,” the State Department states on its website. 

While the State Department quietly announced the program in 2021, though, it failed to mention that it would be funded by U.S. taxpayer money or that the foreign reporters would be “sponsored.” It is unclear which reporters and outlets were sponsored by the State Department program.

The tour came as the Biden administration was moving forward with its aggressive green energy and climate push.

Evidently Twitter was not the only government-funded propaganda campaign. We need to put a stop to all green energy programs until we make sure that our current energy infrastructure can meet the growing energy needs of Americans. It should be pointed out that the unregulated flow of immigrants into America will also increase the energy needs of America. Windmills, solar panels, and electric cars are at the mercy of the weather–does the sun shine, is it too cold for windmills to turn, and how far will your electric car travel in zero degree weather? They may play a role, but they should not be major players until the technology is greatly improved.

A Broken Promise

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the Democrats reneging on their promise they made to Senator Manchin in order to obtain his vote of their Inflation Reduction Act which was actually about funding green energy. It was an awful bill loaded with pork, and without Senator Manchin’s vote, it would not have passed.

The article reports:

A top House Democrat celebrated Tuesday after Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia’s permitting reform bill was excluded from the annual military spending package.

In August, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to help Manchin pass a bill that would accelerate federal permitting for energy and mining projects in exchange for his sponsoring of the Democrats’ climate spending bill.  However, after Congressional leaders chose to remove Manchin’s bill from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) due to a lack of votes, Democratic House Natural Resources Chair Raul Grijalva, who along with many more left-wing Democrats had opposed the bill, touted the defeat of Manchin’s legislation as a win for “environmental justice communities” across the nation, according to a Tuesday press release.

“Thanks to the hard-fought persistence and vocal opposition of environmental justice communities all across the country, the Dirty Deal has finally been laid to rest,” Grijalva said. “House Democrats can now close out the year having made historic progress on climate change without this ugly asterisk.”

The historic progress they made is likely to cause power brownouts this winter in the coldest areas of the country. People may not be able to heat their homes as a result of Democrat policies. The Inflation Reduction Act will not reduce inflation–it will only fund the special interests that are involved in green energy. It has nothing to do with inflation.

 

Just What We Needed–Another Government Agency!

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Epoch Times reported the following:

The Biden administration on Saturday launched a new national office dubbed the “Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights” charged with addressing what some officials say are the disproportionate harms inflicted on low-income areas and communities of color by pollution and climate change.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an independent executive agency of the U.S. federal government, announced that the new office “will position the agency to better advance environmental justice, enforce civil rights laws in overburdened communities, and deliver new grants and technical assistance.”

The new office will oversee a portion of Democrats’ $60 billion investment in environmental justice initiatives created by the Inflation Reduction Act—specifically, the implementation and delivery of $3 billion in block grants to underserved communities affected by pollution.

The EPA said the new office will also “ensure EPA’s implementation of other funding programs provided by the Inflation Reduction Act [and] Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.”

Three existing EPA programs that oversee environmental justice, civil rights, and conflict prevention and resolution will be merged into the new senior-level office.

Wow! A whole agency saying that the climate is racist. Good grief!

I have a suggestion. If the summertime temperature is higher in black neighborhoods that white neighborhoods, plant trees. I am sure something could be worked out so that the city involved could afford to do that. We don’t need another government agency to do that.

Note that they are merging three current EPA programs into this new office. These programs oversee environmental justice, civil rights, conflict prevention and resolution. Let’s get something straight–if the earth burns up because of climate change (which is highly unlikely) all people will be equally impacted. The climate is not aware of anyone’s financial situation or political power. If those screaming the loudest about climate change really believed what they were saying, would they buy oceanfront estates and run around in private jets?

The article concludes:

The EPA’s definition of “environmental justice” is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”

There is no such thing as environmental justice–the government does NOT control the environment! This office will simply be a center for the redistribution of wealth, which is the ultimate goal of the Biden (Obama) administration.

The Inflation Reduction Act

Posted on by

The Inflation Reduction Act has passed through Congress and will undoubtedly be signed into law by President Biden by the time you read this. So what exactly does this law do? Well, for starters it does not reduce inflation and it will not impact the climate. However, it will help China’s economy (they dominate the green energy field) and it will let Democrats celebrate that they passed something through Congress. It will also raise the cost of living for all Americans in the form of increased energy costs and some tax increases.

On Monday, The New York Post reported:

An analysis by the CBO estimates those earning less than $400,000 — the group on which Biden promised not to raise taxes — will pay an estimated $20 billion more in taxes over the next decade as a result of the Democrat-pushed $740 billion package, which also sets aside $80 billion to hire 87,000 IRS agents.

The bill has yet to be scored in its entirety by the CBO — which typically gives each piece of legislation a price tag before it is voted on — but the agency scored the impact of the IRS expansion on middle-class taxpayers on Aug. 12 after a provision from Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) sought to exempt those making under $400,000 from increased IRS scrutiny.

Crapo’s proposed amendment would have kept those taxpayers from being targeted by the new IRS hires, but his provision was shot down 51-50 in the bill passed by the Senate last week.

On Monday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog reported the following:

Democrats quickly gave up on the Inflation Reduction Act, since they couldn’t sell the idea that another $700+ billion in deficit spending would somehow reduce inflation. So now it is alleged to be a climate control act, instead.

But the bill won’t affect the climate any more than it would have reduced inflation. Even if you assume the UN’s inflated estimate of the impact of CO2 emissions on global warming, the bill’s impact is nil:

[W]e get somewhere between 0.028 and 0.0009°F reduction in temperature by 2100 for about 400 billion dollars in climate spending contained in the bill.

But the oceans will stop rising! Which, by the way, they have been doing for the last 15,000 or so years.

The article at Power Line Blog concludes:

So the Democrats’ prize legislation is an exercise in futility. Unless, of course, you are one of the many Democratic Party constituents who will be cashing the checks that add up to more than $700 billion, with a little over half ostensibly going to benefit the climate.

The purpose here is to buy votes, obviously, and the Democratic Party press is ecstatic over the idea that Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer finally have a “win” to brag about. But I wonder. I haven’t seen much evidence that the Democrats’ deficit spending extravaganzas are especially popular outside the precincts of those who cash the checks. (And, by the way, the number one beneficiary of this particular $700 billion will be the Communist Chinese, who dominate “green” energy.) My guess is that most Americans have caught on to the Democrats’ game, and understand that this legislation will no more dictate the Earth’s climate than it will bring our crippling inflation under control.

That’s where we are, folks.

A Very Short-Sighted Plan

Posted on by

There is a lot of climate change panic going on right now. It’s summer, and it is hot. In some places it is hotter than it has been for a long time. However, I would hesitate to say that it is hotter than it has ever been (we still haven’t seen plants growing on the Greenland Ice Cap where plant life fossils have been found in the past). Since everyone is sweating and complaining about the heat, this is a really good time to talk about global warming and blame man for its existence. We can choose to overlook climate cycles and simply complain about the heat. The Biden administration is planning to take full advantage of our summer heat wave.

On Tuesday, Townhall reported the following:

President Joe Biden’s Special Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein made an appearance on CNN Tuesday morning as gas prices continue to bust the budgets of American families. 

During his remarks, Hochstein said the White House does not want oil and gas companies embarking on new projects and that they are working to accelerate the current, extremely painful and unaffordable transition to alternative energy. 

Has it occurred to the brilliant people in the Biden administration that we are more likely to find a way to turn fossil fuel into almost entirely clean energy than we are to be able to run a country on green energy? When you evaluate the push toward green energy by our political leaders, it’s a good idea to look at their stock portfolios and investments as well as their personal actions (private jets, oceanfront property, carbon footprint, etc.). In 2010 I wrote an article about the closing of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) which was doing carbon trading. What had happened was that the Obama administration had not been successful in passing Cap and Trade legislation and the trading of carbon credits was not going to happen. A lot of liberal Congressmen lost money they had invested in the CCX when it stopped carbon trading. That alone should tell you all you need to know about the dreaded climate change.

The article at Townhall notes:

“It’s about making a choice between what is the short term and the medium term so we can make sure we have enough oil and gas to support us through the transition and what are the kind of steps we don’t want the oil and gas industry to take that would have longterm consequences when we don’t want new major projects that would take 20-30 years that would become profitable,” Hochstein said. “So we have to make that differentiation to make sure the American consumer has what it needs to grow, grow our economy and the global economy, but not take steps and endanger the climate work that we’re trying to do to make sure that we’re on a better footing to accelerate the transition.”

The political elites in America will find a way to avoid the suffering that will result from their policies. Meanwhile, Americans who are simply trying to work, raise families, and generally be good citizens will suffer. The only way to deal with the Biden administration is to limit their power by placing conservatives (I didn’t say Republicans) in Congress in 2022 and electing a conservative President in 2024.

 

Bad Behavior Never Advances A Cause

Posted on by

On Friday, The Gateway Pundit reported on a group of people called The Tyre Extinguishers deflated tires on forty SUVs in New York City’s Upper East Side neighborhood. First of all, this group needs to take a deep breath and take a good look around. If global warming were going to kill us all in the very near future, why are celebrities and politicians still running around in private jets, yachts, etc.? Why have they demanding that the rest of us decrease our carbon footprint while making no effort to decrease theirs?

The article reports:

Starting initially in the UK, Tyre Extinguishers groups have sprung up in the UK, USA, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Sweden and New Zealand. In the UK, actions have taken place in London, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester.

This is the first action in New York City, the first of many.

The Tyre Extinguishers target SUVs because:
• SUVs are a climate disaster
• SUVs cause air pollution
• SUVs are dangerous
• SUVs are unnecessary

The Tyre Extinguishers want to see bans on SUVs in urban areas,
pollution levies to tax SUVs out of existence, and massive investment in free, comprehensive public transport. But until politicians make this a reality, Tyre Extinguishers action will continue.

So the Tyre Extinguishers want the government to tell us what we can drive. I wonder if they have thought this through.

The article includes the Tyre Extinguishers rationale for what they are doing:

We are The Tyre Extinguishers.

We are people from all walks of life with one aim: To make it impossible to own a huge polluting 4×4 in the world’s urban areas. We are defending ourselves against climate change, air pollution and unsafe drivers.

We do this with a simple tactic: Deflating the tyres of these massive, unnecessary vehicles, causing inconvenience for their owners.

Deflating tyres repeatedly and encouraging others to do the same will turn the minor inconvenience of a flat tyre into a giant obstacle for driving massive killer vehicles around our streets.

We’re taking this action because governments and politicians have failed to protect us from these huge vehicles. Everyone hates them, apart from the people who drive them.

We want to live in towns and cities with clean air and safe streets. Politely asking and protesting for these things has failed. It’s time for action. Join us.

We have no leader – anyone can take part, wherever you are, using the simple instructions on this website.

The terrorists encourage attacks on hybrid and electric SUVS:

Hybrids and electric cars are fair game. We cannot electrify our way out of the climate crisis – there are not enough rare earth metals to replace everyone’s car and the mining of these metals causes suffering. Plus, the danger to other road users still stands, as does the air pollution (PM 2.5 pollution is still produced from tyres and brake pads).”

The terrorists claim attacks on thousands of vehicles around the globe.

This is not protest–this is destruction of other people’s property, and the people doing this should spend enough time in jail to rethink what they are doing.

Putting Legislative Action Back In Congress Where It Belongs

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Hot Air reported that a federal judge in New Orleans will hear the case regarding Joe Biden’s executive order imposing a moratorium on the sale of new drilling leases to oil and gas companies.

The article quotes the Associated Press:

A federal appeals court in New Orleans hears arguments Tuesday about whether President Joe Biden legally suspended new oil and gas lease sales shortly after taking office because of climate change worries.

The case has not been tried but a federal judge blocked the order, saying only Congress could suspend the sales.

Federal lawyers say the government has broad power to hold, cancel or defer lease sales.

The article reports:

The plaintiffs appear to have a fairly well-developed argument here. The President and the Department of the Interior only have the ability to offer drilling leases because Congress granted them that authority long ago. There is no provision in the existing federal law allowing for the process to be “paused.” In fact, the opposite is true. In a 1987 update to the law, it specifically states that such leases “shall be made available four times per year” in states with eligible federal lands.

In other words, Biden’s executive order not only gummed up the normal process established by Congress, but it may have been a violation of federal law. It’s not as if he has to worry about his own Justice Department trying to prosecute him for this, but the contrast between the claims of the White House and the laws passed by Congress is glaring.

The article concludes:

The only opposition to the new lease sales these days is actually coming from the oil and gas companies themselves. Industry executives are hesitant to expand their current operations for a variety of reasons. For one thing, there is a shortage of workers available to staff up new operations at the moment. Also, inflation impacts the oil and gas industry as much as anyone else. All of the costs associated with putting up a rig and starting to drill have risen. If the price of oil suddenly starts to crater again when production increases, they could wind up losing money on new drilling sites.

In any event, this entire mess began when Joe Biden took office and decided to keep a campaign promise by shutting down drilling on federal land. The predictable results have been damaging across the board and the President is very late to the party in terms of making a course correction now.

We were energy independent when President Biden took office. We need to be there again.

Do The Fact-Checkers Actually Check The Facts?

Posted on by

On Sunday, Forbes posted an article about fact checkers. The article specifically focuses on the fact-checkers who ‘check facts’ in the areas of Covid-19 and climate change, two of the more controversial topics of the day.

On the subject of Covid-19, the article notes:

Over two years into the pandemic, some of the most basic questions remain contentious, and even questions of data integrity remain mired in controversy. Are covid deaths over-reported since many may have died with covid rather than of covid? Did lockdowns and masks make any discernible difference to public health? Are there viable early treatments for the disease available or are vaccines approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the only way to go? Are covid vaccines safe and effective? To each of these questions, the overwhelming majority of the fact checking sites (or fact checking departments of the legacy media) support the reigning narrative articulated by big pharmaceutical companies, government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA, and key government officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci. The Biden administration welcomes this, and goes further in calling social media companies such as Facebook to partner with the White House to “fight misinformation” about covid-19.

When three distinguished medical people released the Great Barrington Declaration which contradicted the administration’s policies, their ideas were immediately squelched without debate. That’s not how science is supposed to work.

The article also discusses the climate-change fact-checkers:

Like the media coverage of covid-19, climate change headlines in the mainstream media for the past three decades have been overwhelmingly one-sided. The basic premise is that the “science is settled” as in a tweet by then U.S. President Barack Obama in 2013: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” with the obvious subtext: “Who are you to challenge this?” And, as in the covid-19 context, the marginalization of climate sceptics has a long track record.

Two examples suffice how fact checks and editorializing serve to ensure that sceptics need not apply for access to the wider public. The first relates to the London-based BBC, fondly known as “beebs”, for its authoritative news broadcasts around the world as it emerged from the ashes of World War II. The British media giant was known and praised not only for its balanced news features but also for its nature documentaries. And in this space, two celebrities with the same first name – David Bellamy and David Attenborough – emerged in the 1970s, directing fascinating TV programs on nature and the environment from every corner of the globe into tens of millions of homes. As British commentator James Dellingpole wrote in his eulogy to Bellamy who died in 2019, “both were superstars…both were well on their way to becoming national treasures.”

Yet, while one, Attenborough, basks in the glow of international fame and is invited to many of the climate conferences as star speaker and delegate, the other claimed he had become a pariah as soon as he rejected group-think on global warming – describing climate change as “poppycock”. Though his climate scepticism killed his media career he remained utterly unrepentant. The BBC itself has made it clear to its staff that it will not invite climate sceptics to its interviews and panel discussions to balance debates because the “science is settled”

The article concludes:

Without getting into details about the claims of the so-called factchecker, the key point here is to note the perversions of truth in representing the arguments critiqued in such “fact checks”. Perhaps this is best revealed by the fact that Facebook argued in its legal defence that its cited fact check was “just opinion” when faced by a lawsuit brought by celebrated journalist John Stossel who had posted two climate change videos.

Readers and viewers beware of this peculiar twist to the caveat emptor clause: the “fact checks” used by the mainstream news outlets and social media to police what you read and watch are just opinions.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We are being played.

Do As I Say–Not As I Do

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Daily Wire posted an article about some of the actions that contrast with the words of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The article reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has spent more than $500,000 in taxpayer money on private jets since 2020, even though she often describes climate change as an “existential” threat and says the U.S. has a “moral” obligation to solve it, according to a new report.

“According to campaign filings with the Federal Election Commission, Pelosi’s campaign paid a Virginia-based private aviation provider, Advanced Aviation Team, over $437,000 between October 2020 and December 2021 and over $65,000 to Clay Lacy Aviation, a California-based private jet provider,” Fox News reported on Monday.

Pelosi, who will run for re-election again this year at age 82, lead a 21-member congressional delegation to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland in November, where she said: “For me, it’s a religious thing. I believe this is God’s creation, and we have a moral obligation to be good stewards.”

“We must face the existential threat of our time: the climate crisis,” Pelosi said in January 2019 in her opening address to Congress. “The entire Congress must work to put an end to the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.”

The article concludes:

During the administration of George W. Bush, Pelosi requested regular access to an Air Force passenger jet, but that created a debate over whether she would get the large aircraft she wants and who she may take as passengers.

At the time, one Republican called it a “flying Lincoln Bedroom,” and Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC) labeled the speaker’s plane “Pelosi One.”

“This is a bullet point to a larger value — Pelosi’s abuse of power continues,” McHenry said. “It began when the speaker denied minority rights to Republicans … and now she’s exploiting America’s armed forces and taxpayers for her own personal convenience.”

I might be inclined to take the idea that man actually is a major influence on the earth’s climate seriously if I saw those yelling that we need to panic actually acting like they saw a threat.

Global Warming Did Not Cause The Tornadoes

Posted on by

Before I write this article, I would like to ask anyone who feels as if they would like to help the victims of the awful tornadoes that ripped through our country this weekend to consider donating to either Samaritan’s Purse or Operation Blessing. Both of those organizations have very low administrative costs and will stay on the scene as long as necessary. When hurricane Florence hit New Bern, both organizations were staged outside the range of the hurricane in preparation, arrived on the scene almost immediately, and stayed long after other organizations had left. I strongly recommend both of them.

On Monday, The Blaze posted an article about the tornadoes. The article features the research of Meteorologist Joe Bastardi. One of the things that I truly appreciate about Mr. Bastardi is that he views weather in the context of cycles. Because of that, his long-range weather predictions tend to be much more accurate than most of what you see on television.

The article reports:

When a reporter asked Biden on Saturday whether climate change contributed to the deadly tornadoes, Biden pointed to climate change allegedly increasing the intensity of storms.

“All I know is that the intensity of the weather across the board has some impacts as a consequence of the warming of the planet and climate change,” Biden said. “The specific impact on these specific storms, I can’t say at this point.”

“I’m going to be asking the EPA and others to take a look at that,” Biden continued. “But the fact is that we all know everything is more intense when the climate is warming. Everything. And obviously, it has some impact here, but I can’t give you a quantitative read on that.”

The reason he can’t give us a quantitative read is that what he is saying is simply not true.

The article continues:

How did Bastardi respond?

The famed meteorologist accused Biden of weaponizing tornados and shared data showing that severe weather this year has not been as severe compared to previous years.

“Clueless Joe Biden In action again with his weaponization of Tornados. 1) Violent tornadoes not increasing. 2) this year tornados, hail and wind all together near-record low,” Bastardi said. “Mindless media should do their dang job and call him on it, I called Trump out on Dorian jibberish.”

The data Bastardi included, coming from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, directly contradicts claims from Biden and Criswell that severe weather is more intense because of climate change.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. Mr. Bastardi includes graphs and further information to make his point.

The article notes:

Climate change hawks love to exploit isolated weather events to promote a certain narrative about the climate. However, climate, by its very definition, describes observable patterns of weather over long periods of time — not isolated events.

Thus, if climate change were truly driving more intense weather, such a phenomenon would be observable over a substantial period of time. But as Colorado University professor Roger Pielke Jr. pointed out on Sunday, the U.S. government’s own data shows that tornados, for example, are becoming less common in the U.S.

“According to data from the U.S. National Weather Service from 2000 to 2020 only four of the strongest category of tornadoes were observed (which are labelled as F/EF5 tornadoes) In comparison, from 1954 to 1974 36 (!) such powerful tornadoes were observed,” Pielke explained. “Our research on tornado damage in the United States over many decades shows a decline that is suggestive of an actual decline in tornado incidence.”

Pielke also highlighted an important point to consider when politicians and those with an agenda begin blaming climate change for weather disasters.

Fear paves the way for more government control. If we have learned nothing else in the past two years, we should have learned that.

The Price We Are Paying At The Gas Pump

Posted on by

The year 2020 was a good year for American drivers. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump was $2.64 in January 2020, dropped to $1.94 in April, and ended the year at $2.29. The website lists the current cost of a gallon of gasoline at $3.50. That’s a $12 increase in cost every time I put 10 gallons of gasoline in my car. If you are commuting to work, that adds up fast. So how does the Biden administration feel about this significant increase in the cost of gasoline? The Epoch Times posted an article today that answers that question.

The article reports:

When he announced last week that he would release more oil from the American Strategic Petroleum Reserve, President Joe Biden told the American people he is doing everything possible to bring down gas prices at the pump.

That’s a lie. This administration and the climate change crazies have declared war on American energy.

They want high oil and gas prices. The Biden master plan is for American oil and gas production and consumption to go to zero over the next 15 to 20 years. How do you achieve that goal? By making oil and gas so expensive and so unavailable that Americans are forced to use alternatives.

In other words, the fact that gasoline is roughly $1.25 more expensive per gallon today under Biden than it was a year ago under former President Donald Trump didn’t happen by accident. This was not a result of a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, that could knock out our oil facilities. This was by design.

The left believes that they can change the temperature of the planet by forcing American energy companies to produce less oil and to force Americans to use less of it. How do you get people to buy less of something? You raise its price. This is basic high-school introductory economics.

The article concludes:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said it well in August that Texas “can easily produce that oil” if Biden “will just stay out of the way.”

He won’t.

The Biden administration strategy is to force-feed the American economy expensive, unreliable, and made-in-China wind and solar energy. His $3 trillion Build Back Better bill would dole out more than $500 billion of taxpayer dollars to the wind, solar, and electric vehicle industry to break the back of oil and gas production. If this energy source is so efficient, why does it need a half trillion dollars of your and my money?

Meanwhile, nearly every Biden policy has been deliberately aimed at killing U.S. oil and gas production—from killing the Keystone XL pipeline to trying to shut down other existing natural gas pipelines in the Midwest (Home heating costs are going way up this winter.) to shutting down much of Alaska oil production to new Environmental Protection Agency rules making it very difficult and expensive to drill here in America. He is also preventing the mining of American coal, which is still one of the dominant sources of electric power around the world. He also wants to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry.

Now, let’s be honest. Do any of these policies suggest that Biden and his liberal friends in the green-energy movement want to keep oil and gas prices low? If you answer yes to that, you probably believe that Al Gore invented the internet.

Elections have consequences.

Now Even The Climate Is Racist

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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?

Posted on by

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.