Tag Archives: Climate change

There Is A Certain Amount Of Self Interest In This Decision

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The New York Post posted an article about the sudden change of heart by Bill Gates about climate change. You will have to excuse the amount of cynicism I have relating to this change. There are two major factors involved. One factor is the Trump effect on globalism–those moving toward one-world government are not currently getting the traction they were getting during the Biden administration. Argentina and America have shown that cutting government fat and promoting patriotism is a positive thing. The political left’s attempt to label patriotism as nationalism and paint nationalism as a bad thing is beginning to fail. The other factor is that Bill Gates is working to be a leader in the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI). Green energy and AI are not compatible–the amount of energy required by AI is enormous. We will need to develop new sources of energy and increase our use of old sources of energy to support AI. Those are the reasons I believe Bill Gates has changed his tune on global warming and green energy.

The New York Post reports:

Suddenly, Bill Gates is admitting that climate change won’t lead to “humanity’s demise” after all.

Now he tells us, after he long joined other climate alarmists in warning of “disaster,” as the West burned trillions on “decarbonizing” and steered economies toward the stone age.

The “doomsday view” that “cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization” is “wrong,” the Microsoft co-founder writes; people will “be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”

It should also be noted that in the past when there were periods of global warming, there was more food to feed people and fewer people died from exposure to cold.

The article notes:

Gates still thinks it’s a “serious” problem, but admits “the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals” and “diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.”

That’s precisely what moderates, like economist Bjorn Lomborg, and most conservatives have said for years.

The chief goal should be “improving lives” — not trying to end all carbon-fuel use, especially when China is still relentlessly building coal plants.

Like Lomborg, Gates now acknowledges that greater “prosperity” can let mankind cope just fine as the planet warms: “The faster people become prosperous and healthy, the more lives we can save.”

The article concludes:

If Gates wants any credit for belatedly seeing the light, he needs to put maximum effort into getting the left’s climate warriors to wake up, too.

Are We Willing To Go Back To The Nineteenth Century?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Hot Air posted an article about several decisions by various international courts. The combined affect of these decisions is to make fossil fuels illegal. Hang on to your gas stove!

The article reports:

It’s a piece in The New York Times–for him, it was the international version with a different headline–that argues that several decisions by various international courts amount to outlawing the extraction and use of fossil fuels.

It’s hard to argue with their conclusion because I am not an international lawyer, but let’s assume that the claim is true, as it appears to be on its face.

Rulings by the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea all suggest that the climate harms resulting from the burning of fossil fuels violate international law.

The New York Times article states:

The I.C.J.’s unanimous opinion reinforced these conclusions and broadened their reach, stating that countries must protect citizens from the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change. When a country fails to curb greenhouse gas emissions — whether by producing or consuming fossil fuels, approving new exploration to find them or subsidizing the industry — it may be held liable for “an internationally wrongful act,” the court’s 15 judges said.

This makes it much harder for any government or company to say that rules don’t apply to them or they don’t have to act. Read together, these three landmark legal rulings leave no doubt that continuing fossil fuel production and use, let alone expanding it, violates the law. It is a cease-and-desist notice to fossil fuel producers.

This isn’t the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but it’s close.

Never forget:

On March 30, 2016, I posted the following (here):

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.

Whenever you see someone claiming global governance and talking about climate change, consider the above quote.

Meanwhile, follow the link above to read the entire article at Hot Air.

An Island Is Drowning?

Posted on by

Recently, Anthony Watts at WattsUpWithThat posted an article about the island of Cartí Sugdupu in Panama. The BBC recently posted an article claiming that the island is sinking because of climate change. Evidently, that is not the case.

The article reports:

The BBC’s recent article “Climate change: The Panama community that fled its drowning island,” claims that the island of Cartí Sugdupu in Panama is being swallowed by rising sea levels due to climate change. This is false. The reality is that the island’s inhabitants are not being forced to relocate because of rising oceans, but due to overcrowding, poor infrastructure, and a lack of resources—issues that have nothing to do with climate change. Furthermore, real-world examples and peer-reviewed research contradict the idea that small islands are disappearing due to rising seas. Instead, many islands are growing, adapting, and naturally shifting over time. The BBC’s report is misleading at best, deliberately deceptive at worst.

Cartí Sugdupu is one of Panama’s San Blas Islands, home to the indigenous Guna people. The BBC’s article, painting a picture of climate-induced displacement, completely ignores the fact that the island is severely overcrowded, with more than 1,000 people packed into a tiny space of just 0.028 square miles. That’s a population density higher than New York City! The primary reason the residents are moving is not rising sea levels, but poor living conditions, lack of fresh water, and a shortage of space—issues that have been pressing for decades.

The article concludes:

The real reason for the relocation of Cartí Sugdupu’s residents has nothing to do with climate change. Instead, it comes down to basic infrastructure challenges:

  • Overpopulation – As seen in the head photograph, the island is overcrowded, with nowhere to expand. Unlike coral atolls that naturally grow, Cartí Sugdupu is an isolated, heavily inhabited island with no room for additional housing or development.
  • Lack of Freshwater and Sanitation – Many small islands struggle with freshwater availability. The BBC ignores this and instead attributes all hardships to climate change.
  • Economic and Government Decisions – Panama’s government is relocating the residents as part of a planned move, not an emergency evacuation due to rising waters.

The BBC’s reporting is a prime example of climate alarmism dressed up as journalism, with the organization pushing a narrative, while ignoring crucial facts. Rather than investigating the real reasons behind Cartí Sugdupu’s relocation—overpopulation, lack of infrastructure, and government decisions—the BBC misleadingly claims climate change is forcing its residents to relocate. It is the government that has made that decision, and not because the seas are rising at a historically unusual rate. The BBC ignores peer-reviewed research disproving its claim that islands are disappearing, fails to mention historical sea level trends, and omits crucial local factors that explain the island’s challenges. This isn’t objective reporting—it is activism disguised as news. The BBC’s audience deserves better, it deserves the truth.

Please follow the link to the article. At the top of the article is a picture, I believe, of the island. There isn’t even enough space on that island to breathe! This is another incident where a media outlet has chosen a narrative over actual facts.

The Times They Are A’Changing

Posted on by

On Friday, The Epoch Times reported that Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Sean Duffy will be removing the unreasonable fossil fuel emissions standards put in place by the Biden administration.

The article reports:

In December 2023, the DOT’s Federal Highway Administration finalized a rule establishing a method to measure and report transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.

The rule required state-level agencies to establish targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles traveling on national highways. These emission targets were intended to become more stringent over time, and agencies were required to report on their progress in meeting them. The rule did not specify how low the targets should be but allowed agencies the discretion to set goals appropriate for their communities.

The rule was set up to “confront the increasingly urgent climate crisis,” according to the executive summary, and was expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This was part of a plan to reach “net-zero emissions by no later than 2050,” according to a 2021 White House fact sheet.

On Jan. 29, Duffy approved a proposal to rescind the rule.

The article concludes:

The action is in line with several executive orders recently issued by President Donald Trump, including the “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” and “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” the department stated.

All DOT offices are required to identify and report, within 10 days, programs and policy statements that are subject to Trump’s relevant executive orders, according to the memo, and revoke nonconforming rules.

Duffy also signed an order to lower costs “through smarter policies, not political ideologies.” Under the order, it must be ensured that all DOT loans and grants are based on “sound economic principles, positive cost-benefit analyses, and pro-economic growth priorities.”

Duffy said these actions are a step toward restoring commonsense governance and merit-based policies at the Transportation Department.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we are focused on eliminating excessive regulations that have hindered economic growth, increased costs for American families, and prioritized far-left agendas over practical solutions,” he said.“The American people deserve an efficient, safe, and pro-growth transportation system based on sound decision-making, not political ideologies. These actions will help us deliver on that promise.”

This is definitely a step in the right direction.

Conservative Replies to Debate Questions

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

I watched the Vice President candidate’s debate the other night and thought that J.D. Vance did a good job. The following are my answers to some of the critical issues that were raised in the debate.

Climate Change. The climate constantly changes. Always has; always will. The idea that the recent destructive hurricane, Helene, was caused by man-made climate change is pure ignorance and typical of the environmental extremists. Severe hurricanes have occurred as far back as records have been kept–long before man’s burning of fossil fuels could have caused them. The Left continues to spout the idea that man-made climate change is “settled science” when it is not. This allows them to justify ruining our energy production.

Green Energy. The Democrat agenda is to spend more of our taxpayer money on solar and wind projects purchased from China, and importantly, to mandate electric vehicles. Meanwhile, China is building a new coal fired plant about every month and using coal that we ship to them. As Europe has found out, no modern civilization can exist on wind and solar. We need more access to fossil fuels and to start building nuclear plants which the environmental extremists are blocking.

Open Borders. The Democrats want open borders in order to get more voters who will support their socialist agenda. They give illegals free housing, food, cell phones and healthcare and will, if allowed, grant them citizenship so they can vote. They realize that they are losing support from working class Americans, blacks, and Hispanics because of their harmful policies and need to replace these voters. Biden/Harris have had the ability to close the borders just as Donald Trump was able to do. THEY WANT OPEN BORDERS!

Housing Costs. The cost of new homes is up over 30% since Biden/Harris took office. Their reckless government spending caused the highest inflation in 40 years. Soaring fuel prices have increase the production cost and shipping cost of all building materials. Inflation caused a surge in mortgage rates from 3% under Trump to over 7% under Biden/Harris. Their solution–to start another big government program of taking money from working Americans and give it to first time home buyers.

Abortion. There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses abortion as a right. In fact, the Constitution specifically states that if an issue is not specified as the responsibility of the federal government then it must be left to the states. That is exactly what the Supreme Court’s ruling against Roe vs Wade rightfully concluded. The Democrats do not want to follow the Constitution–they want a federal law on abortion. Kamala Harris has promised to remove the filibuster rule and pack the court in order to accomplish this objective. They also want to avoid the reality that terminating a child that can live on its own with proper medical care, is not murder.

As in any debate, there are important issues that were not addressed. For example, the increasing crime rates and the destruction of our cities by failing to enforce the law. Anyone want to visit San Francisco? I do not. Recent reports show that due to the Biden/Harris open border policy, 425,000 criminals, 13,000 convicted murderers, and 16,000 sexual assault offenders were released into this country. The Democrats abuse of the law to go after their political opponents should alarm all Americans. No president has ever been indicted while in office or out of office other than President Trump. Yet, they continue to say that he is the threat to democracy when they are the real threat!

Let’s face reality. Harris/Walz are the most radical socialists ever to run for president and vice president. Their policies will make America a weak, failing, socialist country. Choice: big government socialism or traditional American free enterprise and individual freedom. Easy decision actually.

What Global Warming Is Really About

Posted on by

On Friday, Issues & Insights posted an article about global warming. The article includes a number of statements by people who claim to be alarmed at global warming that might cause you to question their motives.

The article reports those statements:

  • Christiana Figueres, one-time executive secretary of United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the climate activists’ agenda is not to protect the environment but to break capitalism. The task ahead, she said in 2015, is “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
  • The late Rajenda Pachauri was the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman until 2015. He openly conceded “the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems” was “more than a mission” to him. It was his “religion” and “dharma.”
  • Activist and influential author Naomi Klein once wondered if the fearmongering was “the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?” The world must “change, or be changed,” she says, because an “economic system” — our free and open markets — has caused environmental “wreckage.”
  • Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said almost five years ago that Miami will not exist “in a few years” due to the effects of global warming. She of course had a plan, not to deal with the changes, but to pass Democratic Party policies. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” former Ocasio-Cortez chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti said, according to the Washington Post Magazine. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked an aide to Washington Gov. Jay Inslee while the pair met at a Washington, D.C. coffee shop in May. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

The free market will always provide a cleaner environment than government regulation. It should also be noted that many of those complaining about the carbon footprint of our cars are flying around the world in private jets. If they truly believed climate change was an existential crisis, would they be doing that?

 

 

The American Military Is Not An Experiment

Posted on by

On Friday, Breitbart reported the following:

Democrat vice presidential nominee Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz argued for using algae to power the United States Navy as part of his efforts to fight climate change, claiming that sustainable energy solutions are crucial for military resilience.

During a debate with his then-opponent, Republican Jim Hagedorn, in Winona, Minnesota, in 2016, Walz spoke of the growing recognition that climate change is a pressing concern that cannot be ignored.

While noting that the nation’s armed forces can adopt new eco-friendly resources, Walz insisted that “the Pentagon is not a bunch of green tree-huggers.”

According to Walz, the Pentagon sees climate change as a significant risk that impacts not only the environment but national security.

“The Pentagon understands it’s a risk to the climate, it’s a risk to the environment, and it’s a national security issue,” he declared. “They’re trying to create the Great Green Fleet, where we power our Navy using algae.”

Walz has consistently supported radical climate change initiatives, pushing policies like a carbon-free electric grid by 2040. 

The most reliable Internet site for real information about climate change is wattsupwiththat.com. Anyone advocating for drastic actions to prevent climate change should be forced to follow that site for a month (including the timeline of failed predictions). Climate is cyclical. The only thing to be gained by climate panic is more government control and more redistribution of wealth.

In 2016 I posted an article quoting Investor’s Business Daily. This is the quote:

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

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.

Tim Walz wants more government and more of your money.

Following The Science?

Posted on by

On Friday, Just the News posted an article about some recent comments by Representative. Cori Bush, D-Mo, about the causes of recent problems with the American electric grid.

The article reports:

A House Oversight and Accountability subcommittee hearing Tuesday examined threats to the security and reliability of the U.S. electricity grid, which can lead to more blackouts.

While reliability assessments regularly find that increased reliance on wind and solar, increased demand from electrification, an underbuilt electrical delivery network, and rapid retirements of on-demand generators are creating an increased risk of blackouts, Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., ranking member of the subcommittee, instead blamed other sources of the problem, namely, white supremacy. She also threw in “climate change” for good measure.

The article notes:

Fallon (Pat Fallon, R-Texas, chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy and Regulatory Affairs) also talked about threats from cyberattacks by “foreign adversaries” meant to cripple the grid. “It’s critically important for Congress to engage in serious discussions to identify the risks to this reliability and safeguard our grid against threats,” Fallon said.

He said many of these risks are caused by the federal government, including the attempts to get rid of all fossil fuels, which he said are needed for providing consistent power generations. He also pointed to regulations that are increasing demands on the grid, including more electrification of appliances and heat, as well as electric vehicle mandates.

Bush, in her opening statement, argued that the problems of electricity reliability were unrelated to wind and solar. Fossil fuels, Bush said, were the problem, and they were especially harming non-white people.

“Decades of pollution and overuse and over reliance on fossil fuels have disproportionately harmed black and brown communities in St. Louis, and throughout the world,” Bush said.

If we truly want to know what the problem is with our electric grid, we only have to look to Germany and Spain–both countries attempted to build an energy infrastructure based solely on green energy, and both countries discovered that was not possible. The sun does not shine all of the time, and the wind does not blow all of the time. Reliable back-up sources of energy are needed. It is time to take an honest look at natural gas and nuclear energy as the path forward to lowering pollution. It is also time to acknowledge that although America needs to make an effort in the direction of cleaner energy, until China and India stop building coal plants, our efforts are insignificant.

Standing Up to the Climate Hoax

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

It is becoming increasing apparent that not only is there no scientific evidence that manmade CO2 emissions are causing climate change, but that this hoax is being used by the Democrat Marxists to control us and limit our freedoms. It is also being used to enrich the elite at the expense the taxpayers and to raise energy bills dramatically higher.

A recent article in the Epoch Times revealed that the United Nation’s Convention on Climate Change deliberately altered their report so that any observed climate change would be falsely blamed on mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. Several scientists who objected to this unsubstantiated claim were ostracized and removed from the committee. World renowned physicist, Frederick Seitz, wrote in an article that he had never in his extensive career, including as President of the National Academy of Sciences, ever seen such corruption in the scientific review process and that no study to date has demonstrated that climate change is due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. Recent reports by qualified experts have reported that rising CO2 levels are offset by increased plant growth and that CO2 levels do not increate warming, but rather the opposite. That is, rising climate temperature cycles caused by factors such as solar activity, produce an increase in CO2 and not the reverse.

So where does all this bring us? The only rational conclusion (in spite of what the environmental extremists and those making a huge profit from solar and wind farms) is that there is absolutely no need to restrict the use of fossil fuels. It is estimated that that the current effort to replace fossil fuels is costing the average American over $2,000 per year and rising. This will devastate our economy for absolutely no valid reason.

Here in North Carolina, we can fight back against this leftist agenda in at least two ways. First, repeal HB 951 passed into law in 2021 that requires electricity generating power plants to reduce their carbon emissions by 70% by 2030 and achieve carbon emission neutrality by 2050. Second, pass a law prohibiting the construction of offshore wind farms near Kitty Hawk and Bald Head Island that is being pushed by Governor Cooper. It should be noted, that solar and wind farm components are obtained from China while they continue to construct coal burning plants at an alarming rate.

The Republican controlled General Assembly needs to step up to the plate and stop this disastrous program before it is too late. Any candidate for office who does not recognize the danger posed by the Left’s extremist environmental program and is not willing to stand up against it does not deserve our support.

Destructive Carbon Emission Mandates

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

The Marxist Left is out to destroy our country. Period. Anyone who does not recognize this is either blind or part of the problem. Karl Marx in his book, The Communist Manifesto, stresses the importance of finding an issue that allows the government to control the people. Well, the Democrat Marxists have found that issue: the manmade CO2 climate change hoax. Regrettably, we have some Republican legislators who have been going along with this non-scientific, unproven belief that threatens to destroy our country and our standard of living.

Recent declarations by respected climate scientists are increasingly showing that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions have any impact on climate conditions. In fact, they have argued that increasing CO2 levels enhance plant growth essential to man’s survival. The climate has changed dramatically over millions of years as a result of natural causes such as solar flares, earth orbit, tilt of the earth, ocean currents, and other changes having nothing to do with man’s actions. Climate change, whatever the causes, is not an existential threat to mankind. What is a threat are the extreme actions being taken to combat a non-existing problem. No modern civilization can exist without adequate, inexpensive energy from fossil fuels. We are committing social suicide by going along with the elimination of fossil fuels.

Let’s look at some things occurring in North Carolina that are heading us down the road to economic catastrophe. First, in 2021 the General Assembly passed and Governor Cooper signed HB 951 which established the requirement to cut carbon emissions from electric power plants 70% by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. This will require massive expenditures on solar and wind farms and the construction of massive battery centers to store electricity, since wind and solar are intermittent sources. Who makes the solar panels, the wind mills, and the battery components? You guessed it; our global enemy China. It is estimated that the average consumer’s electric bill will quadruple and there will be massive electricity shortages. Germany, which tried to rely on solar and wind, had to reactivate their coal fired plants to handle the demand for electricity this winter. The cost of electricity in Germany is three times higher than in the United States. Meanwhile, we have the technology to have the cleanest coal fired plants in the world and have a 200 year supply of coal; which we are now sending to China.

Second, the Cooper regime is proceeding with the construction of offshore wind farms. One off Kitty Hawk and the other of the southern coast near Bald Head Island. Again, these will be built by foreign countries and use Chinese components. Just think how vulnerable these wind mills will be to attack in the event of war.

I hope I have made my case that these actions are a real threat to the citizens of North Carolina; and all for no legitimate reason. Manmade Climate Change is a Marxist hoax! We need to pressure the General Assembly to (1) repeal HB 951 establishing CO2 emission mandates; (2) block the construction of wind farms off the coast; (3) remove all state tax incentives for solar and wind energy projects. Before you cast your vote this year, find our where each candidate stands on this issue. It is a looming crisis that must be stopped.

The Next Big Climate Scare

Posted on by

In America (and in some other places) we just aren’t paying enough attention to our impending doom due to global warming, global cooling, or whatever climate change is currently fashionable. Therefore, it is time to raise the stakes to get our attention. Brace yourself, we are about to start hearing about deaths due to climate change. How you actually calculate that is a mystery, but that hasn’t stopped the propagandists yet.

On Thursday, wattsupwiththat reported:

The next big climate scare is on the way. Advocates of measures to control the climate now propose that we begin counting deaths from climate change. They appear to believe that if people see a daily announcement of climate deaths, they will be more inclined to accept climate change policies. But it’s not even clear that the current gentle rise in global temperatures is causing more people to die.

In December, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at COP28, the 28th United Nations Climate Conference, and mentioned climate-related deaths.

“We are seeing and beginning to pay attention and to count and record the deaths that are related to climate,” she said. “And by far the biggest killer is extreme heat.”

According to Ms. Clinton, Europe recorded 61,000 deaths from extreme heat in 2023, and she estimated that about 500,000 people died from heat across the world last year.

Global temperatures have been gently rising for the last 300 years. Temperature metrics from NASA, NOAA, and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom estimate that Earth’s surface temperatures have risen a little more than one degree Celsius, or about two degrees Fahrenheit, over the last 140 years. But are these warmer temperatures harmful to people?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most cases of influenza occur during December to March, the cold months in the United States. Influenza season in the southern hemisphere takes place during the cold months there, April through September. The peak months for COVID-19 infections tended to be the cold periods of the year. More people usually get sick during cold months than in warm months.

More people also die during winter months than summer months, according to many peer-reviewed studies. For example, Dr. Matthew Falagas of the Alfa Institute of Medical Sciences and five other researchers studied seasonal mortality in 11 nations. The research showed that the average number of deaths peaked in the coldest months of the year in all of them.

It’s easier to stay healthy when the weather is warm–the sun provides Vitamin D, and as long as you don’t overdue it, fresh air and sunshine are healthy.

Please follow the link to the article. It includes some very interesting charts, including the one below:

 

Numbers don’t lie.

Recognizing The Major Problems In The Environmental Movement

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Stream posted an article by a former environmentalist listing five reasons why he gave up “green policies.”

Here is the list:

Failed Climate Change Predictions

Science is about accurate prediction. If Newton’s theory had failed to predict how apples fall, then it would be useless.

Few scientists have been as bad at this (basic) job as climate scientists. In one of the most comical episodes I’ve ever seen, climate scientists erected signs in Glacier National Park predicting its glaciers would be gone in 2020 — only to be forced to leave the signs after the predictions proved false. For a year, tourists to the park were met with a monument to the legacy of climate science: They stood looking simultaneously at glaciers … and the sign that promised, on the good authority of climate science, that the glaciers were not there.

Where Did the Wild Spaces Go?

Thoreau said of nature: “We need the tonic of wildness.” Thoreau was right about me at least. One of my primary motives for being an environmentalist was that I believed natural wild spaces were good for the soul.

…And that brings us to wind farms. I hate wind farms. They kill birds and destroy forest habitats. The blades are made of materials that fill waste dumps and can’t be recycled. They require lithium batteries that have to be mined with methods that create the very kinds of problems the “clean energy” movement is supposed to solve.

Politics Over Facts

Speaking of facts: The relationship between science and politics only works when the causal arrow between them goes from scientific facts to politics.

Bullying Over Debate

One of the clear signs that a movement is rotten is when it resorts to silencing its opponents rather than debating them. The modern “green” movement contains the worst set of bullies I’ve ever seen; indeed, they serve as primary fodder for my forthcoming book called Liberal Bullies.

Lack of a Cost/Benefit Analysis

Even at the height of my pro-environmentalist sentiment, I wasn’t opposed to all oil drilling. I know we need energy; I use it every day. I just wanted moderation that purposefully preserved a significant amount of wild nature. Well, across the board, the green movement increasingly just bludgeons us with simple-minded ideas that ignore the obvious costs of their policies.

Keep in mind that list comes from someone who at one time supported the green energy movement. It’s time for the rest of the supporters of the movement to wake up.

 

Many Europeans See The Threat

Posted on by

Farmers in Europe are fighting the restrictions that the World Economic Forum are attempting to impose of them in the  name of climate change. The protests have now spread to France.

Breitbart reported Monday:

Kicking off the “Siege of Paris” on Monday, thousands of farmers took to their tractors in a coordinated attempt to block off entrances to the French capital in protest against globalist green policies they say are destroying their ability to stay in business.

In an escalation of the latest example of popular uprisings that have come to define President Macron’s tenure in office, farmers descended in their tractors to shut down major highways leading into Paris on Monday following a week of similar protests throughout the country.

According to the Le Figaro newspaper, farmers successfully enacted blockades on eight major highways, with tractors lined up for tens of kilometres around the ring road surrounding Paris. In total 16 highways and 30 administrative departments around the city were impacted by the demonstrations on Monday, while separate farmer uprisings continued in at least 40 other locations throughout the country.

Requiring farmers to kill their cattle and the farm in certain ways limits our food supply. A hungry populace is easier to control–if you don’t agree with what the government is doing, they will decrease your food allowance.

The article also notes:

In addition to targeting Paris, at least 80 tractors enacted a blockade of the A7 highway and elsewhere outside Lyon, where local farmers have also spoken of a “siege” of the city.

“A siege normally lasts a long time, we are not specialists in blocking but we will maintain it for as long as it takes,” said the head of the regional branch of the FNSEA union Michel Joux. “There is palpable tension and exceptional motivation.”

Critical roads leading into Marseille, including the A7 and A55 motorways were subject to “snail operations” local officials said, adding that the A50 is “currently at a complete standstill”.

The battle between agriculture and green agenda proponents is set to become a key issue in the upcoming European Union Parliament elections in June, with farmers and rural communities rising up in France, Germany, Poland, Romania and previously in the Netherlands over green regulations, which they claim have become too much to handle on top of the rising cost of fuel and inflation.

Green energy has never been about keeping the planet clean–it has always been about control.

Creating An Energy Crisis In America

Posted on by

The last real energy crisis America experienced was in the 1970’s. It was then that the country discovered that there was a price to be paid for not being energy independent. We have forgotten that lesson.

On Friday, Red State reported:

In a Friday morning announcement, the White House and Department of Energy (DOE) revealed their next target — and it’s enormous.

The White House is halting the permitting process for several proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects over their potential impacts on climate change, an unprecedented move environmentalists have demanded in recent months.

[T]he pause [will] occur while federal officials conduct a rigorous environmental review assessing the projects’ carbon emissions, which could take more than a year to complete. Climate activists have loudly taken aim at LNG export projects in recent weeks, arguing they will lead to a large uptick in emissions and worsen global warming.

The article concludes:

Chatterjee (former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chair Neil Chatterjee) was right— but here’s the thing. Facts, data, and science only matter to Democrats when they support the left’s narratives. We saw it with COVID-19. When facts don’t support the left’s narratives, they are to be dismissed, lied about, or outright ignored. (See: “Anthony Fauci.”)

Finally, House Speaker Mike Johnson released a statement following the White House announcement, warning that Biden is playing into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hand.

This announcement by President Biden is as outrageous as it is subversive. Stalling LNG export terminals, like Calcasieu Pass 2 in Louisiana, not only prevents America’s economic growth, it empowers our adversaries like Vladimir Putin.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began, American petroleum producers have increased LNG shipments to our partners in Europe to prevent a catastrophic, continent-wide energy crisis and to provide an alternative to Russian energy exports.

It is outrageous that this administration is asking American taxpayers to spend billions to defeat Russia while knowingly forcing allies to rely on Russian energy, giving Putin an advantage. 

This policy change also flies in the face of the commitments made when the White House announced the joint US-EU Task Force less than two years ago to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russia and strengthen energy security.

Nailed it. The question is, whether Biden is capable of understanding the gravity of the Speaker’s statement. The answer is no doubt chilling.

The Bottom Line

If the environmental alarmist crowd came out today and announced it has changed its position on natural gas, Joe Biden would be singing its praises before he eats his pudding cup and goes nighty-night.

Pleas follow the link to read the entire article. We are committing economic suicide.

Transformation of the United Nations

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

When President Ronald Reagan was asked why he left the Democrat Party, he replied, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat Party left me!” Meaning of course, that the principles and policies of the Democrat Party had changed to the extent that they were no longer consistent with his views of America. We are now facing the same situation with the United Nations (UN).

The original charter of the United Nations, when it was created after World War II, was focused on ending wars, promoting world peace, and human rights. The UN has morphed into a platform for global government and the elimination of individual national sovereignty. The evidence for this is substantial, as reflected in the revised mission statement in the UN’s Agenda 30, which includes the following, “We, the UN, are determined to manage consumption and production, and urgent action on climate change. Achieve full and productive employment for all. Adopt fiscal, wage, and social protection, and progressively achieve greater equality. Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of all people (i.e. open borders). Require universal vaccine documentation for all international travel.” This is nothing less than a totalitarian statement of socialism, make no mistake about it.

The UN has been capitalizing on the COVID19 outbreak and the manmade climate hoax to expand its worldwide control. With organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN is attempting to infringe and limit the rights and freedoms existing in individual nations. Just recently, the UN announced an effort to control freedom of speech worldwide (under the guise of misinformation) and stated that the United States should repeal its constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech since it is too broad in scope.

Clearly, the UN has moved towards world governance and a socialist agenda controlled by a group of bureaucrats. I do not want our freedoms controlled by some world government, and I assume neither do you as a freedom loving American. We must elect candidates who recognize the threat of global governance and are willing to fight against it. Leaving the UN would be a good place to start and would send a clear message that we stand for America first and will not surrender our independence.

It’s Time To Re-educate Our Children

Posted on by

On Monday, The College Fix reported the following:

Nearly 90 percent of Ivy League grads support the “strict” rationing of gas, meat and electricity to fight climate change, according to a new poll.

The conservative Committee to Unleash Prosperity, in a survey that sought to measure the beliefs of “elites,” stated the findings reveal climate change “is clearly an obsession of the very rich and highly educated.”

“An astonishing 77% of the Elites – including nearly 90% of the Elites who graduated from the top universities – favor rationing of energy, gas, and meat to combat climate change. Among all Americans, 63% oppose this policy,” the organization reported.

The poll, released this month and titled “Them vs. U.S.: The two Americas and how the nation’s elite is out of touch with average Americans,” was billed by the committee as a “first-of-its-kind look at the views of the American Elite.”

They are defined as “people having at least one post-graduate degree, earning at least $150,000 annually, and living in high-population density areas (more than 10,000 people per square mile in their zip code).”

Another key finding is nearly six in 10 “elites” say there is too much individual freedom in America.

The report is based on two surveys of 1,000 elites conducted last fall.

Remember the song “Mammas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Cowboys”? Maybe it should be rewritten to say, “Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Go to Ivy League Colleges.”

Individual freedom is what made America great. Individual freedom is what allowed these graduates to achieve what they needed to achieve to get into Ivy League schools.

The article concludes:

The “shocking” findings reveal “a wealthy, partisan elite class that’s not only immune from and numb to the problems of their countrymen, but enormously confident in and willing to impose unpopular policies on them,” argued Isaac Schorr in an op-ed Friday for the New York Post.

“It’s near impossible to behold the results and not acknowledge they’re indicative of a fundamental disconnect between two Americas,” he wrote. “That disconnect should be of as much concern to proud aristocrats as it is to the peasantry.”

The new poll results are reminiscent of another survey The College Fix reported on last summer which found two thirds of college students believe climate change is an “existential threat” to their generation; however, fewer than one in five were willing to give up their smartphones to help.

 

Settled Science?

Posted on by

First of all there is no such thing as ‘settled science.’ The scientific method calls for constant questioning and re-evaluating. Second, if something is declared settled science, you can be sure that someone with a potential financial gain is promoting it (sorry for my cynicism).

On Sunday, WattsUpWithThat reported that the idea of net zero carbon is based on insufficient date. Wow. We are crippling some of the world’s major economies based on insufficient data.

The article quotes and article from The Telegraph posted on Saturday:

Britain’s climate watchdog has privately admitted that a number of its key net zero recommendations may have relied on insufficient data, it has been claimed.

Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.

“They have conceded privately that that was a mistake,” Sir Chris said in a presentation seen by this newspaper. In contrast, the Royal Society review examined 37 years worth of weather data.

Last week Sir Chris, an emeritus professor and former director of energy research at Oxford University, said that the remarks to which he was referring were made by Chris Stark, the Climate Change Committee’s chief executive. He said: “Might be best to say that Chris Stark conceded that my comment that the CCC relied on modelling that only uses a single year of weather data … is ‘an entirely valid criticism’.”

The CCC said that Sir Chris’s comments, in a presentation given in a personal capacity in October, following the publication of his review, related solely to a particular report it published last year on how to deliver “a reliable decarbonised power system”.

The article at WattsUpWithThat concludes:

It is now clear that Parliament authorised Net Zero without any proper assessment, whether financial or energy, and the whole Net Zero legislation must now be suspended until a full independent assessment is carried out.

In addition, the whole of the CC should now be disbanded. Unfortunately it is still required by law, but it should now be staffed by truly independent members, with a remit to prioritise energy security and cost/benefit goals. The ideological pursuit of Net Zero must not override the wellbeing of the British public, put its energy security at risk or make the public worse off.

But the current and past members of the CCC who have overseen this attempt to bamboozle and defraud the public must be held to account, and excluded from any further influence over the country’s energy policy, or indeed on any issue of public policy.

So why are we even thinking about doing some of the things we are doing to bring down carbon?

Is Increased Artic Ice A Sign Of Global Warming?

Posted on by

On Monday, PJ Media posted an article about global warming.

The article reports:

One of climate alarmists’ favorite predictions is that the Arctic is losing its ice due to global warming, something elites have claimed for decades. New data shows, however, that Arctic ice is actually increasing! 

Climate has always changed and will continue to do so until the real apocalypse (not the fake one climate alarmists have been predicting as imminent for decades). With more than 50 years of failed climate change predictions behind them and a track record of consistent and total untrustworthiness, you’d think that the doom prophets would have given up. Then again, climate change is a convenient way for the greedy to enrich themselves (like former Vice President Al Gore) and for power-hungry politicians to take away rights and liberties while claiming a moral and physical necessity.

The article concludes:

It is interesting that last year’s data showed eight years of a global cooling trend rather than warming. Right about this part of winter, I wouldn’t mind a little warming, but many of us in America are instead facing a harsh cold snap. Of course, it’s not encouraging that some entities (including our federal government) aim to engage in geoengineering to manipulate weather and supposedly save the planet from warming. These entities who want to reduce global temperatures ignore the fact that the world isn’t about to go up in flames and that the Arctic is not becoming ice-free.

The real threat isn’t climate apocalypse; it’s leftist ideologues who have the power to weaponize pseudo-scientific propaganda against us and our liberties.

Obviously, I am not in favor of pollution. However, I am in favor of balance and of a free market. India and China are largely exempt from the energy restrictions that recent climate ‘treaties’ have placed on America.

A December 2023 article at NBC News reported:

This year, the burning of fossil fuel and manufacturing of cement have added the equivalent of putting 2.57 million pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every second.

If China and India were excluded from the count, world carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacturing would have dropped, Friedlingstein said.

In 2023 the world increased its annual emissions by 398 million metric tons, but it was in three places: China, India and the skies. China’s fossil fuel emissions went up 458 million metric tons from last year, India’s went up 233 million metric tons and aviation emissions increased 145 million metric tons.

There is also the fact that many scientists believe that a higher level of CO2 is good for the planet–good for agriculture and good for providing food for more people.

Embracing CO2

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D   

The environmental extremists would have us believe that CO2 is a destructive force for the earth and must be controlled if we are to survive. Recently, a group of scientists not only refuted this notion but stated that increasing levels of CO2 will actually be beneficial to mankind. How is it possible that completely opposite views can exist among climate scientists when the media is constantly telling us that manmade CO2 emissions as an existential threat is “settled science”? The actual truth of this debate would not be so critical if the Biden regime were not using it to completely transform our energy production into something that can never support our industrial society and will destroy our standard of living.   

Recently, Patrick Moore, the chief scientist of Ecosense Environmental, stated that “There is actually no scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change”.  Just like the Left used fear to get us to use noneffective masks and shut down our economy, the socialist environmental extremists are blaming climate change and so-called disasters on burning of fossil fuels. The truth is that due to modern industrialization using fossil fuels, there have been dramatically fewer deaths from weather factors. For example, in 1925 there were 484,880 reported worldwide deaths from weather factors compared to 14,893  in 2020, in spite of a dramatic increase in the use of fossil fuels. While it is true that humans do not need CO2, the plants we rely on for food absolutely do. The plants use the CO2 for food and produce oxygen in return. Nice reciprocal arrangement, don’t you think? In fact, commercial greenhouses often pump CO2 into their atmosphere in order to dramatically increase plant growth. In past epochs, the CO2 level in the atmosphere was many times higher than today.   

While scientific debate is generally a good thing if it leads to truth, the problem is the Biden regime has decided what is true and anyone with an opposite view is called a “climate denier” and punished. Typical socialism where the government knows what is best for us and you better comply. The actions the Biden regime are taking (with the concurrence of some Republicans) will destroy our way of life and lower our standard of living. The inflation we are experiencing is a clear example. Like all socialist governments it is all about controlling the people. From eliminating gas stoves and pushing electric vehicles as well as taxpayer subsidized wind and solar energy our freedom to choose is being taken away. 

We must fight back against this attack on our freedom. How? First, we must elect candidates who recognize the hoax of manmade climate change, such as Donald Trump who pulled our country out of the damaging Paris Climate Accords. Second, we must get our elected officials to reverse green energy policies that subsidize wind and solar and electric vehicles. If you want an electric vehicle, no problem, just do not expect others to help pay for it. Third, state and federal environmental agencies must be stopped from issuing draconian regulations. Cummings Diesel company was recently required to pay a two billion dollar fine for not complying with an EPA regulation. Fourth, the NC General Assembly must repeal the mandate that requires a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030. 

The ultimate issue is freedom of choice versus government control. It is up to us. 

Return of Frankenstein?

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D 

We all remember the Frankenstein story where the main character attempts to create life from the remnants of the deceased in his laboratory. It did not turn out well. The Epoch Times (a great conservative weekly newspaper), recently published an article about laboratory created meat that is being produced in a couple of laboratories in this country as well as few other countries.   

The article related that the FDA (Federal Drug Administration), recently gave its approval for the labs to market and sell this artificially created meat to Americans on the open market. The exact process of creating this involves taking cells of real meat and somehow adding other components to resemble real meat. I assume the actual details of the process are proprietary and not public knowledge.   

Why is this being done you might ask. The reasons, as with a lot of things that have the potential to destroy our country as we know it, are based on preventing that ongoing hoax: manmade climate change. Apparently, the environmental extremists do not like raising real animals for meat since they exhale CO2.  As with all of the other climate change solutions this will have a severe negative impact on not only the farmers and ranchers who raise animals but on the transportation, animal feed. and food processing industries putting millions of people out of work. Moreover, the laboratories which produce this artificial meat will require extensive electrical energy to operate. Having raised beef cattle and chickens myself, I can assure you that they require little other than green grass and access to pastures. As this absurdity expands, undoubtedly with extensive taxpayer subsidies, our food supply becomes concentrated into large factories that are more easily subject to attack and disruption that the widespread farming industry. So far, there are only two places, namely, Singapore and the United States, which have sanctioned artificial meat products.   Singapore does not have extensive pasture land like we have and may therefore be excused for this absurdity. I am reminded of a movie named “Soylent Green” starring Charlton Heston, where the bodies of the deceased were being processed into food for the masses. Under Biden, the impossible is becoming probable. Scary. 

This is another, scary example of an out of control bureaucracy that must be reined in!  Another example, is the recently announced plan by the Biden regime’s Department of Transportation to require all auto manufacturers to install electronic control devices in your vehicle which will monitor your location and control your speed to conform with the speed limit of the road you are traveling. In addition, they are planning to mandate fuel efficiency standards that are impossible to meet with internal combustion engines thereby moving to all electric vehicles without actually issuing a mandate. A recent article in the Epoch Times estimates that for every electric vehicle that sells for $53,000 that we the taxpayers contribute $47,000 in subsidies and tax breaks. Sound fair to you? 

If you value your freedom and your country as you have known it, this has to be stopped. Biden has the gall to attack President Trump as a threat to our democracy and freedom while he and his minions are the greatest threat this country has ever seen. We must fight back. Get involved before it is too late. 

Compromise or Not? 

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D    

Historically, the “spirit of compromise” has been touted as one of the elements of our Republic that has helped it survive for almost 250 years. The question arises as to whether compromise is always the best strategy. Given the circumstances, compromise may allow the country to move forward with each opposing side believe that they achieved some of their objectives but not all.  Knowing when to compromise and when not to is critical. Let’s look at some examples. 

Compromising makes the most sense, when both sides agree on the ultimate goal but disagree how to get there.  A good example was World War II.  Both the United States and Great Britain agreed that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan both had to be defeated militarily.  Great Britain wanted the United States to focus almost exclusively on defeating Germany first. The United States, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, wanted to defeat Japan first, since in 1941 Japan appeared to be the most immediate threat to our country.  Churchill and Roosevelt came to a compromise which allowed the majority of focus on the war in Europe and a steady war against Japan, but with less resources. Clearly the compromise worked since both Axis powers were eventually defeated. 

Currently, the struggle between preserving our Republic as we have known it is incompatible with the Left’s desire to make this country Socialist.  Make no mistake about it, many if not all on the left, want exactly that.  Since these two forms of government are incompatible, it must be one or the other.  As they just decided in Brazil, socialism does not and never has worked for the people, and they elected a conservative leader to go back to freedom and capitalism.  Either the people retain the power to run their own lives, or we turn governance over to a few elected leaders and the bureaucrats. The outcome of the elections in 2024 will once and for all determine whether we preserve our Republican form of government or not. 

Let’s take another example:  Climate Change.   Short of an all-out war, this issue has the greatest potential to completely destroy our country. We all want a clean environment, but the goal of the Left is to eliminate all fossil fuels without which no modern civilization can survive.   Look what is happening in Europe–their energy costs have sky rocketed and  they have had to re-open coal fired electrical plants.  The Left’s unverified  belief that climate change is caused by mankind and not natural forces is being used to justify their goal of zero carbon emissions while China, India and other countries are not only building more coal fired plants, but are using coal from our country to do it.  Meanwhile, the United States only contributes 13% of carbon emissions worldwide.  Instead of fighting against this, many of our so-called conservative elected officials compromise and go along with outlandishly expensive subsidies for the wind and solar developers and electric vehicles.   Seventeen Republicans voted for Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which was a cover up for billions of dollars in support of so-called green energy programs.  Compromisers! 

Another area is saving our public schools from the socialist indoctrination being advanced by the Left.  Instead of coming out and stopping Critical Race Theory, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and transgender indoctrination, our Boards of Education have shown a strong tendency to compromise instead of prohibiting these things.   

Compromising with evil should never be allowed to happen.  We need to elect candidates that have clear, strong values and beliefs, and are not afraid to stand up and fight for what is right.  It is the only way to save this country. 

Will Anyone Actually Believe This?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Breitbart posted an article blaming the flight from some of America’s large, democrat-controlled cities on climate control. No mention of rising crime, rising cost of living or any of those trivial things.

The article reports:

“Climate migration is already taking place within American communities, new data finds, as people flee flood-prone areas, and create ‘climate abandonment’ zones,” writes an unquestioning Axios.

“The study constitutes the latest warning sign of the effects of climate change,” Axios continues without skepticism. “Population shifts, and a larger reckoning for real estate, are only expected to worsen as global average surface temperatures rise.”

But then the premise of the study undercuts itself in a big way with the admission that “Americans are leaving the Rust Belt in droves and heading to areas of greater climate risk in the South and Southwest[.]”

What’s more, “cities with high flood risks, like Miami and Houston, are still pulling in more people than they are losing,” the study admits. “But these areas are growing more slowly than they would be if flooding weren’t such a threat, the study shows.”

A good faith reading of the study tells me that the conclusions come from projections and math equations. Nowhere does it say that the actual people who moved were surveyed or questioned about why they moved. The study also uses a math problem to explain away “local political, social, and economic conditions” — but you have to talk to people to understand their motive for moving.

Additionally, as stated above, the study admits that most of the country’s migration is to areas that are “of greater climate risk.” The study fails to mention that real estate on the coasts, the areas that would be most at risk if climate change were real, is increasing in value, not decreasing. If you recall, Mr. Climate Change himself, Barack Obama, spent millions on a mansion just a few feet from the same ocean that’s supposed to wipe out the coast. The Climate Change Channel, CNN, moved its headquarters from the safe, inland city of Atlanta to the edge of the water in Manhattan — the same Manhattan the “experts” told us would be flooded by now.

It should also be noted that the Bidens own property in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware–a beachfront community. It the elites who preach to us about climate change and carbon footprints followed their own rules, we might be willing to pay attention.

Let’s Look At The Record

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Townhall posted an article titled:

Not-So-Scary Truth About Climate Change

As you know, John Kerry came back from the climate conference with ideas that will basically destroy life in America as we know it. John Stossel decided to take a look at some of the impact global warming might actually have. It should also be noted here that there are scientists who believe we are entering a period of global cooling rather than global warming. The earth goes through climate cycles, and we are always in some phase of one of those cycles. We are NOT in control of the weather, nor will we ever be.

In his book The Democrat Party Hates America, Mark Levin lists some of the predictions about climate made in recent years. You can draw your own conclusions as to how accurate they were.

Here are some of the predictions:

  1. Harvard biologist George Walk estimated that ‘civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing  mankind.’
  2. ‘We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nations, and of the world as a suitable place to human habitation,’ wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
  3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.’
  4. ‘Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,’ Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. ‘The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].’

…13.Paul Ehrlich wared in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons ‘may have substantially reduced the life expectance of people born since 1945.’ Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continues this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years.)

As you can see, previous doomsday predictions have not been particularly accurate. Why should we believe the current doomsday predictions? I think the climate extremists have ‘cried wolf’ one too many times.

Please follow the link to the Townhall article to discover the upside of climate change.

Time To Exit The United Nations?  

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D    

The United Nations (UN) was formed in 1945 right after the end of World War II.  Like the League of Nations formed after World War I, it was hoped that the UN would foster global peace among nations.  It is time to assess whether the UN has achieved that objective and whether our participation in it is beneficial to our country.  There have been many wars since the creation of the UN such as the Korean War, Vietnam War, Israeli Six Day War, Iraq War and currently Russia/Ukraine and the Israel/Hamas conflict.  

One might argue that the presence of the UN has prevented a nuclear World War III, but that would be a stretch to say the least. The threat of mutual destruction has been the controlling factor in preventing nuclear war thus far.  Whether that will continue with the spread of nuclear weapons to China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and inevitably Iran remains to be seen. The existence of the UN does not seem to have prevented nuclear proliferation.   

Is membership in the UN beneficial for the United States? The UN started with 51 countries and now has 189. The majority of these countries are not democratic and their values and principles are not consistent with our constitution.  Worse still, the structure of the UN General Assembly gives every country one vote with the weight of the smallest country (Tuvala, population 12,000) carrying the same impact of the United States.  Currently, the United States pays up to 25% of the UN annual budget of about $4 billion which amounts to $1 billion a year.  Money that could be spent on securing our borders, for example.  

Some other areas of concern are the leftist leaning decisions of the UN.  The World Health Organization arm of the UN mishandled the COVID 19 pandemic and failed to hold China in anyway responsible for the creation and spreading of the manmade virus. The UN’s unwavering support of the climate change extremist’s agenda, such as the Paris Accords, and the war against fossil fuels threatens our country and way of life, while allowing China and India to continue to build coal burning power plants.   Another example, is the UN’s failure to condemn the barbaric atrocities of Hamas for almost two months and their history of condemning Israel at the slightest excuse. They have never condemned Iran, the biggest sponsor of terror in the world.  The latest example is UNESCO’s (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) global wide guidelines that would severely restrict free speech in the media and social platforms. The guidelines require the blocking of any speech that they label as “misinformation.”  Sound familiar?  They also boldly stated that the U.S. Constitution needs to be changed to reflect these new guidelines. 

  It is time to have a serious debate as to whether we want to turn over the governance of our country to some global authority.  Some of the leftists in this country believe we should.  I do not and hope neither do you. With China increasingly controlling the UN by placing members of their communist party in key positions, we must make an honest evaluation of whether the UN has outlived its usefulness.