speech codes

Democrats want to add suppression of free speech to their national platform

Horrifyingly, the Democratic National Committee unanimously voted to make the suppression of free speech, in the form of prosecuting companies and pro-fossil-fuel organizations, part of their official platform proposal.

Many detractors of Donald Trump have (rightly) worried about his comments indicating the possibility of violating the First Amendment. But now the Democrats want to make it official policy to violate the First Amendment rights of fossil fuel companies and advocates.

I’m not going to let them get away with pretending that this is a matter of justice and prosecuting fraud. I’m going to go to the Democratic National Convention from July 25-28 to challenge the very people who want to invade my privacy and, by the logic of their position, throw me in jail.

If you’re potentially interested in joining me there, let me know. Also, if you have any political or media contacts who might help bring more attention to this cause, let me know as well.

Here is a new 10-minute speech I gave last week defending fossil fuels and free speech. I’ve been told that it’s very powerful. If you agree, please share with your personal network and with any prominent commentators you follow.

Note: since I describe my incident with the Mass. Attorney General in vivid detail, the video does contain some adult language. If that’s a problem, please enjoy the interviews mentioned below, which are all PG rated.

earthquakes usa

Federal and State Leaders Warned to Prepare for Catastrophic Earthquakes and Volcanoes

ORLANDO, Florida — The International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center (IEVPC), announces today that the United States government has received its final warnings about heavy infrastructure damage, and loss of life predicted from catastrophic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in the immediate future.

Based on extensive climate change and seismic research conducted since 2010, by leading scientists and researchers in both fields, the IEVPC has just issued its last warnings to the U.S. government and governors of the states affected, to begin immediate preparations for the worst series of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions the US has seen in the last 200 to 350 years.

Specifically, within the federal government, the IEVPC has notified the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA), an agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the US Geological Survey, (USGS), an arm of the Department of the Interior (DOI), to start at once to prepare the country for these predicted disasters. Mr. John L. Casey, CEO at the IEVPC, has sent warning letters to FEMA during 2015 and recently on May 13, 2016. He has also passed on these warnings to the USGS and all governors in the affected states within the past two weeks, completing the IEVPC’s final notifications.

According to Dr. Dong Choi, geologist and IEVPC Director of Research in Australia, “Years of research have shown without question that declines in solar activity are strongly correlated with the planet’s worst earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Now that the next decline or ‘solar hibernation’ has begun, we will face significant risks to our people beginning as early as next year and lasting for at least twenty years.”

An Associate Scientist at the IEVPC, Dr. Arun Bapat, a seismic expert in India, adds, “The IEVPC has demonstrated that multi-parameter systems for earthquake prediction are the best means for advance warning of impending quakes. Now, combined with Mr. Casey’s seminal research on climate change, there is little doubt that we are heading into a very difficult time of latent seismic threat for our people.”

Similarly from Dr. Giovanni Gregori, a theoretical physicist and IEVPC Associate Scientist in Italy, “The IEVPC and Mr. Casey’s work on climate is closely related to geodynamic activity. For example, according to my “tide-driven” (TD) dynamo concept and the associated tectonic effects – we should expect the next several years to see an increased general seismic and volcanic activity. Accordingly, a solar hibernation is certainly very likely to be associated with a substantial release of planetary energy, and consequent revival of geodynamic and volcanic activity with all related hazards. All leaders worldwide need to take heed of the challenging and potentially dangerous period we are entering, and prepare their nations and their people accordingly.”

Dr. Thomas Jordan, one of the most respected geologists in the United States, and Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center, has recently concluded in a May 4, 2016 article in the LA Times, for example, that the San Andreas fault is “…locked, loaded and ready to go,” meaning a magnitude 8.0 or larger earthquake called ‘the big one’ could strike the region at any time.

Letters addressed to FEMA, the USGS, and governors also noted that the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) as well as most of the state of South Carolina are just as likely to sustain major, if not record quakes along with the high risk San Andreas fault and Cascadia Subduction zone in the West Coast states.


Analysis: ‘Palin has a much more solid grasp of ‘global warming’ than an overrated kid’s show actor’

Here’s what Palin said at the Climate Hustle premiere.

“There is a predetermined agenda definitely of those who I think are controlling the narrative right now on changes in the weather. There is definitely a political agenda behind all of this and as you suggested people who are involved in this issue they are not stupid. They have studied this stuff. They have studied the data that they are erroneously delivering to the public to make us think that we can somehow change the weather and how they do that is to grow government and allow the government to have more control over us, our homes, our businesses, our families, our lives, and it’s quite unfortunate because these people must be purposely doing this, right? Because they are smart enough to know better.”

There’s more sense in that one paragraph than Bill Nye has spoken in the last twenty years.

According to his liberal media apologists we should take Nye seriously because “he has been a visiting professor at Cornell, and is an executive at the Planetary Society” and because he has a degree in mechanical engineering. But the former just goes to show how much the Green Blob rewards its own; and the latter hardly reflects too well on his integrity: of all the STEM majors I’ve encountered in climate debates, the ones with engineering degrees tend to be the most hard-headedly skeptical about the climate science religion because you don’t build bridges by fudging data.

Milo got him about right in this exquisite takedown.

One of Nye’s favourite pastimes is climate change fearmongering. “This isn’t something you should be debating or denying,” he said last year. Because as we all know, shutting down debate and scepticism is how real science works. Nye also signed a letter calling on media companies not to give airtime or column inches to climate sceptics.

Like most climate alarmists, Nye is a hypocrite. He spent earth day 2015 spewing tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere as he tooled around in Air Force One with Obama. How typical — lecturing Americans about their Sport Utility Vehicles from the comfort of a private plane.

Nye’s only serious claim to be the “Science Guy”, as Milo rightly noted, is having a name that rhymes with it.

“I like to imagine some brilliant scientist named Phil Frye drunkenly ranting in a bar: “It should have been me!”

As far as the liberal media is concerned, Palin is so obviously wrong about anything to do with climate science it doesn’t even need to demonstrate why she is wrong. Hence this sneering piece by the Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg.

Read more

RELATED ARTICLE: 16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Bill Nye and Sarah Palin. AP file photos.

awed environmental news

Recent Energy and Environmental News

The latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, is now available online. As always, I’d encourage you to review the entire list.

[FYI, based on helpful suggestions we continue to improve on the Model Local Wind Law, so make sure to periodically check that out. Please start by reading the last two pages first. This is a work in progress, so if you have any ideas to make it better, let me know. Hope you find it useful

Some of the more interesting energy articles in this issue are:


Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Video: What Do Scientists Say

After 10 Years, an Inconvenient Truth is Alarmingly Inaccurate

NASA: Doubling SLR by Data Tampering

US General’s Senate Testimony: Climate Change and War

Climate Crisis and Political Power

CEI Strikes Back At Unlawful Subpoena

PS: As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off the list, please let me know that too.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

ABC Jimmy Kimmel

‘Climate Hustle’ attacked by ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, drops ‘F-Bomb’ – I Challenge Him to Watch Film & Apologize

It is obvious Mr. Kimmel has not seen ‘Climate Hustle’ or he would have known better than to recite the same propaganda litany of climate ‘facts’ which the movie deals with head-on. Using a video of cursing scientists warning of a tired litany of doom, using terms like ‘apocalyptic’; ‘catastrophic’; and ‘extremely dire’ was bland and predictable and the very reason that ‘Climate Hustle’ was made.

Apparently, Kimmel thinks failure to believe in man-made global warming fears is akin to not believing in gravity or yogurt. Odd.

Mr. Kimmel, I challenge you to watch ‘Climate Hustle’ and issue an apology for your climate pabulum that you spewed to viewers. ‘Climate Hustle’ was made to counter the very boilerplate rants that you, Mr. Kimmel, engaged in. The public needs to view ‘Climate Hustle’ if, for no other reason, than to hear Mr. Kimmel’s climate talking points dismantled. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

By Craig Bannister – May 3, 2016

When critics trash a film, they’ve usually actually seen it – but, not ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel. So, the filmmaker of movie debunking climate hysteria is challenging Kimmel to attend a private screening.

The “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” host used seven minutes of his Monday show to mock a climate skeptic’s film he obviously hadn’t seen – since he repeats the very alarmist talking points the film debunks.

Kimmel bashed “Climate Hustle,” a climate skeptic film that aired in 400 theaters nationwide Monday, by making misleading, unsupportable, and inaccurate claims, and personally attacking Gov. Sarah Palin for supporting the film.

He then aired a two-minute climate change advocacy “message” featuring scientists dropping the “F-Bomb” to insult anyone skeptical of man-made climate change.

Kimmel’s rant against “Climate Hustle” displays a complete ignorance of the content of the film – and deploys the same shopworn deceitful and mean-spirited tactics the film exposes and addresses.

In “Climate Hustle”:

  • Former U.N. Climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. explains how, since alarmists can’t debate the facts, they attack the messenger (as Kimmel personally insults Palin and the scientists drop the F-Bomb on skeptics),
  • The “97% scientific consensus” claim Kimmel cites is revealed to be the product of slanted methodology – one of which didn’t even poll 97 scientists,
  • Kimmel’s “hottest years ever” claim is dismantled and debunked,
  • The Big Money driving climate influence is shown to be on the activist side – in terms of grants, research funding, alarmist advocacy, etc. – not, as Kimmel claims, coming from corporate “polluters,” and
  • Renowned dissenting scientists (including a Nobel Laureate and a moon-mission astronaut) share data and analysis debunking climate hysteria – not the ignorant, average slobs Kimmel accuses his dissenting viewers of being.

In response to Kimmel’s uninformed, agenda-driven rant on national television, “Climate Hustle” producer, writer and host Marc Morano is challenging Kimmel to view the film.

Morano tells MRCTV:

“It is obvious Mr. Kimmel has not seen ‘Climate Hustle’ or he would have known better than to recite the same propaganda litany of climate ‘facts’ which the movie deals with head-on. Using a video of cursing scientists warning of a tired litany of doom, using terms like ‘apocalyptic’; ‘catastrophic’; and ‘extremely dire’ was bland and predictable and the very reason that ‘Climate Hustle’ was made.

“Apparently, Kimmel thinks failure to believe in man-made global warming fears is akin to not believing in gravity or yogurt. Odd.

“Mr. Kimmel, I challenge you to watch ‘Climate Hustle’ and issue an apology for your climate pabulum that you spewed to viewers. ‘Climate Hustle’ was made to counter the very boilerplate rants that you, Mr. Kimmel, engaged in. The public needs to view ‘Climate Hustle’ if, for no other reason, than to hear Mr. Kimmel’s climate talking points dismantled.

“Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.”

“If Jimmy Kimmel is actually interested in the facts, he’ll step up and watch the film, instead of continuing to recite inaccurate, fear-mongering clichés on blind faith,” Morano added.

Jimmy Kimmel Transcript: 

“2014 was the warmest year ever until 2015 became the warmest year ever. Now 2016 might turn out to be even warmer than either of those. You know how you know climate change is real? When the hottest year on record is whatever year it currently is.

“A huge majority of climate scientists say climate change is happening. They say we’re causing it and we need to do something about it before it has a terrible effect on all of us. There’s no debate about the greenhouse effect, just like there’s no debate about gravity. It someone throws a piano off the roof, I don’t care what Sarah Palin tells you. Get out of the way, because it’s coming down on your head.

“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree on this. And 97 percent of scientists don’t agree on much. Even one out of five dentists don’t believe in sugarless gum for their patients that chew gum.

But Almost half our representatives in Washington apparently know more about science than our scientists, or they pretend to because big corporations give them a lot of money to make sure they can keep doing the destructive things that they do. And the idea that this is some kind of left wing conspiracy is — what if I decided to deny the existence of yogurt? Think about it. I’ve seen the containers, I just don’t believe there’s anything in them. I believe yogurt is a conspiracy created by John Stamos. You’d think I was insane, and I would be insane, but this is not that different from that. To me the big question is, either you believe in science or you don’t. Why do we believe scientists when it comes to molecules and the speed of light and Cialis, but not this? Because members of Congress, who we don’t even like, by the way, because people who take money from companies that make pollution for a living told us not to worry about it. Now, and I know I’ll get beaten over the head by every wacko website, and I know there will be a lot of what the hell do you know, go back to girls jumping on trampolines. This is not about what I know, this is about what scientists know. So I hope that for the next two minutes, put your political leanings aside, forget about whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, forget the labels, and pay attention to the following message. Decide for yourself, the people you’re about to see are scientists, they’re Americans, they’re not part of some imaginary conspiracy, they’re just a smarter version of us. Watch this, and if at the end you disagree, while we’re all underwater I hope you’ll be that last one that gets a snorkel.


ARADHNA TRIPATI: Hi, I’m Aradhna Tripati, I’m a paleoclimatologist and isotope geochemist.

ALEX HALL: Hi, I’m Alex Hall, and I’m a climate scientist.

JEREMY PAL: I’m Jeremy Pal, and I’m a hydroclimatologist.

NINA KARNOVSKY: I’m Nina Karnovsky, and I’m a polar ecologist.

CHUCK TAYLOR: I’m Chuck Taylor, and I’m an environmental analytical chemist.

JOHN DORSEY: I’m John Dorsey, and I’m a marine environmental scientist.

KARNOVSKY: Over the past 40 years, thousands of scientists have studied climate change.

TAYLOR: Definitely happening.

TRIPATI: And it’s caused by human beings.

PAL: That’s you and me.

HALL: And the consequences could be extremely dire.

DORSEY: Catastrophic.

KARNOVSKY: Apocalyptic.

TRIPATI: And here’s the thing, when we tell you all this, we’re not f***ing with you.

PAL: We’re not f***ing with you.

TAYLOR: Definitely not f***ing with you.

DORSEY: Why would we f*** with you?

PAL: Think about it.

HALL: If I wanted to screw with people, do you think I would have gone into climate science?

DORSEY: If we were f***ing with you I’m sure we could do a lot better than anthropogenic climate change.

TRIPATI: I’d probably tell you that a meteor was coming, and then try to sell you a helmet.


The Reviews Are in! ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘the most dangerous documentary of year’ – ‘Wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’ – ‘Lays waste to Gore’ – ‘Brutal & Extremely Funny’

Bill Nye, ‘The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!’: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ (Exclusive Video)

Variety Mag. Exclusive: Sarah Palin Backing ‘Climate Hustle’ Film – May 2nd Nationwide Theatrical Release

‘Climate Hustle’ goes to DC: Skeptical film to premiere on Capitol Hill; Panel with Gov. Sarah Palin, Brent Bozell & Appearance by Warmist Bill Nye

Skeptical ‘Climate Hustle’ Film Coming to Theaters Nationwide May 2, for a One-Night Event

It’s Coming….’Climate Hustle’ film hits Theatres May 2nd! One night national theater event! – Watch New Trailer – Popcorn & Climate

Protesters, police, chaos! Climate Hustle ‘staged its triumphant world premiere’ – ‘Police cordoned off the road’ – Exclusive Video/Photos


Reviews Are in! ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘Wickedly effective’ – ‘Lays waste to Al Gore’

Nationwide Theatre Event (Now including Canada!) – One Night Only May 2 – With introduction by Weather Channel Founder John Coleman & Exclusive panel discussion following movie with Gov. Sarah Palin, Brent Bozell, Climatologist Dr. David Legates, Marc Morano & Special Appearance by Bill Nye

Go to www.ClimateHustle.com for theatre near you and to buy tickets.

Bill Nye, UN Climate Scientist Warn Moviegoers to Shun Film’s 1-Day Theater Release: ‘Not in Our National Interest’

Sampling of Reviews for ‘Climate Hustle’ 

‘Powerful documentary…demolishes the climate agenda’ 

‘It’s hard not to laugh’

‘This could be the most important movie of the year’ 

‘The film lays waste to Gore’s thoroughly debunked movie’

‘Most dangerous documentary of the year’

 ‘Climate Hustle is a brilliant use of their own ammunition against them’

‘The film’s strength is its wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’

‘A brutal and extremely funny takedown of the science behind global warming’

‘Humor throughout the film is absolutely fantastic’

‘Powerful documentary…demolishes the climate agenda’ 

‘A smart, energetic global warming documentary’

‘Humorous’ – ‘A must see’


By:  – Climate DepotApril 28, 2016 10:53 PM

May 2 – One Night Only – 7:00 pm – Find a theater near you and buy tickets online at www.ClimateHustle.com

Bill Nye, UN Climate Scientist Warn Moviegoers to Shun Film’s 1-Day Theater Release: ‘Not in Our National Interest’ – Leading climate activists are warning moviegoers to shun the May 2nd nationwide one-day theater screening of “Climate Hustle,” a new film debunking climate alarmism and its big government solutions. Bill Nye (not a real “science guy,” FYI), who entertains the idea of throwing climate skeptics in the slammer, warned the film’s producer, Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano, that “Climate Hustle’s” content endangers not just the nation, but also the world: “I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.” U.N. Climate Scientist Michael Oppenheimer has, likewise, condemned the film – without even viewing it – for daring to dispute climate alarmism. “Marc is a propagandist,” the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientist cautions viewers.

Review: ‘Climate Hustle is the most dangerous documentary of the year’ – ‘Brutally effective’ – ‘It’s hard not to laugh’ – Christian Toto of Hollywood In Toto: ‘Climate Hustle’ is just the tonic the global warming debate needs’

‘We see Morano trying to challenge a few scientists, but it typically ends with them fleeing the microphones. After all, he’s no stranger to debate.’ – ‘The film’s most effective moments come when left-of-center experts describe how they abandoned their previous climate change positions. Doing so opened them up to scathing critiques from their colleagues. Some even found themselves unwelcome at gigs they held for some time. It’s another signal that dissent won’t be tolerated in climate change circles.

MEDIA DECLARES WAR ON ‘CLIMATE HUSTLE’ Film – ‘The press already is working overtime to debunk its narrative’

MSNBC reports on ‘Climate Hustle’ DC Premiere: Calls film ‘a new anti-climate change documentary’

Associated Press covers ‘Climate Hustle’ DC Premiere with Palin: ‘Seeks to debunk what it calls myths & hype about human-caused global warming’ – AP reports on Climate Hustle:  ‘New documentary seeks to debunk what it calls myths and hype about human-caused global warming’ – Film exposes ‘what it calls myths and hype about human-caused global warming’ – ‘Questions whether there is a genuine scientific consensus about global warming’

‘Climate Hustle’ Challenges Media’s Climate Alarmism in Theaters May 2

Review of ‘Climate Hustle’: ‘This could be the most important movie of the year’ – ‘Powerful documentary…demolishes the climate agenda’ – WorldNetDaily review: ‘CLIMATE HUSTLE’ WILL ROCK ALARMISTS TO THEIR CORE’

Watch: Morano in Tux on TV for DC Film Premiere – Teases Mystery Animal that Was Mascot for both Cooling & Warming fears – Bill Nye’s not the only one who can wear a bow tie!

Which animal was used as a mascot for both the ‘global cooling’ scare in the 1970s and the ‘global warming’ scare of today!?

NBC News: Sarah Palin & Bill Nye Featured in Climate Skeptic Film

National Review Gives Two Thumbs Up: ‘Climate Hustle, a brutal and extremely funny takedown of the science behind global warming

Breitbart Review: ‘Climate Hustle is dynamite’ – ‘The Perfect Antidote To Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth’

Review: ‘Climate Hustle’ Exposes Global-warming Con Job – ‘Humor throughout the film is absolutely fantastic’

Climate Hustle review: ‘Humorous’ – ‘A must see’ – ‘Hits the science straight on’ – ‘FILM EXPOSES ABSURDITY OF ‘CLIMATE’ MOVEMENT’

‘Climate Hustle’ review: ‘This is an amazing film…Really excellent…uses humor…May be the best skeptical film ever’

Watch: Exclusive clip of ‘Climate Hustle’ on Fox News – Steve Doocy & Marc Morano reveal mystery climate mascot animal

Steve Doocy and Marc Morano examine a stuffed armadillo (Fox News)

Review: Climate Hustle is a smart, energetic global warming documentary – ‘The film lays waste to Gore’s thoroughly debunked ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ – Thomas Richard – Environmental Examiner review of ‘Climate Hustle’: ‘Morano smartly lets the environmental bullies do the talking, through clips, headlines, ads and promotional videos.’

‘The film lays waste to Al Gore’s thoroughly debunked movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’

Meteorologist Anthony Watts review: ‘Climate Hustle is a brilliant use of their own ammunition against them’- ‘The film’s strength is it’s wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’– Anthony Watts: ‘The film’s strength is its wickedly effective use of slapstick humor, and making use of the words and deeds of alarmists to make you laugh at them.’ ‘You can’t help but come away laughing.’ – Monday May 2nd will be an historic night, since there’s never been a skeptic film like this before.’

Review: ‘Climate Hustle is informative & entertaining, pointed & humorous’

Watch: Morano on Cavuto’s Fox Show: ‘I have a film coming on May 2 which shows warmists comparing climate skeptics to Holocaust deniers’

Wash Post reviews ‘Climate Hustle’: ‘There remains a significant coterie of skeptics, doubters and outright deniers’ – Skeptics ‘still draw significant attention — “Climate Hustle,” according to its producers, is slated to air at a large number of theaters across the U.S. on May 2.’

New York Times on ‘Climate Hustle’s’ Morano: ‘He has risen to be the most savvy media manipulator of the climate skeptic crowd’ – Morano ‘pretty much chewed up Bill Nye the Science Guy on CNN with Piers Morgan a couple years ago.’

Watch: Fox features ‘Climate Hustle’: Stuart Varney: ‘Some high profile climate scientists have retracted their former positions. They are profiled in Climate Hustle’ – Stuart Varney: ‘Some high profile climate scientists have retracted their former positions. They are now climate change skeptics. They are profiled in a new film. It’s called Climate Hustle.’

Fox Tammy Bruce reacts to Bill Nye pondering jailing skeptics: ‘No stand-up comedian is going to put me in jail.’

Marc Morano behind Climate Hustle worked for Rush Limbaugh and counts Sarah Palin as a fan | Daily Mail Online

UK Daily Mail: Meet the man behind ‘Climate Hustle’, the film ‘antidote’ to Gore’s film: Marc Morano worked for Rush Limbaugh, counts Palin as a fan & founded site that questions AGW

UK Daily Mail’s negative profile or Morano: 

Marc Morano, 46, co-wrote and narrated new film Climate Hustle 

The film aims to debunk what it calls myths and hype about human-caused global warming

Sarah Palin claims it offers a countering view to Al Gore’s global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth

Morano founded the ClimateDepot.com, a site that ‘questions the theory of man-made global warming’

While working for Cybercast News Service, he was the first to report on accusations John Kerry exaggerated his military service record 

He’s worked as communications director for Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe and a reporter for Rush Limbaugh’s TV show  

Skeptic Documentary Climate Hustle: Don’t Believe The Global Warming ‘Shell Game’

Related Links: 

Bill Nye, ‘The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!’: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ (Exclusive Video)

Variety Mag. Exclusive: Sarah Palin Backing ‘Climate Hustle’ Film – May 2nd Nationwide Theatrical Release

‘Climate Hustle’ goes to DC: Skeptical film to premiere on Capitol Hill; Panel with Gov. Sarah Palin, Brent Bozell & Appearance by Warmist Bill Nye

Skeptical ‘Climate Hustle’ Film Coming to Theaters Nationwide May 2, for a One-Night Event

It’s Coming….’Climate Hustle’ film hits Theatres May 2nd! One night national theater event! – Watch New Trailer – Popcorn & Climate

Protesters, police, chaos! Climate Hustle ‘staged its triumphant world premiere’ – ‘Police cordoned off the road’ – Exclusive Video/Photos


Feature film ‘Climate Hustle’ to appear in theaters Nationwide on May 2nd [video]

On May 2nd, CFACT’s groundbreaking film Climate Hustle will be shown in movie theaters across the United States for a special one-night event.


Here is Climate Hustle trailer #1:

 did a review of the film. Watts notes:

I was given an advance showing of the film, and while at first, I thought perhaps the film was maybe a bit too corny, especially when Morano recreates the famous elevator/lift scene from Al Gore’s long debunked movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and does a terrible job of play acting. I thought then that maybe it just wasn’t going to be a credible response.

But then I realized, the film isn’t intended to strike a serious tone all the time, because in reality, who wants to go to the movies for a snoozer of a documentary? This is why some of the other film efforts by greens and green filmmakers fail. For example: Leonardo DiCaprio’s climate movie, The 11th hour, or Greedy Lying Bastards, where the “filmmakers examine how and why oil companies and other special-interest groups cast doubt on climate change and stall efforts to combat it” according to it’s description. It cost 1.5 million to make, and returned just a fraction of that in ticket sales, earning only $45,000. No, Climate Hustle isn’t like those, and despite the claims of millions of dollars from oil companies we are all supposed to be getting, it’s production values gives away that it was made on a shoestring, and has none of the glitzy production values of these other films that bombed.

Yesterday Marc Morano appeared on Fox & Friends to unveil the animal that has served as a mascot for both a warming and cooling globe.  Can you guess which animal it is? No it isn’t a polar bear, and it will make you laugh, and that’s the purpose of this film, to make people laugh at the ridiculous claims that have been created about global warming/climate change. Morano does this, and does it well. That’s the power behind this film.

Read more.

Here is Climate Hustle trailer #2:


Bag Ban: Going Green Mindlessly by Joni Kamiy

I decided today I’d get some shopping done after work and stopped at Times Supermarket.  As I was picking my produce, I glanced over at the checkout counter to anticipate how busy it was.  I noticed that the majority of people were leaving with at least 3 of the thicker plastic bags in their carts.

I had to laugh inside about this.  In Honolulu county, the environmentalists celebrated passing a plastic bag ban several years ago.  Despite this “win” for them, I can’t help but question if it truly is making a positive impact if I still see plastic bags around.

Not only are thicker bags around, I’ve got a stock pile of paper bags now because my husband forgets his reusable bags.  These bags tear way more easily and are much harder to carry when you’re in tow with a wiggly toddler and school backpacks.  These are filling up our closet.

The part bags and the thicker bags clearly require more energy and input to produce.  So I have to think if we really are saving the land with these actions?  Have we made a greener choice?

If I look at the environmental legislation passed in Hawaii, I think that the short feel good laws haven’t been thought through enough before being passes.  Another example of poor legislation is the tourism issue at Hanauma Bay.

In this past week, the Honolulu Star Advertiser reported on high volume of tourists coming in via taxis.  A law was passed to curb tour companies from bringing in bus loads of people to minimize the impact on the bay. It apparently isn’t working since there is a loophole with other modes of transportation.  Was the law really fulfilling its intent?

The same type of thinking applies to the anti-GMO issue.  With all the fear mongering around biotech, the green groups aligned with the Hawaiians to demand a ban on biotech taro research.  Instead of keeping an option open to build some evidence on how to address major plant dieseases that could devastate the crops, the shortsighted thinkers took away a tool.  What is evident is that a new disease is hitting farmers and what tools will they have sustain their livelihoods?  Where in mythology was there a way to save a figure?

With companies caving to GM free ingredients, there is a consequence.  It might mean more insecticides and different management of weed control.  So consumers who associate GM with pesticides may actually be returning us to using more of it.  To the consumer who is feeling like they saved the earth by their purchases, they actually did the opposite in reality.

I’m starting to wonder if going green is really a good thing if the ones backing it are setting us up for failures in the future.  Did we consider all the consequences before setting to legislate on the issue? If we didn’t ask more questions, then we didn’t look closely enough at the results of our action.

Then again, going green has had a good result in some ways.  We have thicker plastic bags to hold more dog poop with and bags that don’t fly away!

environmntal news

Energy and Environmental Newsletter

The latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, is now available. There are several fascinating reports this issue — more than just in our highlighted items below. I’d encourage you to peruse the entire online Newsletter.

Some of the more interesting energy articles in this issue are:

Study: $40± Million in Property Value Loss due to Wind Project (article)

Study: 80%± Reduction in Tourism due to Turbines (article)

Study: Energy Policy and Electricity Prices

Study: Is Renewable Energy Sustainable? (part 1)

Superior Congressional Testimony on Fossil Fuels Full & Condensed

Complaint Filed Against Wind Developers Over Green Claims

Sucking Wind in the Fight for Renewable Energy

Renewables are incapable of replacing hydrocarbons at scale

German Government Plans to Stop and Reverse Wind Energy

NYS Updates its Wind Energy Ethics Rules

Wind Energy Disrupts Community

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Green Europe is Killing 40,000± People a Year

Study: Climate Forecasts May Be Flawed

Global Temperature Record is a Smoking Gun of Collusion and Fraud

Deep Sixing Another Climate Myth

Climate Change: The Greatest Conspiracy Against the Taxpayer, Ever!

PS: As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off the list, please let me know that too.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

pine trees with snow

Peak Global Warming: Two Predictions

Many of my generation remember where they were when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, or when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Most Americans remember where they were September 11, 2001 when Islamic terrorists killed more than 3,000 Americans.

Another memorable event is now occurring right before our eyes. Though it won’t garner the immediate headlines that the aforementioned historical events did, it will potentially be far more significant in its impact on the course of human history. This momentous new event is nothing less than our passage through the final phase of the peak of global warming. It includes two new predictions from me based on the highly reliable RC Theory.

Prediction 1.

We can now add this new event and date to our memories – February 2016. This is the month when global temperatures began a final long term decline into a deep and potentially dangerous abyss of record cold that will last for thirty years.

Mathematically, the smoothed peak of global warming measured over the current 206 year cycle of Sun that has brought us the recent twenty or so years of global warming has already passed. It likely did so exactly when I predicted such nine years ago – occurring sometime between 2007 and 2010. Unfortunately, this fifth order polynomial calculation escapes our country’s leaders, NOAA, NASA, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC) scientists who have their own politically correct version of calculating global temperature trends.

The eighteen years before January 2015, of essentially little to no growth in global temperatures, have also created a plateau of global temperatures which the global warming community has been unable to explain. This plateau has been punctuated by a dramatic though short spike in global temperatures from late 2015 to present. I explained in press releases and on a TV documentary about my climate book, “Dark Winter,” that the reason for this brief increased temperature marker was the result of a rare but critical step in the progress of the 206 year cycle. Instead of giving the global warming crowd a reason to celebrate, it was in fact the death knell of their manmade global warming theory based on greenhouse gas emissions.

My research has shown that in essence, just prior to descending into a multi-decade cold epoch, solar activity spikes at the top of the normal 11-year solar cycle. This special ‘trigger’ of solar-climate theory which happened right when it was supposed to during the top of our current solar cycle #24, should have made national headlines. It would have if science had its proper place in national discourse and if the mainstream media and our government had been preaching the truth – that the Sun controls our climate changes instead of mankind’s industrial CO2 emissions.

This assessment of the reason for this temperature spike has important ramifications for climate change theory and the future course of global temperatures for the next thirty years. This peak represents not only a possible short term record in global temperature between late 2015 and early 2016 at the end of this plateau but more importantly, it is a sign of things to come.

What we should now expect are rapidly declining global temperatures after February 2016, the apex of the 11-year cycle #24 solar heating. Steep drops in monthly global temperatures for the next year especially, are highly probable with longer term declines to follow.

According to my Relational Cycle Theory (RC Theory) of climate change, the next fifteen years will see a historic decline in global temperatures until we reach the bottom of the next cold epoch brought on by a ‘solar hibernation,’ a long term reduction in the Sun’s energy. This bottom, which I calculated for the year 2031, will be preceded by record cold and global crop damage for years on either side of that low point. The planet will not start to warm up again until the 2040’s and then, only moderately so.

Prediction 2.

Like the past 200 years of relatively continuous growth in global temperatures, the 2015-2016 warm temperatures were caused by the Sun. Unfortunately, the last two decades of solar heating, which have simultaneously permitted bumper crops for the world’s hungry masses, is in my opinion, the last of its kind for at least the next 400 years. The warmth we have enjoyed and that of generations to come is over.

Of course science should never be settled. We should always strive for better theories and more accurate analytical tools in all fields of science. That applies also to the RC Theory. However, if the predictions in this commentary go wildly astray, it would be the first instance in almost ten years when a major prediction based on the RC Theory has done so.

This achievement of climate science prediction, though, is about the power of the Sun and the reliability of its repeating cycles that determine climate change, rather than one man, one theory, or one climate research company. Though I was alone in 2007 with my controversial predictions, now, there are many other scientists around the globe who are telling their science communities and their governments that we need to prepare for an enduring cold climate of historic proportions.

This record of success in solar-driven climate science compares with the predictions of the so-called ‘leading scientists’ at the UN-IPCC and the US government using the greenhouse gas theory, who have been routinely wrong for over twenty years in their global temperature forecasts along with their other extreme forecasts like the Arctic sea ice completely disappearing by 2008 (later revised to 2013, then to 2030) or that there would be no more snow after 2003!

In the meantime, and quite irrespective of human politics, natural forces have been conspiring to bring the curtain down on mankind’s past scientific and political misconduct and are doing so with a last tease of warming. My Russian colleagues have already said a new “Little Ice Age” has begun. My own forecast is for a thirty year cold epoch similar to the Dalton Minimum of 1793 to 1830. The latter will be bad enough as bitter cold will bring global crop devastation. As if the new cold era isn’t challenging enough, we also know that concurrently, the world’s worst earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur during these same cold epochs or ‘solar hibernations.’

It is this collateral geophysical ill-effect that resulted in a notification sent by me in mid-2015 to FEMA to prepare for major quakes in South Carolina, the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) as well along major faults of the US West Coast. The President, FEMA, USGS, and all other US government agencies have ignored these earthquake warnings as they have before with my climate warnings and those of other cold-epoch-predicting scientists around the world.

Even if historians someday hold our President and the leaders of our government responsible for not preparing the country the coming cold climate and its catastrophic earthquakes, it will be no solace to those who are about to endure one of the most traumatic climate epochs in human history. Once again, the American people will pay the price during this ongoing passage of the peak of global warming into a new cold future.

This year 2016, and its implications for the human race will truly be, something to remember.


The Left’s Climate Inquisition’s New Target

Liberal AGs Have Begun a War Against the First Amendment

carbon tax

A ‘Carbon Tax’ Is a Utopian Fix that Can’t Survive Contact with Political Reality by Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, suggests that Americans should pick a president who favors a carbon tax. But not even Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have proposed a carbon tax as part of their tax plans. All candidates have put forward detailed tax plans, and a carbon tax is not included in any of these plans.

What is a carbon tax? Why do so many academics and columnists love it? And why will Congress be unable to enact such a tax effectively?

No matter that only 16 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by America, and that by many measures global temperatures have not increased over the past decade. No matter than unless China and India reduce their carbon emissions, U.S. unilateral efforts will have no practical effect on global temperature. China has stated that it will reduce emissions in 2030, but has not made any definite commitment.

The carbon tax is a favorite of many academic economists for restructuring the tax system. Proponents include a bipartisan group of professors such as Tuft University’s Gilbert Metcalf, now Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy at the Department of the Treasury; Harvard University’s Martin Feldstein, Edward Glaeser, and Gregory Mankiw; and Columbia University’s Joseph Stiglitz.

However, as tax practitioners know, a carbon tax is complex to set up. It requires adjustments to make sure that the tax is not unduly regressive and does not encourage consumption of imports relative to domestic production.

But, as we saw from the passage of many tax and budget bills over the years, Congress does not think deeply before it passes major tax bills.

Rather, political expediency always triumphs over academic elegance. Congress is incapable of thoughtful tax solutions, no matter how many are offered by well-intentioned professors. Despite years of notice that the Bush tax rates were due to expire, Congress passed permanent tax laws at the last moment, without reading the bill.

Many academics see a carbon tax as an alternative to an individual income tax, a corporate income tax, or a European-style cap-and-trade system. But a quickly-passed carbon tax in the hands of Congress would be just another add-on levy, with exemptions for friends and punishments for enemies.

A carbon tax raises the price of energy and so discourages consumption without regulation. Carbon tax rates could be calibrated to be revenue neutral or to yield a net rise in federal tax receipts, with the increment possibly dedicated to reducing deficits.

What are the problems with a carbon tax?

Everyone would want to spend the revenue. Some people would want to use it to reduce the deficit. Others would want to use carbon tax revenues to lower other taxes, such as income taxes. And since high income tax rates reduce incentives to work, this could conceivably add to economic efficiency.

Carbon taxes are regressive. Since low-income people use more energy as a percent of their income than high-income people, a switch to a carbon tax would have to be accompanied by transfers to low-income groups.

Some academics suggest that offsets be returned to taxpayers through lower income taxes, perhaps with the proceeds going chiefly to low-income households (individuals and families), which are disproportionately hurt by what is in essence an energy consumption tax.

This could theoretically be done by adjustments to the income tax. However, low-income earners are not required to file returns, and they would have to do so in order to be identified and compensated. That means extra work for them, and for the Internal Revenue Service — which will already be overworked calculating and collecting penalties from Obamacare violators.

Energy-intensive sectors lose under a carbon tax. The prices of energy-intensive goods in America would increase relative to imports from countries without carbon taxes. So Americans will prefer to buy imports, and American firms will lose business. Proponents of the tax suggest putting tariffs on imports in proportion to their carbon content so that American companies will not be at a disadvantage. But the precise quantities are complex to calculate, and tariffs might be illegal under World Trade Organization regulations.

The shale oil and gas that are attracting energy-intensive manufacturing back to America would be taxed, to the detriment of these new industries — and their employees. Some industries, such as coal, would be big losers. Politicians from coal-producing regions are influential in Congress, and they would demand a share of revenues.

So for a carbon tax to make our tax system more efficient, its revenues would have to be used to offset other taxes in the economy. Its negative effects on low-income Americans and on energy-intensive regions would have to be ameliorated. Some border adjustments would have to be made so that domestic goods were not disfavored.

But our disfunctional Congress is incapable of crafting a carbon tax with these attributes. Any tax on carbon would be an additional tax, without the offsets that make it so attractive to university professors. It would hurt the poor and raise domestic prices relative to prices of imports.

None of the front-running presidential candidates have proposed a carbon tax as part of their tax plans, because they know it is unpopular and will not pass Congress. To lower global emissions, the large emitters of carbon such as China and India need to move to nuclear power or natural gas. That would indeed make a difference.

This post first appeared at Economics21.org.

Diana Furchtgott-RothDiana Furchtgott-Roth

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, is director of Economics 21 and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.


Calls for Fracking Bans Ignore Sound Science

Taxpayers Are Footing Bill for Solar Project That Doesn’t Work


A Scientific Consensus on What Now? by Robert P. Murphy

Authority versus Science in the Climate Change Debate.

When it comes to the climate change debate, many of the loudest voices are confidently making assertions that are not backed up by the actual evidence — and in this respect, they are behaving very unscientifically.

One obvious sign that many people in the climate change debate are appealing to emotions rather than facts is their reliance on pejorative terminology. For example, rather than make an informative statement that they support subsidies for wind and solar, and taxes on coal and oil, they may instead say they support “clean energy” while their opponents favor “dirty energy.”

The coup de grâce, of course, occurs when partisans in the debate refer to their opponents as “climate deniers.” This is a nonsensical slur that would have impressed Orwell. Obviously, nobody denies climate. Furthermore, nobody denies that the climate is changing. And, when it comes to the serious debate among published climate scientists, people on both sides agree that human activities are contributing to warmer temperatures; the dispute is simply overhow much. (Those who think the change is mild have embraced the label “lukewarmers.”)

To label critics of a carbon tax or EPA regulations on power plants as “climate deniers” is utterly destructive of rational inquiry and tries to link legitimate skepticism to Holocaust denial. Those who use this term without irony demonstrate that they have no interest in scientific discovery.

Related to this lack of nuance, and the appeal to an exaggerated consensus, is the oft-repeated claim that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” on the state of human-generated climate change. Physicist-turned-economist David Friedman (among others) has investigated the methods used to generate such claims, and finds that they are seriously lacking.

Using the very data (on abstracts from published papers) that forms the basis of these headline announcements, Friedman reckons that more like 1.6 percent of the surveyed papers explicitly endorse humans as the main cause of global warming since the 1800s. Friedman further argues that this confusion — where the actual findings of the paper ended up being misinterpreted by the media — appears to have been deliberately produced by the survey’s authors.

“Hottest Year on Record” and “the Pause”

A January 2016 New York Times article epitomizes the advocacy disguised as reporting in the climate change debate. The very title lets you know that a serious case of scientism is coming, for it announces, “2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record, Scientists Say.”

Now, we must inquire, what is the purpose of adding “Scientists Say” at the end? Does any reader think that the Times would be quoting plumbers or accountants on whether 2015 was the hottest year on record? The obvious purpose is to contrast what scientists say about global warming with what thosenonscientist deniers are saying. The article goes on to let us know exactly what “the scientists” think about global warming and manmade activities:

Scientists started predicting a global temperature record months ago, in part because an El Niño weather pattern, one of the largest in a century, is releasing an immense amount of heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere. But the bulk of the record-setting heat, they say, is a consequence of the long-term planetary warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

“The whole system is warming up, relentlessly,” said Gerald A. Meehl, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

It will take a few more years to know for certain, but the back-to-back records of 2014 and 2015 may have put the world back onto a trajectory of rapid global warming, after a period of relatively slow warming dating to the last powerful El Niño, in 1998.

Politicians attempting to claim that greenhouse gases are not a problem seized on that slow period to argue that “global warming stopped in 1998,” with these claims and similar statements reappearing recently on the Republican presidential campaign trail.

Statistical analysis suggested all along that the claims were false, and that the slowdown was, at most, a minor blip in an inexorable trend, perhaps caused by a temporary increase in the absorption of heat by the Pacific Ocean.

This excerpt is quite fascinating. We have something reported as undeniable fact when it actually relies on assumptions of what might happen in the future (“may have put the world back onto a trajectory of rapid global warming”) and offers conjectures to explain why the measured warming suddenly slowed down (“perhaps caused by a temporary increase in the absorption of heat”).

The “statistical analysis” did not establish that the critics’ claims were false. It is undeniably true that the official NASA GISS records showed, for example, that the average annual global temperature in 2008 was lower than the annual temperature in 1998, and that’s why people at the time were saying, “There has been no global warming in the last ten years.”

Here is a NASA-affiliated scientist arguing that such claims are misleading, and perhaps they were, but it is similarly misleading to turn around and claim that the pause didn’t exist.

If you asked a bunch of Americans whether they gained weight over the last 10 years, their natural interpretation of that question would be, “Do I weigh morenow than I weighed 10 years ago?” They wouldn’t think it involved construction of moving averages since birth. In that sense, the people referring to the pause were not acting dishonestly; they were pointing out to the public a fact about the temperature record that would definitely be news to them, in light of the rhetoric of runaway climate change.

However, the more substantive point here is that the popular climate models predicted much more warming than has in fact occurred. In other words, the question isn’t whether the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s. Rather, the issue is given how much concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen, is the actualtemperature trend consistent with the predicted temperature trend?

To answer this, consider a December 2015 Cato Institute working paper from two climate scientists, Pat Michaels and Paul Knappenberger: “Climate Models and Climate Reality: A Closer Look at a Luke warming World.” They avoid the accusation of cherry-picking by running through trend lengths of varying durations, and they compare 108 model runs with the various data sets on observed temperatures. They conclude, “During all periods from 10 years (2006–2015) to 65 (1951–2015) years in length, the observed temperature trend lies in the lower half of the collection of climate model simulations, and for several periods it lies very close (or even below) the 2.5th percentile of all the model runs.”

Thus we see that the critics arguing about the model projections aren’t simply picking the very warm 1998 as a starting point in order to game the results. The standard models produced warming projections well above what has happened in reality, and for some periods the observed warming was so low (relative to the prediction) that there is less than a 2.5 percent chance that this could be explained by natural volatility. This is the sense in which the current suite of climate models is on the verge of being “rejected” in the statistician’s sense.

To be sure, I am not a climate scientist, and others would no doubt dispute the interpretation of the data that Michaels and Knappenberger give. My point is to show how utterly misleading the New York Times piece is when it leads readers to believe that “scientists” were never troubled by lackluster warming and that only politicians were trying to confuse the public on the matter.

Climate Economists Don’t Believe Their Models?

Finally, consider a December 2015 Vox piece with the title, “Economists Agree: Economic Models Underestimate Climate Change.” Furthermore, the URL for this piece contains the phrase “economists-climate-consensus.” We see the same appeal to authority here as in the natural sciences when it comes to climate policy.

The Vox article refers to a survey of 365 economists who had published in the field of climate economics. Here is the takeaway: “Like scientists, economists agree that climate change is a serious threat and that immediate action is needed to address it” (emphasis added).

Yet, in several respects, the survey reveals facts at odds with the alarmist rhetoric the public hears on the issue. For example, one question asked, “During what time period do you believe the net effects of climate change will first have a negative impact on the global economy?” With President Obama and other important officials discussing the ravages of climate change (allegedly) before our very eyes, one might have expected the vast majority of the survey respondents to say that climate change is having a negative impact right now.

In fact, only 41 percent said that. Twenty-two percent thought the negative impact would be felt by 2025, while an additional 26 percent would only say climate change would have net negative economic effects by 2050. Would anyone have expected that result when reading Vox’s summary that immediate action is needed to address climate change?

To be clear, the Vox statement is not a lie; it can be justified by the responses on two of the other questions. Yet the actual views of these economists are much more nuanced than the pithy summary statements suggest.

Authority versus Science

On this particular survey, I personally encountered the height of absurdity in the context of scientism and appeal to authority. For years, in my capacity as an economist for the Institute for Energy Research, I have pointed out that the published results in the United Nations’ official “consensus” documents do not justify even a standard goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, let alone the over-the-top rhetoric of people like Paul Krugman.

In order to push back against my claim, economist Noah Smith pointed to the survey discussed earlier, proudly declaring, “Apparently most climate economists don’t believe their own models.” Thus we have reached the point where partisans on one side of a policy debate rely on surveys of what “the experts say,” in order to knock down the other side who rely on the published results of those very experts.

This is the epitome of elevating appeals to scientific authority over the underlying science itself.

In the climate change debate, legitimate disputes are transformed into a battle between Noble Seekers of Truth versus Unscientific Liars Who Hate Humanity. Time and again, references to “the consensus” are greatly exaggerated, while people pointing out enormous problems with the case for policy action are dismissed as “deniers.”

Robert P. MurphyRobert P. Murphy

Robert P. Murphy is research assistant professor with the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University.

RELATED ARTICLE: College Professor Advocating Climate Change May Have Mismanaged Millions in Tax Dollars

Prime Minister Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe departs after a state visit.

UN ‘Green Climate’ Program Is a Slush Fund for Dictators by Marian L. Tupy

Wherever you stand on the subject of global warming, pay close attention to one under-reported aspect of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference or Paris Agreement. I am referring to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which is a financial mechanism intended “to assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change.”

According to the current estimates, developed countries will be obliged to contribute up to $450 billion a year by 2020 to the GCF, which will then “redistribute” the money to developing countries allegedly suffering from the effects of global warming.

Lo and behold, Zimbabwe’s government-run daily “newspaper” The Herald reported that “Southern Africa is already counting the costs of climate change-linked catastrophes… In Zimbabwe, which has seen a succession of droughts since 2012, a fifth of the population is facing hunger… Feeding them will cost $1.5 billion or 11 percent of … the Gross Domestic Product.”

No doubt Robert Mugabe, the 91-year-old dictator who has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980, is salivating at the prospect of some global warming cash. Beginning in 2000, Mugabe started to expropriate privately-held agricultural land. The result of what is euphemistically called “land reform” was a monumental fall in productivity and the second highest bout of hyperinflation in recorded history.

Some three million of Zimbabwe’s smartest people, including tens of thousands of doctors and lawyers, have left the country. Most of those who have remained behind are subsistence farmers with very little wealth. There is, in other words, very little loot left for the government to steal.

Thankfully for the Zimbabwean dictator, there are plenty of gullible Westerners willing to believe that the frighteningly vile, comically incompetent government isn’t at the root of Zimbabwe’s food shortages, but that global warming is to blame.

Of course, this is pure nonsense. Botswana and Zimbabwe share a border and their climate and natural resources are exceptionally similar. Yet, since 2004, food production has increased by 29 percent in Botswana, while declining by 9 percent in Zimbabwe. It is not drought but government policies that make nations starve!

As befits a dictatorship, Zimbabwe is one of the most corrupt places on earth. The notion that GCF funds will be will used for environmental “adaptation and mitigation” is a dangerous fantasy.

Like much foreign aid before it, most of the “green aid” money will likely end up in the pockets of some of the cruelest and most corrupt people on earth. Congress must stand firm and refuse to appropriate any money for the fund.

This post first appeared at Human Progress.

Marian L. TupyMarian L. Tupy

Marian L. Tupy is the editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Prime Minister Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe departing after a state visit to the U.S.

environmntal news

Recent Energy & Environmental News

The latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, is now online.

Three particularly revealing items from a very busy news cycle:

  1. As a reward for her efforts to assist New Englanders threatened by industrial wind energy, citizen advocate Annette Smith was sued for “practicing law.” Fortunately this sham was resolved shortly, in favor of common sense. (See here and here.)
  2. In an attempt to promote fiscal responsibility(!), some 350 of Australia’s climate scientists were given layoff notices. The argument to keep these positions was revealing. Before: they have high confidence computer models, and strong certainty that we understand the climate. After: there are many climate unknowns, and the models need a lot more work. (See here and here.)
  3. After dealing with thousands of adults on environmental and energy issues, it’s clear that our current education system is not working. We need to start someplace to fix this, so here are my initial recommendations.

Some of the more interesting energy articles in this issue are:

11 Ways To Kill Industrial Wind Projects

The Windmills of Bernie’s Mind

Archive Study: Renewables Won’t Save Us, So What Will?

Professor Investigating Flint: Greed has Killed Public Science

Proposed Oregon Law will monitor net impacts of energy policies (!!)

Commentary on US Supreme Court “Clean Energy” decision (and another)

Offshore Wind Turbine Maintenance Cost: “100 Times More Expensive Than A New Turbine Itself”!

Bad Incentives Undermine the Scientific Process

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:

What Do We Know About CO2 and Global Temperatures?

The Four Errors of Mann’s Recent Peer-Reviewed Study

Greens vs Transparency

Dr. Christy’s Congressional AGW Testimony

Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics

Can we just hit the “restart” button with Climate Science?

300 Scientists Officially Protest NOAA Data Secrecy (+ more)

House Votes for Open, Accountable Science

Audubon goes over the edge

PS: As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off the list, please let me know that too.


Settled Science: Global warming causes sea levels to rise — oops — fall, er slowdown?  Whatever!

Screenshot 2016-01-25 at 10.20.32 AM-down

2016 Claim: Wait! What?! Study: There is so much global warming that it is slowing the rise of sea levels – ‘Is there anything global warming can’t do? Now it seems that there is so much global warming that it is slowing the rise of sea levels.’

Climate Astrology: ‘Global Warming’ commands sea level rise Increases…& sea level rise slowdown: NASA discovers that ‘global warming’ is slowing and not increasing sea level rise – NASA study claim: ‘Because the Earth has become more parched, partly because humans are pumping out more ground water, the rising oceans are being absorbed by lakes, rivers, and underground acquirers, much like a sponge absorbs water. An extra 3.2 trillion tons of water has thus been soaked up and stored and is not pouring into the streets of coastal cities.’

NASA Study Concludes ‘Global Warming’ Is Actually Slowing Sea Level Rise – A new NASA study concludes global warming increases the amount of water stored underground which, in turn, slows the rate of sea level rise. At a time when scientists are worried about accelerating sea level rise, NASA scientist John Reager and his colleagues found an extra 3,200 gigatons of water was being stored by parched landscapes from 2002 to 2014, slowing sea level rise by 15 percent.

2016 Study: Parched Earth soaks up water, slowing sea level rise

Flashback: Prominent Dutch Scientist: ‘I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a 6m sea level rise, 15 times IPCC number — entirely without merit’

Flashback 1987: FSU Professor: Global Warming Causes Sea Level To Fall

The Palm Beach Post – July 6, 1987: By Mary McLachlin – Palm Beach Post Staff Writer – Via Real Climate Science website

Excerpt: Florida State University Geology Professor William Tanner: “Tanner plotted 4000 years of sea-level data on 5,000 years of climatological data published in last year’s Encyclopedia of Climatology and found some interesting correlations. Every time the climate warmed a couple of degrees, the sea level went down. Every time the climate cooled a couple of degrees, the sea level went up. This happened four times, each cycle taking about 100 years, and spaced about 900 years apart.”

“He says sea level rise has been about six inches over the past century, and he now expects that to slow down and even reverse itself if humans continue warming the Earth.”

“We’ve made the assumption — and it’s logical — that if things get warm, the glaciers get warm, the glaciers are going to melt,” Tanner said. “But that’s not what these two curves show, no matter how logical it may be. Everybody’s been depending on logic without much data.”

“Tanner says he believes that when the climate warms just a little, it causes more evaporation from the oceans and they go down. He sees two separate systems at work — a big one in which the climate gets every warm or very cold and the oceans rise or fall dramatically, and a small system in which minor changes in temperature cause the opposite reactions.”

“My colleagues here to whom I have presented it in detail think it’s reasonable and probably correct.”

Screenshot 2016-01-25 at 10.20.32 AM-down

More on Geologist Dr. William F. Tanner here.  – William F. Tanner (1917-2000) Geologist – Of Tallahassee, Florida died on April 9, 2000. Tanner was an ASA fellow and a member of ASA’s Affil. of Christian Geologists. A prof. of geology at Florida State U. with emphasis on sedimentology, he was born in Milledgeville, Georgia in 1917. He holds a B.A. from Baylor University, an M.A. from Texas Technological College, and a Ph.D. from Oklahoma University, all in Geology. He has served as an Instructor at Oklahoma University, a visiting Professor of Geology at Florida State University, and Associate Professor and Professor of Geology at Florida State University. Since 1974 he has been Regents Professor. He has had geological experience in much of the U.S., mostly in the Southeast, Southwest, and Rocky Mountain areas,- maritime eastern Canada and Canadian Rockies,- Mexico, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, various parts of Brazil, and Venezuela. His specialties within geology include sedimentology, sediment transport (including beach and river erosion), paleogeography and paleoclimatology, history of the atmosphere and petroleum geology. Dr. Tanner is Editor of “Coastal Research, ” Science Editor for the New Atlas of Florida, and Editor of six volumes on coastal sedimentology. He is the author of 275 technical papers.

Real Climate Science website note: 

This picture of Boca Raton was in that issue of the paper.

Screenshot 2016-01-25 at 10.16.34 AM

And this is what that beach looks like today. Nothing has changed.

Background on sea level rise: 

Flashback 1977: West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melt To Raise Sea Level 20 Ft. – National Science Foundation reveals: ‘It has nothing to do with a warmer climate, just the dynamics of unstable ice’

1977: ROSS ICE SHELF, Antarctica-A huge portion of the Antarctic ice mass appears to be collapsing into the sea, a catastrophe that could raise the levels of the oceans by almost 20 feet.  “We’re seeing the West ice sheet on its way out,” said Richard Cameron of the National Science Foundation. “It seems to be doing something completely different than the east ice sheet. It has nothing to do with a warmer climate, just the dynamics of unstable ice.”…”We’re doing about the most we can do right now to study the possible collapse of the west ice sheet,” said Dr. Richard Cameron, NSF program manager for glaciology. “It has become an area of concern because we could be on the brink of a rise in sea levels.” SUCH A RAPID rise is not unprecedented. It may have caused the Great Deluge described in the Old Testament.

Flashback: Planet Healer Obama Calls It: In 2008, he declared his presidency would result in ‘the rise of the oceans beginning to slow’ — And By 2011, Sea Level Drops!

Climate Depot’s Morano: ‘It is just possible that Obama has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men — since sea levels actually cooperated with Obama’s pledge!”

Flashback 1986 : Scientists Were “Sure” Sea Level Would Rise One Foot By 2016 –

Analysis of latest sea leel rise claims: Examination of the data from the paper, however, shows the range of proxy sea levels is approximately 10 meters, far too large to discern the tiny ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150 years. The authors instead assume from other published studies of tide gauge measurements that the ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150+ years began at that point in time. Other papers find sea levels rising only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 203 years, and without acceleration. 

Regardless, even the IPCC concedes that there was no significant anthropogenic influence on climate prior to 1950, thus man is not be responsible for sea level rise beginning 150-200 years ago, at the end of the Little Ice Age.

The sea level rise over the past ~200 years shows no evidence of acceleration, which is necessary to assume a man-made influence. Sea level rise instead decelerated over the 20th centurydecelerated 31% since 2002 and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any man-made effect on sea levels. Sea level rise is primarily a local phenomenon related to land subsidence, not CO2 levels. Therefore, areas with groundwater depletion and land subsidence have much higher rates of relative sea level rise, but this has absolutely nothing to do with man-made CO2.


Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/12/flashback-1987-global-warming-causes-sea-levels-to-fall-2016-global-warming-causes-slowdown-in-sea-level-rise/#ixzz402bm1npp