Study: The Surprising Effect of Marijuana Legalization on College Students

Researchers from Oregon State University and the University of Michigan studied marijuana use among 10,924 college students at one large Oregon university and six other universities in states that have not legalized marijuana. Using data from the Health Minds Survey, they looked at marijuana use before and after Oregon legalized the drug for recreational use.

They found that marijuana use increased among all college students but was significantly greater among Oregon students compared to those attending universities in non-legal states. Although the legal age for using marijuana in Oregon is 21, more younger students used the drug than older students. Surprisingly, the greatest increase took place among Oregon students who also reported binge drinking (four to five drinks in about two hours). These students were 73 percent more likely to report marijuana use compared to their peers at the other six schools.

Read The Atlantic story here. Read Science Daily summary here. Read journal abstract here.

Contaminated Marijuana Still Reaching Consumers in Oregon

Oregon has the toughest rules in the nation to keep pesticide-tainted marijuana off store shelves, yet contaminated pot continues to be sold. The state wrote even tougher rules but faced such a backlash from growers it modified them somewhat.

The Oregonian/OregonLive recently conducted a spot check to see if the modified rules are keeping pesticide-containing pot from being sold. The media outlet’s 2015 reporting on widespread contamination prompted the state to establish the rules in the first place.

The paper had ten samples tested by two different labs; three came back contaminated. A second round of tests of the same products resulted in only one showing contamination. Everyone – both the state and the industry — is frustrated with the lack of precision in the testing process.

A manager of Oregon’s Health Authority, which wrote the rules, says the state’s system isn’t a promise that every product on the shelf is pure. “I don’t think it’s reasonable for the general public to think that everything is 100 percent clean and safe,” he says. Instead, the system is designed to reduce but not eliminate risk.

Read OregonLive story here.

Senators Reintroduce CARERS Act to Repeal Federal Prohibition Of Medical Marijuana

Would you take a medicine that can contain hazardous pesticides, harmful bacteria, several kinds of fungi, molds, mildew, and even dangerous heavy metals? One whose labeled dose has been shown to be inaccurate? Whose labeled potency has been shown to be untruthful or inconsistent from dose to dose?

Fortunately, the medicines available today are so safe we don’t even think to ask such questions. Advances in science and medicine over the last century extended the average lifespan by 30 years.

Part of the reason for this achievement is the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which requires that all medicines be pure, safe, and effective before they can be marketed to the public. Drug makers spend millions of dollars and many years to develop and test a new medicine to obtain FDA approval. And patients who wish to take part in clinical trials to test the new medicine are told all its known harms so they can decide whether to participate.

But several members of Congress have decided such protections are not necessary for marijuana. They have reintroduced a bill to legalize medical marijuana in states that legalized the drug for medical use despite the fact that not one medical marijuana product produced in those states has been approved by FDA.

A particular irony is that the lead senator introducing the bill, Rand Paul, a libertarian who wants to reduce the size of government, is creating a situation where the states will need to create 50 FDA’s to protect the public health.

Or, states can take the view of the Oregon Health Authority manager in the story above:
“I don’t think it’s reasonable for the general public to think that everything [every marijuana medicine] is 100 percent clean and safe.”

Buyer beware.

Read A Libertarian Future story here. Read Senator Booker’s press release here.
Read Carers Act here.

New Study Estimates the Cost of Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis in Canada

In a first of its kind study, the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction calculated the number of Canadians who use marijuana (10 percent) and drive under the influence (just under half of users) and the estimated costs associated with such behavior. Data were from the year 2012.

Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis (DUIC) collisions caused 75 deaths at a cost of $8,532,200 per death, 4,407 injuries at a cost of $84,600 per injury, and 7,794 people involved in property damage at a cost of $10,700 per person. Total costs add up to $1.09 billion.

Sadly, those ages 16-34 who make up approximately one-third of the population accounted for nearly two-thirds of the victims.

Read Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction press release here. Read journal article here.

Entrepreneur Explains How to Set Up a Home Marijuana Garden as The Fresno Bee Warns That ER Docs Are Seeing Frequent Cases of Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS)

Emergency room physicians have seen an uptick in compulsive vomiting since California legalized marijuana for recreational use last November. The patients’ vomiting is accompanied by frantic screaming and kicking.

The phenomenon is called Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome of CHS. It occurs exclusivity in chronic marijuana users and was not identified until 2004 when Australian doctors made the link between chronic use and CHS.

Doctors say THC and other cannabinoid concentrations are much higher in today’s marijuana and may be contributing to more cases. The only long-term treatment is to stop using pot.

Read Fresno Bee story here.

Tobacco-Marijuana Nexus Begins . . .

Imperial Brands, a tobacco giant in the UK that removed the word “tobacco” from its name 18 months ago, is looking to diversify as smokers quit. It has hired medical marijuana expert Simon Langelier, who is chairman of the Canadian firm PharmaCielo which supplies cannabis oil extracts. Prior to that, Mr. Langelier spent 30 years at rival tobacco firm Philip Morris.

Imperial chairman Mark Williamson said Imperial will benefit from Mr. Langelier’s experience in tobacco and “wider consumer adjacencies.”

Skeptics have long warned that the tobacco industry, given its expertise in crop farming and distribution, will likely join and probably take over the marijuana industry. If so, it will likely apply its Joe Camel marketing tactics targeting adolescents as new smokers to targeting teens as new marijuana users.

Read the Independent story here.

Pictured: a Nevada legislator on a study tour of medical marijuana dispensaries, sniffs sample product.

. . . And So Does the Alcohol-Marijuana Nexus

The legalization proponents who wrote the Nevada recreational marijuana ballot initiative, which passed last November, had some help from the state’s alcohol industry. Mysteriously, the law specifies that all marijuana grown in Nevada will be distributed by alcohol distributors. This is unique to Nevada.

The state wants to license others to sell pot, but the liquor lobby has sued the state claiming it has exclusive marijuana distribution rights.

Just this afternoon, the judge hearing the lawsuit ruled for the alcohol industry and against the Nevada Department of Taxation which would have issued temporary licenses to medical marijuana dispensaries to sell recreational pot between July 1 and January 1, 2018 when licensing regulations will be completed.

Read Daily News article here.

It’s hot in Phoenix… Naturally

Natural Southwest heat causes propaganda to rise like the Phoenix.

It’s hot in the American Southwest.

So hot that airlines have been delaying flights for their smaller planes, waiting for cooler, denser air to provide better lift.

Yet you can’t have a heat wave without warming campaigners coming out of the woodwork to proclaim it evidence of “climate change.”

The Southwest is broiling. Are you paying attention, President Trump?” asks Jill Filipovic at CNN.

The Atlantic asks, “Did climate change ground flights in Phoenix?” and concludes, “Yes, but it didn’t act alone.”

This is nonsense.  We shared more examples at CFACT.org.

Despite the media hype, these sizzling temperatures are historically normal.  The all-time high temperature for Phoenix of 122 degrees F has stood since June 26, 1990.

Did manmade global warming play a significant role in this recent Arizona heat wave? Almost assuredly not.

The small amount of warming that took place last century, well within range of natural variation, is simply too small.  Even after activist scientists got done fiddling with the data, the most warming they could come up with were amounts of less than one degree Celsius above the global temperature baseline.

Only in the surreal world of climate modeling is manmade global warming shown to be an evil, threatening menace. Fortunately we live on a real Earth, not a computer derived-one like in the film The Matrix.

How much cooler would Phoenix be had Americans never built factories and power plants or driven SUVs?

The question is absurd.

So is attributing hot desert weather to global warming in a world that hasn’t experienced any meaningful warming this century.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Euro-studies Confirm Sun Dominates Earth’s Climate

80 Charts that Show Global Warming Hysteria Is a Fraud

Science comes to march in lockstep for Earth Progress!

As the world community senses the looming destruction of our planet by Trump’s imperial knowledge-rejecting regime, scientists all over the globe stand up and say No pasaran!

On April 22, and the battle cry of Earth Day resounding through the canyons of our metropoles, Science will march in the front row!


(all pics in this report show Science March rehearsals ongoing now all over the world.)Female-gendered scientists designed a Brainy-hat, and keenly knit it during breaks in rehearsals :

Collectives of scientists in all basic research disciplines announced elaborate programs of historically unprecedented sophistication, aimed to finally establish Environmental Justice for Gaia.

Physicists – Relentlessly Smash Inequality of Atoms!

Everybody knows: each atom has a Z (zhe Atomzahl aka proton number). That Z varies wildly: for hydrogen (evil!) it’s 1, for oxygen (People’s Element!) it’s 8, for gold (bankers!) it’s 79. That’s a scandalous inequality.

And so, the Gaia Program in Physics is: Make all atoms equal! Redistribute protons, and make all atoms have a common, universal Z. Say, Z = 59. This is a monumental effort, given that there are really many, many atoms. Spare particles – protons, electrons etc. – freed from liberated atoms will be used as clean energy fuel.

Physicists present models of proton-wise equalized atoms.

NOTE. FBI started an investigation into the origins of protonic atom inequality. All traces lead to… RUSSIA! The evidence so far points to an individual with a suspicious name – Mendeleyev. Zionist?

Chemists – Boldly create New Matter out of Equalized Atoms!

As atom-equalized matter will soon bubble up in retorts, fascinating questions arise. Will water (H2O) become gooey? Will iron (Fe) be gaseous? Finally, will equalized gold (Au) be simply made from equalized stones (St)?

Chemists proudly present an equalized atom in Science March.

New Matter in a peaceful laboratory flask, with proletariat watching.

Even more contentious, the Gaia Program in Chemistry demands a protonic exception: Carbon (C) to be stripped of protons altogether! This is the direct way to boldly decarbonize our Planet.

Chemical activists for de-protonizing Carbon (and thusly decarbonizing Gaia).

    Mystery item No. 1

Mathematicians – Progressive Gender-Awareness NOW!

Mathematics is extremely gender offensive. One single blob of genderific macroaggression.
This is aggressively explicit when doing Math in Romance languages (le/la, il/la, der/die/das).

See German:

der Punkt – (he) point ; die Linie – (she) line ; das Dreieck – (it) triangle.

Gender is pressed on any mathematical object, leaving no room at all for self-determination.

And it’s not just Romance languages – the Slavic ones have it too, implicitly.

Say, Russian:
(она) точка – (she) point ; (оно) пространство – (it) space ; (он) треугольник – (he) triangle.
Or this: (он) куб – (he) cube ; (она) вершина – (she) vertex ; (оно) ребро – (it) edge.

All research must be immediately stopped! The struggle must focus on total language revolution!
Only after the victory in that battle can gender-autonomy return to now victimized Math objects!

Mathematicians in Science March, expressing their resolve for Math Gender Revolution.

Climatists – Seize the Rudder in the Glorious March of Science!

The world collective of marching science decided (to be announced on April 22) the following:

1) The Queen of All Sciences is no longer Math, it is Climatism.
2) Climatism is administered, supervised, and directed by UN/IPCC.
3) UN/IPCC defines its innermost core UN/IPCC/IMC (abbrev. IMC).
4) What Climatism is, is – at any time – predetermined by IMC, the innermost core.
5) Who a Climate Scientist is, is defined by IMC’s rigorous Axiomatic Recursive Model, as follows:

A1. Members of IMC are Climate Scientists.
A2. Anyone deemed by a troika of Climate Scientists a Climate Scientist, is a Climate Scientist.

Corollary.

Whoever, in absence of a promoting troika (see A2), claims to be a “Climate Scientist”,
is thereby a scientophobic white supremacist contra-gendered Nazi denier (and RRRAAAAAcist!).See gloriously turgid Science Marches all over the Globe on April 22, The Gaia Day!

SCIENTISTS OF THE WORLD – UNITE!

RESIST WE MUCH!

MARCH FOR GAIA! MARCH FOR FUTURE!
MARCH FOR PROGRESS!

And unscientific denier Nazis will get a treatment they richly deserve :

EDITORS NOTE: This scientific political satire by Genosse Dummkopf originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

The Paris Climate Accord: A Deadly Non-solution to a Non-problem

This week I had the opportunity to discuss President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord with radio host Mike Slater. As I explain in the interview, the Paris Climate Accord is a deadly non-solution to a non-problem:

  • The Accord would have robbed millions of access to energy, including the energy that allows us to cope with a naturally dangerous climate
  • It would have done nothing to avoid the climate catastrophe that supporters think fossil fuels are creating
  • And there is no evidence that the CO2 impact is catastrophic

The interview contains much more, including these kind words from Slater:

“I am just extremely impressed with what you’ve built over these last few years… Really impressed that you’ve gone out so much, and spoken, and spread this message, and done these debates with these high level environmentalists. You’ve done a wonderful job.”

You can listen to the interview here.

Dave Rubin on the moral case for fossil fuels

Interviewer Dave Rubin was recently asked about his views on climate change, and spent a big part of his answer recommending that people watch “a really interesting conversation I had with Alex Epstein from the Center for Industrial Progress, who wrote a book called The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels that I keep right there on my shelf.”

After pointing out that he received and continues to receive a ton of hate mail about my appearance on his show, Dave points out that I recorded a follow up video did where I responded to the top 100 YouTube comments about our interview. You can view that video here,

and my original interview with Dave Rubin here.

The fastest way to promote the moral case for fossil fuels

One of the fastest ways you can help spread the word about the moral case for fossil fuels is to create a short video testimonial, telling the world how these ideas have impacted you.

We’ve now made this easier than ever. Just visit our video testimonial page and you can record your thoughts right from your phone or computer.

(Please note that video testimonials requires Adobe Flash. Some browsers, like Safari, may encounter problems.)

How has the moral case for fossil fuels impacted you?

We are always striving to upgrade our ability to change hearts and minds. If you’ve followed any of my work I would be grateful if you’d give five minutes of your time to fill out a brief survey. It will be extremely valuable in helping us improve our work. (And thanks if you filled it out earlier.)

  • If you’re in the energy industry, you can fill out the survey here.
  • If you’re not in the energy industry, but care about energy issues, you can fill out the survey here.

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

2. Hold a free Lunch-and-Learn (inside or outside the industry).

This program contains one of my favorite debates along with some “cheat sheets” to help you make the moral case for fossil fuels in your professional and personal life more easily than you thought possible. You can have access to the entire program right now. By the end of the session you and your team will:

  • gain a deeper sense of meaning from their work
  • be able to turn fossil fuel skeptics into fossil fuel supporters
  • learn the secrets to having constructive conversations about energy instead of frustrating fights

Click here to sign up for the free program.

3. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. f you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming ‘Consensus’

New Euro-studies Confirm Sun Dominates Earth’s Climate

80 Charts that Show Global Warming Hysteria Is a Fraud

Energy & Environmental News – 6/12/17

The newest edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is now online.

Despite all the news you’ve heard over the last few weeks, you’re probably unaware of one of the most significant national developments. Last week Texas (the most wind friendly state in the US) signed into law a bill that effectively prohibits wind projects from being closer than 30± miles to a military facility. (See this and this.) This law should give encouragement to similar federal legislation, as well as military-protective measures in NY and NC.

You’ve also heard a lot about the US bowing out of the Paris Agreement — most of which is rather irrational. The Newsletter has a special section on worthwhile articles (like here) on this important international topic.

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

“Climate Change” used to Create Totalitarian State

Anatomy of a Deep State

Renounce Climate Alarmism

Can we discuss the climate without the hysteria?

Lindzen: In the future, people will marvel how hysterical mankind has been

CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does

CO2 Facts vs Alternative Facts

58 New Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Modern Global Warming

mgh, Not Greenhouse Gases, Provides a Warm Earth

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

The Princess and the Pea

Human Health, Rights and Wind Turbine Deployment

A startling case of two schools in proximity to wind turbines

Wind company dealt blow by Indiana Supreme Court

Why There’s No Such Thing As a Free Market for Electricity

Offshore Wind Turbines Blamed For Killing Family Of Whales

The Private Benefit of Carbon and its Social Cost

Scientific Peer-Review is a Deeply Tainted System

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues. As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. 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, simply send me an email saying that.

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

VIDEO: Macron invites Americans to flee to France after Trump exits Paris Accord

The only people who are likely to take Macron up on this are Leftists who think all resistance to jihad terror is “Islamophobic.” How happy they will be in France!

  1. France: Guantanamo inmate released by Obama arrested for recruiting for the Islamic State
  2. Ramadan in Paris video: Muslim strikes at neck of man carrying beer
  3. Women fear to venture outside in entire neighborhood of Paris for fear of harassment from Muslim migrants
  4. France: Police hunt Muslim over three shootings, has 14 prior convictions
  5. France: ISIS calls for blood on election day, armed Muslim arrested near base, Macron widens lead
  6. Paris: Knife-wielding Muslim tackled by police at Eurostar terminal
  7. Paris jihad cop killer had been jailed for 20 years for trying to kill police, but freed early
  8. Paris on lockdown as gunmen kill cop in “terrorist act”
  9. France: 14 injured as migrants storm town hall
  10. France: Two Muslims arrested for plotting “imminent and violent” jihad attack
  11. France: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” murders Jewish woman, cops cover up terror angle
  12. France: Two teenage Muslimas held for Islamic State jihad massacre plot
  13. France: Veiled Muslim woman threatens passersby with a knife
  14. France: One-third of young Muslims hold “fundamentalist” religious views
  15. Paris airport jihadi had Qur’an, screamed “I’m here to die for Allah, there will be deaths”
  16. Paris jihadi on terror watch list, texted family “I shot police,” cops say terror “possible motive”
  17. Paris: Muslim seizes soldier’s gun after shooting police officer
  18. Paris: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” slits throats of father and son, cops search for motive
  19. France: Muslim migrant says of judges: “I’m going to go to court and shoot them all dead with a Kalashnikov”
  20. France: Muslim teen attacked Jewish teacher with machete in the “name of Allah and ISIS”

That’s just back three months. Go, Leftists, go! Take Macron up on his offer! Reduce your carbon footprint! Enjoy the elegance and grandeur of Paris! While it lasts.

French President Emmanuel Macron

“Macron invites Americans to flee to France after Trump chooses to exit Paris agreement,” by Daniel Chaitin, Washington Examiner, June 1, 2017:

French President Emmanuel Macron offered Americans a “second homeland” in France to help “make our planet great again,” a clear jab against President Trump after he announced that his administration will reject the Paris climate agreement.

In a short video posted online Thursday, Macron said that while he respects Trump’s decision, it was a “mistake” for the U.S. to exit the international accord.

“Tonight, I wish to tell the United States: France believes in you. The world believes in you. I know that you are a great nation,” Macron said.

He called on certain types, like scientists and “responsible citizens” who were disappointed by Trump’s announcement, to come to France.

“I call on them. Come and work here with us. To work together on concrete solutions for our kind, our environment. I can assure you France will not give up the fight,” Macron said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Muslim who screamed “Allahu akbar” while murdering Jewish woman may not be tried, “not in right mind”

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to restore national security immigration ban

The Amazing Arrogance of the Paris Climate Agreement by Jeffrey A. Tucker

It was December 12, 2015, when headlines in the world’s leading newspapers, in implausibly bold type, celebrated the “historic” agreement in Paris between all nations of the world to curb carbon emissions and thereby stop climate change: or so they said, as if elites get to say what is and is not historic.

The spin, like the agreement itself, was crammed down our throats.

I read the stories that day, and the next and the next, and the continuing coverage for weeks that nearly every reader – apart from a few dedicated activists and permanent regime bureaucrats – ignored. The stories appeared on the international pages and didn’t touch the business pages. Energy stocks weren’t affected in the slightest.The stories had all the signs of dutiful public service announcements – “fake news,” as they say today – and they contained not a single quote from a single dissenting voice, because, of course, no respectable news outlet would give voice to “climate deniers.”

Deniers?

Let me pause to protest this “denial” language. It attempts to appropriate the widely shared disgust toward “Holocaust denial,” a bizarre and bedraggled movement that belittles or even dismisses the actual history of one of the 20th century’s most egregious mass crimes against human rights and dignity. Using that language to silence questions about an attempt to centrally plan the energy sector is a moral low that debases the language of denial.

This rhetorical trick reveals all you need to know about the desperate manipulation the climate planners are willing to engage in to realize their plot regardless of popular and justified skepticism concerning their regulatory and redistributionist policies.

And what are the specifics of that agenda? The Paris Agreement is a “voluntary” agreement because its architects knew it would never pass the US Senate as a treaty. Why? Because the idea of the agreement is that the US government’s regulatory agencies would impose extreme mandates on its energy sector: how it should work, what kinds of emissions it should produce, the best ways to power our lives (read: not fossil fuels), and hand over to developing world regimes billions and even trillions of dollars in aid, a direct and ongoing forcible transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to regimes all over the world, at the expense of American freedom and prosperity.

And you wonder why many people have doubts about it.

The Trumpist Reaction

Consider what else was going on December 12, 2015. Donald Trump was in the midst of a big battle for the Republican nomination. He started with 16 challengers to beat. He was widely considered to be a clownish candidate, a guy in it just to get press attention to build his business brand. Surely the American system of electoral politics, largely but imperfectly managed by responsible elites, would resist such demagogues. Besides, the media that trumpeted the Paris Agreement would be on hand to shame anyone who supported him. He couldn’t win.

The press mostly pretended that he wasn’t happening. The Huffington Post put coverage of his campaign in the humor section.

And so President Obama came home from the Paris meetings to the acclaim of all the right people. He alone had made the responsible choice on behalf of the entire country: every business, every worker, every consumer, every single person living within these borders who uses some measure of this thing we call energy. He would be our master and commander, ruling on our behalf, fresh off cocktail parties in Paris where the best and brightest – armed with briefcases full of government-funded science – decided to give the Industrial Revolution its final comeuppance.The exuberant spokespeople talked about how “the United States” had “agreed” to “curb its emissions” and “fund” the building of fossil-free sectors all over the world. It was strange because the “United States” had not in fact agreed to anything: not a single voter, worker, owner, or citizen. Not even the House or Senate were involved. This was entirely an elite undertaking to manage property they did not own and lives that were not theirs to control.

The Backlash

And then Trump spoke. He said that this Paris bit was a bad deal for Americans. We are already in a slow-growth economy. Now these global elites, without a vote from Congress, are presuming to mandate massive controls over the economy, hampering its productive sector which benefits everyone and transferring countless billions of dollars out of the country, with the acquiescence of the party in power.

He spoke about this in a way that bested all his opponents. The entire scenario fed his America First worldview, that the global elites were operating as parasites on American prosperity and sovereignty. His answer was to put up the wall: to immigrants, to trade, to global managerial elites, and reclaim American sovereignty from people who were selling it out. It was another flavor of statism (globalism and nativism are two sides of the same coin), but it tapped into that populist vein of the voting public that looks for a patriotic strongman to save them from a distant ruling class.Everything about the Paris Agreement seemed structured to play into Trump’s narrative of how the world had gone mad. And then he won the nomination. Then he won the presidency. None of this was supposed to happen. It wasn’t part of the plan. History took a different course from what the power elite demanded and expected to happen. Not for the first time.

How Dare Anyone Dispute Our Plans?

But the “globalists” of the type that tried to make Paris work have a stunning lack of self-awareness. They pretend to be oblivious to the populist resentment they breed. They act as if there is not a single legitimate doubt about the problem, their analysis of cause and effect, the discernment of their selected experts, or their proposed coercive solution. And there certainly isn’t a doubt that their mighty combination of power, resources, and intelligence can cause all the forces in the universe to adapt to their will, including even the climate that King Canute himself said could not be controlled by kings and princes.

As with countless other statist plans over the last hundred years, they figured that it was enough to gather all the right people in one room, agree to a wish list, sign a few documents, and then watch the course of history conform to their wishes.The Paris Agreement is no different in its epistemological conceit than Obamacare, the war on drugs, nation-building, universal schooling, or socialism itself. They are all attempts to subvert the capacity of society to manage itself on behalf of the deluded dreams of a few people with power and their lust for controlling social and economic outcomes.

Rejecting Elite Politics

How far are the Democrats from recognizing what they have done? Very, very far. John C. Williams, writing in the New York Times, has decried the “The Dumb Politics of Elite Condescension”:

“As a progressive, I am committed to social equality – not just for some groups, but for all groups… Everyone should have access to good housing and good jobs. That’s the point… Too often in otherwise polite society, elites (progressives emphatically included) unselfconsciously belittle working-class whites. Democrats should stop insulting people.”

That would be a good start. But it is not only about rhetoric. Policy preferences have to change. A global agreement that somehow binds entire countries to centrally plan and regulate the whole of a crucial sector of economic life that supports all economic advances of our time – at the very time when the energy sector is innovating its own solutions to carbon emissions in the cheapest possible way –  is certainly going to breed resentment, and for good reason. It is a bad and unworkable idea.

Continued reliance on undemocratic, uneconomic, imposed strategies such as the Paris Agreement will only further feed the populist revolt that could end in the worst possible policy combinations of strong-man nationalism, nativism, protectionism, closed borders, and backwards thinking in general. No good can come from this. The backlash against globalism can be as dangerous as globalism itself.You might think that the election of Trump would offer some lessons. But that is not the way the arrogant minds behind the climate agreement work. They respond by merely doubling down on disdain, intensifying their commitments to each other, heaping more loathing on the workers and peasants who have their doubts about these deals.

Trump and his ilk abroad, backed by voting masses with pitchforks and torches – and not a managed transition from fossil fuels to clean energy – are their creation.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s Pull Out from Paris Accords Puts America First and Multinational Banks and Corporations Last

EDITORS NOTE: Get trained for success by leading entrepreneurs.  Learn more at FEEcon.org

VIDEO: President Trump withdraws from the Paris Accord — Let the Hysteria Begin!

President Trump has kept another campaign promise. On June 1st, 2017 he formally announced that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement stating, “I was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris!”

In their column 4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement Nicolas Loris  and Katie Tubb write:

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Read more…

PowerLine’s  Steven Hayward reporting on the President’s decision wrote:

I know what you’re thinking. How can the climatistas be any more hysterical than they already are? Is it even possible to turn it up past 11? In any case, here are a few early returns, which I’ll update as the day unfolds. (That was a great speech, by the way: “I was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris.”) Hear, hear! For now, this first one is the winner (although the ACLU tweet is a close rival):

Read more…

Watch the full remarks of Vice President Pence, President Trump and the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency Pruitt’s comments on withdrawing from the Paris Accord:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

DELINGPOLE: That Paris Speech Just Made Trump Great Again

NYT Peddles More Global Warming Science Without Numbers

Limbaugh explains why he believes American voters saved the country in 2016

Spying on You, Spying on Me, Spying on the President

RELATED VIDEO: Watch Rand Paul bulldoze through each global warming talking point – TheBlaze

The Everyday Guide to Everyday Carry

Let’s have a frank discussion about EDC, the everyday carry. The internet is overflowing with pictures, threads, and suggestions from self-proclaimed experts on the subject. I have never considered myself a subject matter expert on EDC; however, much like Liam Neeson, I have had a unique set of life experiences and skills that may give some credibility to what I have to say.  I am a member of the Special Operations community. I have carried concealed weapons and mission essential equipment when lives have depended on it. I have protected diplomats all the way up to the vice-president of the United States. I am a qualified and current Advanced Tactical Paramedic, certified by Special Operations Command. I have treated life-threatening trauma at both the point of injury and at higher echelons of care. I teach various tactical skills to militaries, government employees, law enforcement, and private citizens. Lastly, and perhaps most important, I am in a constant state of learning in order to employ and teach the latest science, tactics, and techniques based on research and events.

Let’s strip away, the shemaghs, infidel t-shirts, and talk about what works. This will not be a conversation about what pistol to carry (Glock 19). That is a forum unto itself.  Today I will tell you what I carry and why. I will tell you what I think you should carry and why. This writing has zero product placement or endorsement of any kind. This is all my opinion. My opinion is probably better than yours. Buckle up.

EDC should not be about your gear. I know, that sounds counter-intuitive. Bear with me. There are multiple reasons we should not be dependent on our equipment. The biggest reason is that our environment does not typically allow us to carry the equipment we would like to. Anyone who drives in the Northern Virginia or West Virginia area knows this frustration. Drive across the wrong bridge and you are instantly transformed from a responsible law-abiding citizen to a felon. This concept applies everywhere. Can you carry a pistol in a bank? What about picking your kids up from school? Auditoriums, ball parks and other venues of mass congregation are typically no-carry zones. Every place I just listed are also historically targets for violent crime or terrorism. Your EDC needs to start with your thinking, not your gear. It is possible to go out and have a good time and still be situationally aware.

“Your EDC needs to start with your thinking, not your gear.”

Here’s some homework: without being the overly sensitive veteran who just has to have his back to the wall in a corner booth, go out to a coffee shop or a bar. Order your drink, sit down, and observe. How many entrances and exits do you see? Can you get to them in a timely manner? Does the bathroom lock? Where do people park? Is there anything stopping a vehicle from driving through the entrance? Is there security? How many? What, if anything, are they carrying? What are they looking at? Do they have communication? What are people around you wearing? Look at hands and shoes. Hands can show intention. Shoes can show planning (you ever hear of anyone robbing a bank in flip flops?). Now try the same thing in a mall.  Do this exercise a few times and you should notice your situational awareness in public settings increase. You may be amazed what you’ve never noticed.  *Note: don’t do this exercise in a bank unless you want to answer some uncomfortable questions.

Your Bag

Unless I am trying to present the picture of a tactically prepared individual, I do not carry anything in Coyote Brown, Multicam, or other tactical colors. Similarly, I stay away from bags that have molle loops and more velcro than I have morale patches for. This is a personal choice. I know my training. I know what capabilities I have. I prefer that to be a surprise to anyone that needs to bear the brunt of that training. I have two bags that I normally use for my EDC. Neither are designed for this purpose, but they work well. The first is my Timbukt2 laptop bag. Women generally have an advantage over men in EDC as it is normal for a woman to carry a purse. Well, my man purse…satchel…has been in some pretty sketchy areas and has held everything from a side arm to a full chest rack. I find the top zipper particularly useful as I do not have to open the flap to draw my weapon.  My second bag, a small Mountain Hardware padded ruck, also is meant to be a laptop case, and also has fast access via a zipper. Both of these bags have traveled the world with me. Neither has ever raised suspicion. When selecting your bag, go through this short checklist:

  1. Will I carry this?
  2. Can I get to what I need in a hurry?
  3. Does it have enough pockets to segregate my kit?
  4. Does it have so many pockets that I don’t know where anything is when I need it?
  5. Is the construction durable enough to stand up being carried everyday?

Your Tourniquet

Why do you not have a tourniquet? You have a full basic load and a four-hundred dollar reflex sight, but you didn’t drop a few bucks on a tourniquet. Look at that, you’ve made your little sister cry. Dammit Daryl. Here a few down and dirty facts:

  1. You can bleed to the point of no recovery in 3-5 minutes from an arm or leg wound.
  2. You will not lose your limb simply because you applied a tourniquet.
  3. Improvised tourniquets will likely take longer to gather and build than 3-5 minutes
  4. Your belt is not a tourniquet.
  5. Tourniquets save lives.

Now that we’ve established that you need a commercially produced one-handed tourniquet, the harder decision starts. The online tourniquet battle about what is best or what is crap is pretty heated. There are more people making comments about tourniquet effectiveness than are actually applying tourniquets. I’ll let you in on a secret: applied correctly, they all work. Every one of them. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn’t used the product or is selling a product.  Like every medic, I have my preferences. I feel a Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT) is more reliable on the average arm and has a faster application time than the Special Operations Forces Tactical Tourniquet – Wide (SOFTT-W). The exact opposite is true for the leg. I know that both of these tourniquets require a minimum limb circumference for effective application, i.e. it may not work on your kid. The Stretch Wrap And Tuck Tourniquet (SWAT) will work on your kid or your dog, but good luck applying it to yourself with one hand. The Rapid Application Tourniquet (RATS) is fast and, on most limbs, effective.

In the interest of integrity, I need to disclose that I not only know the inventor of the RATS, but we served together. I count him as a friend. There is both political and medical controversy over this device. It is unwarranted and gets in the way of saving lives. I had my doubts about the RATS when it was first shown to me. For educational purposes, I had the RATS tested by Special Operations Medics using Doppler Radar to detect a distal (away from the heart) pulse. Applied to the arm, the RATS was 100% effective in eliminating a pulse. On the leg, the pulse was diminished, but not fully eliminated. The test subject was a Navy SEAL with “tree trunks for legs.” I have trained thousands of individuals in the use of tourniquets. What I have seen, without bias, is that the layperson is able to apply a RATS tourniquet faster and more effective than any other commercial tourniquet. After training, most students opt for the RATS over other commercial tourniquets. Again, this is not bias. This is what I have seen (called “empirical evidence” in the medical community).

I carry multiple CAT and SOFTT-W’s in my vehicles and aid bags. My EDC has the RATS. Based on what I have seen with my students, I recommend it for your carry.

Regardless of which tourniquet you choose, have it staged for easy access with one hand, and ready for one-handed application.  Take the tourniquet out of the wrapper. Adjust the slack (big for the CAT, smaller for the SOFTT-W, three finger for the RATS) for one-handed use. Watch the manufacturer’s videos. Practice, practice, practice. I have trained government employees that refuse to recognize violence is a real thing to the standard of a 15-second application. Shoot for that standard. If you are carrying a CAT, ensure that the CAT you are training with is not the CAT you are expecting to control actual hemorrhage. The parts are made for single use and weaken under torque. Buy a blue CAT for training and a black or orange CAT for real-world use.

Other Medical Supplies

I prefer to keep it simple in my EDC. I could easily make my EDC into an aid bag. I don’t want that. That’s why I have an aid bag. One pack of compressed gauze and a small roll of duct tape are enough to fix everything from a large laceration to detaining a dirt bag till I get to more supplies. I don’t have a preference for untreated gauze. Hemostatic agents are a longer discussion for another post. If you are carrying medical tape for anything other than making a name tag, go ahead and slap yourself. I’ll wait. Medical tape, despite it’s purpose, does not stick well to wounds or anything wet. I carry a small roll of Duck Tape purchased at Home Depot and a roll of Gecko Tape from North American Rescue Products. Pro-tip: if the tape is open, dog ear it. You will be shaky and limited to gross motor skills under stress. Not being able to find the end of your tape costs cool points.

If you choose to carry a commercial dressing in your EDC, I recommend the Olaes Dressing from Tactical Medical Solutions. The dressing has multiple uses in one package. The gauze can be removed from the dressing to pack wounds. A small sheet of plastic can be removed to seal chest wounds. The elastic bandage has velcro strips sewn in increments to counter shaky-operator syndrome. A side-note personal soap box on the Olaes: the dressing is named after my friend and classmate SSG Tony Olaes who was killed in action in 2004. He pronounced his name Oh-Lie-Es. Please do the same. Thank you.

Knife

Your knife needs to be sharp, durable, and short enough that it won’t be confiscated at a security check-point. Everything else is sprinkles on the ice cream. I carry a Benchmade Triage because of the blade quality, the rescue hook, the glass breaker, and because I didn’t have to pay for it.  It is worth the nearly $200 price tag, providing you’re not prone to leaving it with the bouncer at a West Virginia strip club (can I get that back? Asking for a friend.) I also carry a Leatherman Wave for all my multi-tool needs. I do have bias on these brands, as all three of us are from Portland.

Not every light needs to be tactical to be useful. This $5 LED light has multiple functions and affixes to metal for hands free use.

We have also proven ourselves on the job.

Light (Flashlights/Tactical Lights, etc.)

Flashlights are similar to knives, in that you can lose it faster than the hours it took you to make enough money to buy it. I have been carrying the same Surefire Z2 Combat Light for 10 years. It’s durable, fist size, and has worked every time I needed it to. I’m sure there are better, newer lights out there, but I haven’t needed to find out. I also carry a five buck construction job site light I bought in the checkout line at Home Depot. It takes conventional batteries, uses LED, has spot and flood functions, and has a convenient magnet on the back. Maybe not my first choice for room clearing, but it’s great for lighting up a work space (think trauma, not cars). Both of my bags have headlamps. My primary is my Petzl, that everyone in SOF has a few of. There is no need to go out and spend big money on a headlamp. You’re not spelunking. Go to Home Depot and buy the three-pack for 10 bucks. Most of them even have red light capability. I’ve used them.

Miscellaneous Items

Phone charger and External Battery Pack – In an emergency, communication is key. If you spent your battery SnapChatting LOL’s to your contact list right before shit hits the fan, you’re going to need some juice. I’ve opted for an Otterbox uniVERSE case with a modular accessory slot. The external battery pack for this case is made by Polar Pro and is about $50 on Amazon. I have two of them.

Sharpie Marker & 3×5 Index Cards – Make an incident timeline. Mark casualties. Pass a note. Don’t forget to buy milk on the way home.

Cash – Lower denominations. A couple hundred dollars or so. Bribing rarely works with a credit card. Credit card machines do not work in power outages.

Gum – I like to chew gum when I think I’m about to get in the mix. I’m sure I could say something medical like, “activates the salivary glands to counter dry mouth secondary to stress-induced acid reflux”, but it just gives me something to do while I wait.

After packing your EDC bag, test it. Do not fall in love with one particular set-up if it isn’t working as well as it should. Once you think you have it set, practice. Use multiple conditions: low light, darkness, loud background.

Now that you’ve seen my kit and read my secrets, I’ll need to destroy you. Best of luck out there.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Black Rifle Coffee Company blog.

The Illusion of Marijuana As Medicine

Since speaking of the fantastical nature of medical marijuana, I have been bombarded with commentaries and concerns regarding the legal status of the plant in Florida. Sadly, most of the comments have been hateful, demeaning, and designed only to intimidate.

But hidden amongst the hate speech are some communications that honestly raise questions of a medical role for marijuana and report favorable experiences with its use.

So here’s the bottom line: As a physician, I completely acknowledge the pain and suffering of those afflicted with chronic and debilitating diseases and of the sometimes tragic shortcomings of our pharmacopeia, but the data supporting marijuana as a bona fide medicinal tool is simply lacking… and may always be.

Any honest discussion regarding medical marijuana must begin with the full acknowledgment of the secondary interests motivating it. Many pro-medical-marijuana advocates eagerly cite alleged conspiratorial efforts by pharmaceuticals to stifle its use, but they fail to acknowledge the millions of dollars pumped into the campaign for its legalization by the growing marijuana industry, and the even greater amounts of money some stand to gain from favorable policy decisions.

So, let’s be honest and admit that there are pecuniary interests on both sides of the issue striving to skew the conversation in their favor.

Asking the tough questions

With this admission in mind, I begin with one simple question: If marijuana is truly a medicine, then what about its pharmacology makes it so different as to allow it to bypass the scrutiny applied to all others medications? What is medically so different about marijuana that states can implement laws with insufficient study for the sole purpose of bypassing the FDA, and constitutional amendments are passed to allow for its use as a medicine?

The answer, of course, is nothing, which adds to the contention that something much bigger than the use of the plant as a medication — perhaps the quest to legalize its recreational use — is the true driver of the medical marijuana debate. If that be the case, then ransacking the nation’s health care system for the mere promotion of a recreational drug is dishonest, reckless, and dangerous.

Then there’s the pesky issue of the science.

First, marijuana is not one substance, but rather a complex of more than 400 biologically active compounds including, terpenoids, flavonoids, and over 70 cannabinoids. The interactions between these substances and their specific benefits are not understood. What’s more, their specific combinations vary between strains of the plant, growth conditions, the manner in which the plant is prepared for consumption, distribution methods, storage times, and storage conditions.

All this may be totally acceptable for a recreational product, but it is the death knell of a prospective medication.

What’s worse, there is very little data supporting the use of marijuana for many of the claimed indications.

What thorough marijuana study reveals

Perhaps the most thorough and objective review on this topic appeared in 2015 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Researchers studied 23,754 “hits” on their search engines. They arrived at 79 studies reported in 151 papers from all over the world (encompassing 6,462 participants) that the authors found were of sufficiently low bias and high scientific control to be taken seriously as scientific analyses.The researchers then stratified the collective results of the studies into varying levels of data quality to support a recommendation for the use of marijuana and its derivatives in health care. Neither, the cannabinoids nor marijuana, received a rating of high confidence in the treatment of a single symptom or condition!

Conclusion: the science supporting the use of marijuana or cannabinoids as a medicine is simply not there. In fact, only in the treatment of chronic neuropathic, cancer pain, and spasticity was any data found that rose to a level of moderate scientific quality.

Additionally, when marijuana was used for pain control it did not diminish the demand for opioids, thus eviscerating the contention that by allowing for the use of medical marijuana there would be fewer complications related to opioid use and opioid addiction.

Nausea and vomiting, HIV/AIDs, depression, anxiety disorder, psychosis, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome received either low quality support or very low quality support. Studies regarding other conditions such as the actual treatment of cancer, glaucoma, seizure disorders, Crohn’s disease, sickle cell disease, psoriasis, and Parkinson’s disease were so poor that they did not even rise to the level of meriting inclusion in the JAMA study.

Risks lacking known rewards

On the flip side, the risks of treatment with marijuana are not inconsequential.

First, dosing of smoked marijuana remains unpredictable. And although much of the medical marijuana debate centers on the effects of single exposures, insufficient information exists regarding the effects of repeated exposures. Approximately 10% of people routinely using marijuana become addicted, with a higher incidence amongst adolescents. Tolerance and down-regulation of receptors have been documented with repeated marijuana use. A marijuana withdrawal syndrome has also been recognized, as has an association with psychosis.

Despite the lack of scientific evidence to support the use of medical marijuana, the states have run the gamut on the list of scientifically unsupported treatments they will allow. For example, last year, Florida approved a constitutional amendment listing cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, HIV/AIDs, PTSD, ALS, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, MS, any medical condition similar to those listed above, and terminal conditions as ones for which marijuana may be used. And in Connecticut, the use of marijuana for the treatment of sickle cell disease and psoriasis is also allowed.

The endocannabinoid ruse

There are those, particular amongst the more vitriolic advocates, who misguidedly cite the endocannabinoid system as evidence for the benignity of marijuana use, suggesting that we should allow for marijuana’s medicinal use because cannabinoids are already existing inside our bodies. In fact, the existence of such a system should result in further caution against the proliferation of marijuana use.

The human body does produce cannabis-like substances, but they naturally exist in very small quantities, are precisely released, and linger for very brief periods of time. These endocannabinoids affect nerve growth and maturation, and guide intercellular connections during pruning (the process by which nerve cells find and refine their connections).

Exocannabinoids, on the other hand, those that are ingested or inhaled like marijuana, are long lasting, exist in higher quantities, and are relatively indiscriminate in their distribution.

The consequences of taking these substances from an external source are not only unknown, but potentially very disruptive to human development — an even more disturbing consideration since brain development continues until the age of 25 years. Such indiscriminate and physiologically disruptive effects may explain the negative behavioral and emotional changes associated with adolescents who are repeatedly exposed to marijuana.

Study and FDA approval needed

Yes, as a legislator, I am aware that in Florida, 71% of the electorate voted for the medical marijuana constitutional amendment. But such an outcome, promoted by monied interests, does not negate the fact that marijuana is not a medicine.

Like any other physiologically acting collection of substances, marijuana is a potentially dangerous, incompletely understood, and improperly controlled combination of chemicals whose benefits have not been found to sufficiently outweigh its risk.

I continue to call for the FDA and the federal government to devote resources to the study of this plant and its effects. With adequate support for well-controlled, scientific research, there may come a day when sufficient, meritorious information will be available to allow the FDA to provide health care providers with reliable prescribing information and for manufactures to create products known to be beneficial to patients.

But until such time, physicians need to shy away from the indiscriminate, and still illegal, use of marijuana in their patients, and states need to be leery of policies enacted in contradiction to federal law.

As for the advocates, if their goal is to legalize marijuana for recreational use, then let’s have that discussion and not use our nation’s health care system as a ruse for the promotion of marijuana’s greater acceptance as a recreational drug.

In the meantime, and despite the accusations, bully tactics, and vitriol, I will continue to evaluate the medical literature regarding marijuana with a scrupulous eye and a mind open to the strengths of both sides of the argument.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

VIDEO: Paris Accord is About Wealth Redistribution, Not Climate

Jason Devaney from NewsMax reports:

The Paris Climate accord’s premise is wealth distribution and it would not even have much of an impact on Earth’s climate, ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano said.

During an interview with Newsmax TV’s Steve Malzberg, Morano discussed the climate change agreement that President Donald Trump is reportedly leaning toward withdrawing the U.S. from.

“You wouldn’t even be able to measure the impact using the UN assumptions. This is according to a peer-reviewed paper by a statistician called Dr. Bjorn Lomborg,” Morano said.

“The UN has actually admitted the real reason for the treaty. They said this is not even environmental policy anymore, we will redistribute wealth by climate policy. That’s what they want, a $100 billion a year slush fund going to governments that are best able to keep your people locked in poverty.

Read more…

Trump is pulling U.S. out of UN Paris Climate Pact – A Victory for Science!

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump today officially announced that he intends to withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact. Trump has fulfilled a key campaign promise and is gutting one has been termed one of the “most expensive treaties in the history of the world.”

The Hill is reporting:

President Trump will pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement, Axios reported Wednesday. The report, citing two sources with “direct knowledge,” said Trump is working with a group led by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt on the exact mechanism of pulling out before announcing his final decision. CBS News also reported that Trump is telling allies about his decision. The move marks a dramatic departure from the Obama administration, which was instrumental in crafting the deal. It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations, nearly all of whom support the climate change accord. But Trump’s decision fulfills an original campaign promise he made just over a year ago to “cancel” the accord. 

The Associated Press is reporting:

A White House official says President Donald Trump is expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. But the official says there may be “caveats in the language” that Trump uses to announce the withdrawal – leaving open the possibility that the decision isn’t final.

According to Axios, GOP Senators played a key role in influencing Trump to pull out of the UN climate pact.

Axios: How it happened: A letter from 22 Republican Senators (including Mitch McConnell) that called for a clean exit had reinforced Trump’s instincts to withdraw, and the president had been telling confidants over the past week that he was going to pull out.

Skeptics Rejoice:

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano statement: “A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) is a victory for science.President Trump today, in one swoop, made perhaps the most consequential decision of his presidency both in domestic and international policy by announcing a Clexit of the U.S. from the UN Paris agreement. One of Trump’s core political principles has been an America first policy and knowing the art of a deal. Trump realized that the UN Paris climate pact would not serve the interests of U.S. foreign policy or domestic energy policy. The near total dismantling of former President Obama’s “climate legacy” is now almost complete. Bravo!  President Trump understands that the UN has no interest in climate. The UN’s real goal is “global governance” and “wealth redistribution.” Flashback: UN IPCC Official Edenhofer: ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’

Climate Depot’s Morano predicted Trump’s actions today back in November 2016 while attending the UN climate summit in Morocco. Morano was ejected from the summit for shredding the UN Paris agreement. See: UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After SHREDDING UN Climate Treaty at Summit Next To Trump Cut-out – November 16, 2016

A UN climate agreement that is totally meaningless when it comes to the climate. University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack  has noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

Climate Depot Marc Morano adds: In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!  Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition. Today, America rejects superstition and the believe that governments regulations and UN agreements can control the climate. 

NASA’s former lead global warming scientist Dr. James Hansen is also not a big fan of the UN Paris accord. See: ‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note – “[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”Climate experts who have looked at the UN climate agreement think Trump is correct to dismantle it. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.” Lomborg added that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.” (Also see: Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours’)

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100Lomborg: “If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree…the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years…Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.” “But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.”
Lomborg Blasts UN Paris Treaty’s $100 Trillion Price Tag For No Temp Impact: ‘You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years’ – Bjorn Lomborg: The debate about the UN Paris Agreement is “about identity politics. It’s about feeling good… but the climate doesn’t care about how you feel.”
Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’

#

Report: Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave Paris climate deal

Latest developments below.

https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-is-pulling-u-s-out-of-paris-climate-deal-2427773025.html?stream=top-stories&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_term=alerts_all

Trump is pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They’re deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal — which could take 3 years — or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme.

Why this matters: Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama’s climate legacy. It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn’t prioritize climate change and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal.

The other outliers: The only other two countries that aren’t supporting the deal are Nicaragua and Syria.

How it happened: A letter from 22 Republican Senators (including Mitch McConnell) that called for a clean exit had reinforced Trump’s instincts to withdraw, and the president had been telling confidants over the past week that he was going to pull out.

Image result for trump climate paris

Climate Skeptics cheer Clexit from UN Paris Agreement
Cheers! Trump Refuses To Sign G7 Statement Endorsing UN Paris Climate Agreement

UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After SHREDDING UN Climate Treaty at Summit Next To Trump Cut-outFull Video of UN Climate Cops Shutting Down SkepticsSkeptics Sought to End Climate Activists Denial Over Trump Rejecting UN Paris Climate AgreementLife size stand up of Trump taken down — Would UN have objected if life size Obama image were displayed instead?

Associated Press: Climate skeptic shreds Paris Agreement at UN ‘global warming’ conference

Watch Associated Press Video of UN armed security escorting Marc Morano & Craig Rucker from UN climate summit

Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate ClaimsClimate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims

Read Full report Here: http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Climate-Talking-Points.pdf

The “Talking Points Memo,” by Marc Morano of CFACT’s Climate Depot, is a complete skeptics’ guide for elected officials, media and the public on how to discuss global warming backed up by dozens of citations to peer-reviewed research. “Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition,” he added.

The G-7’s Outrageous Hypocrisy by John Tamny

An article in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal about the European leg of President Trump’s first foreign trip came with the headline: “Leaders Confront US on Russia, Climate.” In particular, non-US G-7 leaders are all strongly in favor of the 2015 Paris climate agreement that would require participating countries to limit carbon emissions, among other restraints on economic activity.

Trump disagrees, thus the confrontation, owing to his correct belief that the climate deal would prove a barrier to economic growth.That Trump was in opposition to the other G-7 members apparently led to some tense discussion about the US’s desire to exit commitments made during the presidency of Barack Obama. German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed that opinions expressed about the withering climate accord “were exchanged very intensively.”

You Obey, We Ignore

Merkel and other G-7 leaders disappointed in the 45th president have no leg to stand on, and certainly aren’t in the position to confront any US president. Trump should make this plain without an ounce of regret. The latter would be true even if the Paris accord were a credible answer to the theory that says economic progress is a major threat to our existence.

Indeed, the Europeans talk a big game about the importance of commitments, and of how the alleged fight to save the earth “has to be a collective effort,” but they’ve shown no remorse about their own persistent failure to honor their NATO spending pledges.

Translated, these nations expect the United States to weaken its economy based on an unproven, but rather expensive theory about the effects of climate change. But when it comes to living up to a longstanding agreement among NATO members to share the costs of a mutual defense shield, they’ll let the US foot the bill.

More interesting here is that in their desperation to keep the US in the Paris fold, Merkel and others are implicitly saying that any agreement made among leading western European countries without the US isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. With good reason.

So Much for Commitment

Consider non-NATO treaties like Maastricht, in which EU nations agreed to limit their deficit spending so that their debt/GDP ratios would always stay below 60%. Woops. As of 2015, Germany (74.4%), France (89.6%), and Italy (122.3%) were all well above what the G-7 countries committed to when they signed the treaty that led to the euro. As for their commitment to requiring euro member states to individually handle their debts, it too went out the window given the fear among EU members about what debt default would do to certain large banks.

Back to NATO, the European leaders so eager to guilt Trump into a climate commitment not his own have once again shown no commensurate guilt about their own safety being a function of US taxpayers and legislators regularly living up to commitments that they haven’t lived up to.

Mutual Defense

This is particularly galling when we remember that NATO’s mutual defense shield arguably has very little to do with US safety. Lest we forget, the US already has the strongest military in the world, and it’s also quite far from the world’s trouble spots. In short, the US has long stuck to an agreement that weakens it economically, and that has little to nothing to do with its ongoing existence.

Would Americans feel any less secure absent this pricey post-WWII arrangement? At the same time, could NATO survive and would Europeans still feel secure sans American support that gives NATO global relevance?The answer to the previous question explains why the Paris agreement will lose all meaning and relevance if the US backs out. We know this given the historical truth that non-US G-7 nations speak with a forked tongue.

They talk grandly about honoring commitments, but their actions invariably belie their lofty rhetoric. Just as they’ve done with NATO, or with their own inter-European treaties, they want the US to abide the Paris agreement so that they don’t have to.

In that case, President Trump would be very unwise to lend US credibility to an agreement that history says G-7 members will eventually trample on. While the Paris accord surely can’t survive without Trump’s support, neither can his commitment to 3 percent growth survive more government meddling meant to placate shaky G-7 members, all based on a theory. Trump has an easy answer; his rejection of the Paris agreement one that checks the political, economic and rationality boxes.

Trump has an easy answer; his rejection of the Paris agreement one that checks the political, economic and rationality boxes.

John Tamny

John Tamny is a Forbes contributor, editor of RealClearMarkets, a senior fellow in economics at Reason, and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research & Trading. He’s the author of the 2016 book Who Needs the Fed? (Encounter), along with Popular Economics (Regnery Publishing, 2015).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Poll: Overwhelming majority of Israelis prefer sovereignty in Jerusalem over peace deal

Read the Confidential David Brock Memo Outlining Plans to Attack Trump

EDITORS NOTE: Get trained for success by leading entrepreneurs.  Learn more at FEEcon.org

Report: Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave Paris climate deal

WASHINGTON – Multiple news agencies, including Reuters News, are now reporting that President Donald Trump has privately informed several officials in Washington DC that he intends to withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact.

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano statement: “A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) would be a victory for science. Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition.” 

Latest developments below.

Via: https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-tells-confidants-he-plans-to-leave-paris-climate-deal-2424446776.html

Scoop: Trump tells confidants U.S. will quit Paris climate deal

By Jonathan Swan & Amy HarderPresident Trump has privately told multiple people, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave the Paris agreement on climate change, according to three sources with direct knowledge.

Image result for trump climate paris un

Publicly, Trump’s position is that he has not made up his mind and when we asked the White House about these private comments, Director of Strategic Communications Hope Hicks said, “I think his tweet was clear. He will make a decision this week.”

Why this matters: Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could to do unravel Obama’s climate policies. It also sends a stark and combative signal to the rest of the world that working with other nations on climate change isn’t a priority to the Trump administration. And pulling out threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal, given how integral former President Obama was in making it come together in the first place.

Caveat: Although Trump made it clear during the campaign and in multiple conversations before his overseas trip that he favored withdrawal, he has been known to abruptly change his mind — and often floats notions to gauge the reaction of friends and aides. On the trip, he spent many hours with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, powerful advisers who back the deal.

Behind-the-scenes: The mood inside the EPA this week has been one of nervous optimism. In a senior staff meeting earlier this week, Pruitt told aides he wanted them to pump the brakes on publicly lobbying for withdrawal from Paris.

Via: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-idUSKBN18O00J

Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave Paris climate deal – Axio

U.S. President Donald Trump has told “confidants,” including the head of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave a landmark international agreement on climate change, Axios news outlet reported on Saturday, citing three sources with direct knowledge.On Saturday, Trump said in a Twitter post he would make a decision on whether to support the Paris climate deal next week.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

END REUTERS EXCERPT

Climate Depot Note: A UN climate agreement that is totally meaningless when it comes to the climate. University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack  has also noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

Climate Depot Marc Morano adds: “In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!  A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) would be a victory for science. Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition,” Morano added.

NASA’s former lead global warming scientist Dr. James Hansen is not a big fan of the UN Paris accord. See: ‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note – “[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Climate experts who have looked at the UN climate agreement think Trump is correct to dismantle it. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.”

Lomborg added that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.” (Also see: Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours’)

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100

‘If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.’Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: ‘We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree…the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years…Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.’‘But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.’

Lomborg Blasts UN Paris Treaty’s $100 Trillion Price Tag For No Temp Impact: ‘You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years’ – Bjorn Lomborg: The debate about the UN Paris Agreement is “about identity politics. It’s about feeling good… but the climate doesn’t care about how you feel.”

Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’

Climate Skeptics set to cheer Clexit from UN Paris Agreement
Cheers! Trump Refuses To Sign G7 Statement Endorsing UN Paris Climate Agreement

UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After SHREDDING UN Climate Treaty at Summit Next To Trump Cut-outFull Video of UN Climate Cops Shutting Down SkepticsSkeptics Sought to End Climate Activists Denial Over Trump Rejecting UN Paris Climate Agreement

Life size stand up of Trump taken down — Would UN have objected if life size Obama image were displayed instead?

Associated Press: Climate skeptic shreds Paris Agreement at UN ‘global warming’ conference

Watch Associated Press Video of UN armed security escorting Marc Morano & Craig Rucker from UN climate summit

Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate ClaimsClimate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims

Read Full report Here: http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Climate-Talking-Points.pdf

The “Talking Points Memo,” by Marc Morano of CFACT’s Climate Depot, is a complete skeptics’ guide for elected officials, media and the public on how to discuss global warming backed up by dozens of citations to peer-reviewed research. “Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition,” he added.

VIDEO: Bill Nye the Science Lie

Have you ever wondered how the area we now know as Kansas has, over time, gone from being under 2500 feet of water to being under 2 miles of ice and back to what it is, today? Well, chances are, it wasn’t fossil fuel burning power plants.

This video does tend to put things in perspective.

RELATED ARTICLE: Al Gore: Syrian civil war and Arab Spring both resulted from climate change/food riots