VIDEO: Alex Epstein — Harvard Business School Fireside Chat

A few weeks ago I was joined by my favorite energy economist, Michael Lynch, for a fireside chat hosted by Harvard Business School. It was a great discussion and the audience asked a lot of thoughtful questions. You can now view the video of that event:


Mr. Epstein Goes to Washington

I’ll be in DC the week of November 27 to share my approach to reframing the energy debate with some high-level officials. It looks like I’ll be speaking to the Congressional Coal Caucus on Wednesday, November 29. On November 30, I’ll be speaking at the Crossroads IV: Energy and Climate Policy Summit in Washington, D.C. The event is presented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Heritage Foundation and includes some of the world’s leading scientists, policy makers, entrepreneurs, and energy experts. I will be speaking on the moral case for fossil fuels. The event is nearly sold out, but there will be a waiting list. You can find more information at https://www.crossroads-summit.com.


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. Hire me to speak at your next event.
  2. 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.
  3. Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.

For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this email and put “Workshop” in the subject line.

Gun Controllers Choose to Ignore Cases of Good Guys with Guns

Less than three hours after the tragedy at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was looking to score political points. As is his custom, Murphy fired off a tweet admonishing his colleagues for their refusal to submit to the gun control lobby’s agenda. However, in the following hours, as more information about the shooting became available, it became clear the event didn’t fit so neatly into Murphy’s preconceived anti-gun narrative.

Reports began to come out that an armed citizen, later identified as NRA Member and former NRA Instructor Stephen Willeford, had engaged the shooter with his own firearm, prompting the killer to flee the scene. With little information and no qualms about denigrating the brave actions of an American hero, the omniscient Murphy tweeted, “Let’s be clear – nobody ‘stopped’ this shooting…” At the time Willeford engaged the shooter, there were at least 20 people still alive inside the church. A heart-rending account provided to the Washington Post by David Brown, son of wounded churchgoer Farida Brown, made clear that Farida Brown feared the shooter was not finished killing when Willeford came on the scene.

Murphy’s attempt to dismiss Willeford’s courageous response to the shooting is in keeping with gun control advocates’ longstanding messaging efforts and shows the depths anti-gun activists will sink to bury the facts. According to these gun-control proponents, good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns.

In order to justify this position, gun control activists ignore cases where armed civilians have put a halt to mass violence. Like a perverse Goldilocks, gun controllers will discount cases where a criminal was stopped before they were able to carry out sufficient carnage, and, as in the case of the shooting in Southerland Springs, dismiss a case where the killer was able to exact significant violence before an armed citizen could arrive.

When you look past gun control advocates and much of the media’s biased filtering, there are a number of documented cases where armed citizens have confronted these types of killers and likely saved lives. Here are just a handful:

On August 1, 1966, a madman went to the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin Tower and began firing at those on the ground, eventually killing 14. During the shooting, several citizens retrieved their personal firearms and returned fire. According to a university effort to compile a complete historical record of the incident, “The ground fire did pin down Whitman, most likely keeping him from killing more people.” One eyewitness told Texas Monthly in 2006, “It seemed like every other guy had a rifle. There was a sort of cowboy atmosphere, this ‘Let’s get him’ spirit.”

On January 16, 2002, a disgruntled former student returned to Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. and shot two school officials. According to an account from student Tracy Bridges printed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, he and fellow student Michael Gross retrieved firearms from their vehicles and went to confront the shooter. Along with two other students, Bridges and Gross were able to subdue the killer until police could arrive. In his book, The Bias Against Guns, Economist John Lott pointed out that “out of 208 news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.”

On December 9, 2007, a man entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. after having killed two people earlier in day at a Christian center in Arvada, Colo. The killer was met by volunteer armed church security guard Jeanne Assam. Describing her actions, Assam said, “I took cover. I identified myself. I engaged him. I took him down.” Following the incident, Church Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam a hero and explained, “Three people are needlessly dead, but many more lives could have been lost.” 

On April 17, 2015, a man fired into a crowd of people in Chicago’s Logan Square. John Hendricks, an Uber driver and Right-to-Carry permit holder, drew a handgun and shot the assailant, who collapsed onto the sidewalk. Recalling his experience for the Chicago Tribune, Hendricks explained, “There was a threat to me and I helped somebody in the process as well… It’s a positive feeling.”

On May 5, 2015, a deranged man drove into the parking lot of a fire station in New Holland, S.C. According to a report from WIS-TV, several children and firefighters were in the lot. The man then exited his vehicle with a firearm and shot into the air and at his own automobile. Firefighter Gary Knoll and one of his colleagues, both Right-to-Carry permit holders, drew firearms and confronted the man. Knoll and his colleagues were able to disarm the man and detain him until police could arrive. Speaking to the local media about the importance of exercising the Right-to-Carry, Knoll said, “It saved a life, if not multiple.”

On May 3, 2017, a man entered the Zona Caliente sports bar in Arlington, Texas, began speaking incoherently, and opened fire. At the time of the shooting, there were more than a dozen people inside the restaurant. A patron, who was also a Right-to-Carry permit holder, shot and killed the shooter, ending the incident. Arlington Police Spokesman Christopher Cook told the Dallas Morning News that the armed citizen was a “hero,” and noted that he “prevented further loss of life.”

In an interview with NRA, Willeford recalled the moment when he became aware of the gunfire at the church and said, “I kept hearing those shots and I knew every shot might be representing another person getting hit by a bullet.” Acting as fast as he could, Willeford retrieved his rifle, grabbed a handful of ammunition, and raced out his door barefoot towards the church. Anyone who has seen the NRA video, or Willeford’s other interviews, can see the anguish of a man who wishes he could have done even more to protect his community. Maybe Willeford’s heroic response wasn’t enough for Murphy to consider him a good guy with a gun, but the survivors in Sutherland Springs and the decent portion of America likely disagree.

How Many Democrats Believe Your Gender Can Be Different Than Biological Sex

Most of us didn’t need a poll to show us that liberals have lost their grip on reality. But Pew Research Center is providing one anyway.

In a survey that will probably leave you speechless about the radical bent of President Barack Obama’s party, Pew asked Americans what they really think about gender identity. If the results don’t surprise you, check your pulse.

First, the good news. A majority of Americans (though far less than one might guess, 54 percent) still believe that a person’s gender is “determined at birth.” Fewer, 44 percent, think someone “can be a man or woman even if that is different than the sex they were assigned at birth.”

That’s right. Only a 10 percent gap separates Americans on what, a decade ago, would have been a consensus issue. Now, after eight years of chipping away at the country’s moral sensibilities with bathroom mandates, Caitlyn Jenner homages, and Chelsea Manning pardons, the activist left’s quiet war on gender is having its effect.

But so far, it’s a one-sided victory. An overwhelming number of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (80 percent) aren’t playing these liberals’ game of make believe. They think that a person is born whatever gender they truly are. Amazingly, an enormous number of Democrats and Democratic leaners disagree: 64 percent, to be exact. That’s a jaw-dropping population of political misled and scientifically misguided people.

No wonder we’re having to debate commonsense bathroom guidelines, driver’s licenses, classroom pronouns, and military policy. With the exception of black Democrats and Hispanic Democrats, (55 percent and 41 percent, respectively), Obama’s reality-optional politics have had a major effect on his party’s agenda.

Breitbart broke down Pew’s numbers and uncovered this stunner: “The survey,” Neil Munro points out, “finds that Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more education are more likely than other Democrats to say a person’s gender can be different from the sex they were assigned at birth. About three-quarters (77 percent ) of Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more say this, compared with 60 percent of Democrats with some college and 57 percent of those with a high school diploma or less. No such [education] divide exists among Republicans.”

In other words, the supposedly “more educated” class of Democrats are the ones denying science and basic biology. Republicans, by contrast, stand steadfastly behind a person’s DNA as the defining factor of a person’s gender—regardless of their age, race, or education.

Asked if America has done enough to accommodate people who identify as transgender, only 32 percent say the country has gone “too far.” Thirty-nine percent think we haven’t gone far enough.

They’re the ones willing to sacrifice women and children’s safety, national security, and religious liberty on the altar of liberal deception. They’re the ones eager to discard reality as a means to a political end. But regardless of what they say, truth is not up for self-determination. And a nation that thinks otherwise not only deceives itself, but dooms itself as well.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council. Twitter: .

The Real Scandal in the Alabama Senate Race [Video]

Scandals take many forms. If you could be transported back to antebellum times, for example, would you not find the desire to perpetuate the legal institution of slavery scandalous? This brings us to the Alabama special election to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacant Senate seat, a contest now front-and-center with the recent sex allegations made against GOP hopeful Judge Roy Moore. Moore denies the charges, but there are certain things that can’t be denied.

Democrat Doug Jones, Moore’s opponent, has some noteworthy positions. He’s pro-prenatal infanticide. It’s not a stance he took 40 years ago but has since abandoned, and it doesn’t mean he’s accused of once having kissed an underage girl.

It means he believes in the murder of underage girls — and boys. That’s beyond scandalous.

Jones supports de-facto amnesty, meaning, he wouldn’t even require illegal aliens to return to their home countries before being granted citizenship. This undermines the rule of law and exemplifies the treasonous attitude that subordinates the good of one’s countrymen to the good of invading foreigners — and all because they’ll vote Democrat after being naturalized. Selling out your culture for political power is scandal on steroids.

Jones supports the regulation of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food, because he pushes the dubious global-warmingclimate-change, uh, “global climate disruption” agenda. Since it’s average Americans who’ll pay these regulations’ costs, this serves to further impoverish the struggling. That’s scandalous.

Jones advocates the unscientific, socially disastrous “transgender” agenda. First, he said President Trump was “wrong, wrong, wrong” to return to the longtime status quo of banning so-called “transgender” people from the military; this means he supports social experimentation in the armed forces.

Second, he also supports allowing boys masquerading as girls to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. In fact, he said that Trump’s rescinding of Barack Obama’s school guidance to that effect was “wrong, wrong, wrong!” (Because, you see, when you say that way it makes the other guy three times as wrong.) By the way, below is a video of Jones expressing these sentiments just last month.

Oh, yeah — the above is scandalous, too.

In addition, Jones advocates using taxpayer money to fund fanciful, economically nonviable energy schemes such as solar, wind and thermal energy. Apparently, he’d like to repeat Obama’s “green energy” boondoggles (e.g., Solyndra), which only turned out green in that they wasted 2.2 billion worth of Americans’ greenbacks.

But Jones loves spending other people’s money. While he doesn’t believe in cutting your taxes to spur economic growth, he thinks having government give away your tax money will do so.

Lastly, despite the fact that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, has caused millions of Americans’ healthcare premiums to rise and created co-ops that have collapsed right and left, Jones opposes rescinding the program. Well, no matter. He’ll have great healthcare through the Senate if he wins December 12.

As for the last four positions, some would say calling them scandalous is a stretch, so you can apply your own adjective (stupid comes to mind). And whatever you might prefer for characterizing all his positions, “old” and “repudiated” don’t fit. “Current” sure does, though.

So killing babies, killing the rule of law, killing with regulations, killing tradition and kids’ right to privacy, killing our pocketbooks, killing the economy and killing healthcare (sounds like an alternate-universe Bill O’Reilly book series). In the scandal department, Roy Moore has a long way to go to have a chance of keeping up with the Joneses.

Simply put, Doug Jones is the most scandalous of creatures: a leftist radical who is “wrong, wrong, wrong” on the issues. It’s a wonder he isn’t seeking office in California, New York, Massachusetts or North Korea. Running someone whose positions are so wholly contrary to Alabaman culture is a slap in the face to the state. Is this a political version of Punk’d?

If I lived in Alabama, on December 12 I’d vote for Judge Roy Moore while holding my nose — but only because the stench from Doug Jones’ name would be rising right from the ballot.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hey Mitch, 63% Of Alabama Voters Still Support Judge Roy Moore ⋆ WayneDupree.com

Alabama ABC Affiliate Can’t Find One Voter Who Believes WaPo Report About Roy Moore in Man-on-the-Street Segment – Breitbart

A Champagne Toast to America’s withdrawal from the UN Paris Climate Accord

CFACT joined a champagne toast to America’s withdrawal from the UN’s Paris Climate Accord at the EIKE scientific conference in Dusseldorf.

Conference-goers are united in their conviction that the UN imposes massive economic and political costs upon developed nations that cannot be justified by the benefits, of which there may be none, flowing from the pact.

Over in Bonn, left-wing NGOs and developing nations are back to agitating for wealthy nations to pick up the tab for “loss and damage” suffered by poor countries when extreme weather strikes.  That today’s weather would be the same whether people drive cars and use electricity, or not, does not enter into it.  They’re not having much success.

President Trump’s American delegation joined with the EU and Australia in blocking an effort of “like-minded” nations led by China and India to impose new obligations before Paris kicks in in 2020.

If the COP adopts new emissions reductions and financial obligations, China and India and their cohorts would be conveniently exempt.  The UN calls this “differentiated responsibilities.”  We call it madness, considering that it is China, India and the rest that are opening new coal plants and increasing their CO2 emissions (if that’s your thing) as fast as their economies will allow.

Here in Dusseldorf, delegates from various European countries all report a common experience.  The global warming mindset in Europe, though still overwhelming, is weakening.  More people are learning the facts about the warming campaign and the media is loosening up and allowing more skeptical voices to be heard.

If truly all voices could be heard, especially those of climate realists, UN global warming policy would collapse in ruins.  Not only does it get the science wrong, but the “solutions” it demands are expensive wastes that solve nothing.

Europeans are steadily joining the ranks of the Americans who have figured this out.

Once you’ve seen that the emperor has no clothes it’s almost impossible to “unsee” it.

AI Can Never Be Made ‘Unbiased’

Translating identity politics doublethink into software is a programming impossibility.

Bill Frezza

by  Bill Frezza

This month’s issue of MIT Technology Review, my alma mater’s flagship magazine of technology fashion, is entirely devoted to Artificial Intelligence (AI), making the rounds for at least the third time in my career as both panacea and bogeyman. Sprinkled among the long form articles are colorful little one-page warnings with titles like “The Dangers of Tech-Bro AI” and “How to Root Out Hidden Biases in AI.” In addition to the timeless fear of losing our jobs to machines, these pieces argue that right-thinking people must be on the lookout for algorithms that generate unfairness, demanding instead that our AI behave ethically.

Grab the popcorn, this should be fun to watch.

Ethics Are Not, and Never Have Been, Absolute

History shows that people can be made to believe that all sorts of things are ethical, recoiling in horror over things that other people consider ethical. Our tribal nature renders us vulnerable to the will of the leader, or the mob, doing things in groups that we would never consider doing individually. We also have a proven track record of embracing logical contradictions, using post hoc rationalization to justify decisions as it suits us.Nowhere is this more evident than in the contemporary identity politics movement. Here concepts like privilege and intersectionality collide with murky definitions of race and gender to create a moral morass so thick that only the brave or foolhardy dare wade in. Not that there is anything new about this. Philosophers, clerics, ethicists, legislators, jurors, and everyday people have spent eons arguing about right and wrong. A rich body of literature documents society’s ever-changing ethical consensus, or lack thereof.

So next time you hear an expert demand that we develop ethical AI, ask who will be the arbiter of what constitutes correct and incorrect ethics? And once they solve the ancient problem of who watches the watchmen (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?), exactly how do they plan to translate their demands for “fairness” into code? Sure, software is capable of dealing with uncertainty, incomplete knowledge, and complex conditional circumstances. It can even use fuzzy logic to solve certain classes of problems. But be careful what you ask for when you feed murky definitions into a computer while expecting it to embrace blatant contradictions.

Ambiguity Abounds

Let me give an example of a murky definition. Define race, ethnicity, and, these days, gender in a manner that a computer can use as the basis for making ethical decisions. How many races are there? How do we classify mixed-race people? What are the unambiguous determinants of ethnicity? Which are the privileged ones and which are the underprivileged ones? And while I used to believe there were only two genders and that these were biologically determined, I am now assured that I am wrong.

Most people skate by with Justice Potter Stewart “I know it when I see it” answers to vexing questions like these. And that may be fine for humans with wetware brains, imprecise use of language, and a practiced ability to duck hard problems. But that’s not so fine for software running on digital machines that literally can only do what they are told. In this particular example, solving the murky definition problem by declaring that computers accept whatever boxes people check on forms is not only a total cop out but surely invites unethical people to game the system seeking unfair advantage, as some infamous cases revealed.Then there is the problem of embracing contradictions; that is, simultaneously believing that something can be A and not-A at the same time, and in all respects. Admit it: we do it all the time. It makes us human. Even doctrinaire Aristotelians like Ayn Rand fall into this trap. The dynamic tension generated by the contradictions swirling in our heads provides rich fodder for religion, humor, art, drama, and macroeconomics.

Imagining an “ethical” AI trying to please its human masters operating under these conditions brings up images of Captain Kirk outsmarting evil computers by forcing them to perseverate on some glaring contradiction at the root of their programming. The computers ended up smoking until they blew themselves up. Unlike the guy who tried to outsmart his fellow citizens by rubbing their noses in their contradictions. They made him drink hemlock.

Do I have an answer to how we can make AI unbiased? Of course not. And neither do the self-appointed experts demanding that we do. Long-haul truck drivers may well be at risk of losing their jobs to AI, but tendentious pundits and class-action lawyers will never be short of work.

Bill Frezza

Bill Frezza

Bill Frezza is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

A Traditional Marriage Student Group Has Been Branded a ‘Hate Group’

In today’s bitter political climate, there are few labels more intellectually lazy than “hate group.” When you label an entity as a “hate group,” you automatically demonize it and remove from your shoulders any mantle of responsibility to dialogue or engage in civil discourse with this denounced entity.

This cowardly melodrama is currently playing out at our nation’s oldest Catholic university, where a student group has come under attack for taking the allegedly “hateful” position that Christianity got it right when it said sexual relations were meant for marriage, and that marriage was meant to be between a man and woman.

Students at Georgetown University founded Love Saxa, an affiliate of the Love & Fidelity Network, because they saw a gaping void on campus. In the face of the hook-up culture, widespread pornography usage, increasing sexual assaults, and attacks on the institution of marriage, Love Saxa sought to be a voice that would argue for the cultivation of healthy relationships, the repossession of sexual integrity, and the defense of traditional marriage.

Love Saxa’s position is not a popular one, particularly on a D.C. campus of politically active millennials. But one would hope that its place at a Catholic university, even one so liberal as Georgetown, would provide some level of security. But when the utter complacency of the Georgetown University administration is combined with the insatiable appetite of social justice warriors, no strand of Orthodox Christianity can be left unthreatened.

Last week, members of Georgetown’s Pride group filed a petition to sanction Love Saxa and strip it of its university funding and ability to operate on campus. Several days earlier, the editorial board of Georgetown’s student paper The Hoya—whose staff clearly hold up CNN and The New York Times as paragons of journalistic integrity—penned an op-ed accusing Love Saxa of fostering hostility and intolerance because of its commitment to the Christian view of procreative marriage.

The authors of the article at least recognize that Love Saxa’s mission statement is in line with the Catholic Church’s view of marriage and sexuality; however, their faculties of logic fail them when they go on to claim that despite upholding the same faith as its university, Love Saxa is violating the university’s code of conduct by arguing against same-sex marriage.

But then, logic and rationality needn’t play a large role when one can simply bandy about “hate group” terminology. The left’s modus operandi appears to be to toss out words like “intolerant” and “dehumanizing” alongside a few accusations of “hostility” and “bigotry” and hope that in the subsequent maelstrom of indignant outcries, no one notices the utter lack of coherency in its position.

Unfortunately, their ploy has proven successful far too frequently. Even now, in the face of this sham of a petition, Georgetown’s official statement is predictably weak, and it even appears to be giving a semblance of credence to the calls to silence Love Saxa: “As a Catholic and Jesuit institution, Georgetown listens deeply and discerningly to the plurality of voices that exist among our students, faculty, and staff and is committed to the care of each member of our community,” Rachel Pugh, a university spokesperson, said.

Pugh provides no further clarification of how the school will deal with a “plurality of voices” when only one voice is defending the faith it purports to believe.

G.K. Chesterton wrote that “tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction,” and, speaking as a Georgetown alumnae and a founding board member of Love Saxa, it is unfortunate—though I confess not entirely unexpected—that Georgetown is once again revealing the tepidity of its own commitment to Catholicism, and choosing the “tolerant” path over that of conviction.

Perhaps they think doing so will quiet the liberal voices calling for the disbanding of Love Saxa, but that is a position so naive as to be indefensible. The left has proven that it does not stop in its quest to silence its opposition, no matter how “discerningly” that opposition hears its complaints. No compromise is sufficient for it. Once given an inch, these forces of illiberal liberalism demand a mile.

Chad Gasman, a sophomore at Georgetown and the president of GU Pride, told The Hoya that this petition, which he helped to file, will “force Georgetown University to actually be queer-friendly and queer-affirming.” Such a statement reveals that nothing short of an open endorsement of all same-sex relationships, including marriage, will be enough, no matter how much it defies the faith of the institution they have chosen to attend.

On Tuesday, the university will vote on whether or not to defund the club. If Love Saxa is banned from defending the Christian vision of sexuality and marriage, how will the Jesuits of Georgetown be able to refrain from referring to their own church as a “hate group?” How long before they will be called on to condemn the doctrinal tenets of Catholicism?

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Kelly Marcum

Kelly Marcum is the office coordinator for government affairs at the Family Research Council, where she also tracks legislation on abstinence education and human trafficking.

EDITORS NOTE: The vote on Love Saxa was postponedOriginally published in Tony Perkins’ “Washington Update,” which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

Climate Not Cooperating: Global Temperatures Continue to Drop

It’s not easy to be a climate campaigner.  From Gore on down, their hysterical predictions never seem to come to pass.

If they didn’t play in a rigged game, they’d have no game at all.

Marc Morano compiles a host of their failed prophecies of doom-and-gloom over at CFACT’s award-winning Climate Depot news and information service.

Make Climate Depot a regular destination as you read your daily news.  If you check in at the Depot right now, in fact, you’ll find a number of stories Marc has featured that debunk the global warming narrative left-wing groups are putting out today.

Marc shared a post from Britain’s Global Warming Policy Foundation that shows the most recent, official global temperature data from the U.K.  Take a look at the graph below.

Warming pressure groups, not surprisingly, shamelessly took advantage of the recent El Niño to proclaim warmer temperatures.  The part they inconveniently left out, however, was that the same thing happened in 1998 and periodically every so often back into time.  El Niños occur whether you drive a car, heat your home, use electricity … or not.  Now, as CFACT predicted on numerous occasions, temperatures are settling back down after the El Niño ended.  Surprise, surprise … not!

Marc shared another post from the Los Angeles Review of Books that gives quite the description of “news anchors in the rain” hyping Florida’s Hurricane Irma, but having a hard time justifying the hype with images of the actual storm.  Hurricanes can be devastating, as those in Puerto Rico know all too well, however, as you can also see from the graph below, temperatures have been varying in recent years far less than the climate crowd told us they would, far too little to account for the intensity of today’s storms.  Again, your SUV and refrigerator are not to blame for today’s weather whatsoever.

CFACT’s Facebook page is another place where hundreds of thousands of people regularly get the latest on all things climate.  Take a moment to “Like” CFACT on Facebook today!

Finally, don’t forget to check in regularly at CFACT.orgClimate Depot, and Facebook, to unearth the facts the media buries, and most importantly … share them with your friends!

Facts are powerful things.  Help us ensure they are heard!

Inspectors Stumble on Ghoulish Scene at Abortion Chain

In the abortion debate, there aren’t many areas where the two sides agree. But shouldn’t women’s safety be one of them? Whole Woman’s Health doesn’t think so, and its latest inspection report proves it. The company’s network of abortion centers is making headlines in Texas for subjecting mothers to third-world conditions that show just how little respect the industry has for the women it claims to protect.

Over a six-year period, the Texas Department of State Health Services stumbled on one horrifying scene after another in the group’s chain of facilities. Despite raking in millions from its abortion business, Whole Women’s Health didn’t spend any of it ensuring that women had a safe or clean experience. They were grisly scenes for investigators, who, unfortunately, are used to the disgusting conditions of many abortion businesses. Health workers found dirty and rusty equipment, tools that had been used on multiple patients without being disinfected, bloody suction machines, and staff that weren’t trained or licensed for the procedures they were performing.

“A 2016 report on the McAllen, Texas facility notes a counter so warped it ‘was no longer a wipeable surface, which could harbor bacteria and infectious matter.’ The reports also show cracks, rips, and tears on exam tables’ covers” and other holes that inspectors thought rodents were using to enter the facility, the Washington Free Beacon reports. Lethal prescriptions in one of the Austin locations were completely unaccounted for, and a Beaumont center didn’t even have a registered nurse on staff — a blatant violation of Texas law.

As FRC’s Arina Grossu points out, this is what happens when restaurants and tanning salons are more closely regulated than the abortion industry. “Anyone who cares about women’s health and safety should want abortion facilities to be frequently inspected, no matter what their position is on abortion… [J]ust because it has to do with a hot-button topic doesn’t mean that the abortion industry should get a free pass.”

Like most of the industry, groups like Whole Women’s Health say they care about women but refuse to prove it with common-sense standards. Other abortion tycoons, like Planned Parenthood, refuse to spare the money to upgrade their systems and instead blow millions of dollars in court fighting to keep their business’s shoddy standards in place.

While the CEO of Whole Women’s Health has insisted “there is no safety problem around abortion in Texas,” her own network is exposing mothers to an environment most people wouldn’t want their pets in. Unfortunately, these are the effects of the gradual dulling of the senses for people in the abortion industry. If you destroy innocent lives day in and day out, how could you possibly care about the condition of patients? In the end, the only way to justify taking lives is to become calloused to them.

According to Texas officials, agents have flagged and cited this same company for violating safety standards, “some dozens of times.” It’s time for Washington stop running when the Left yells about a “war on women” and start putting the responsibility for this war where it belongs: on the abortion industry and the pandering politicians who do their bidding.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the October 31 Washington Update:

Trans Ruling Booed by Legal Experts

Columnist: ‘If you want to understand why people like Trump, watch VVS’

Duke University Sued Over Religious Discrimination Against Pro-Life Nurse

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit last Friday on behalf of Sara T. Pedro, a Catholic nurse in the Emergency Department of Duke University Hospital, who was discriminated and retaliated against after her employer learned of her pro-life religious beliefs.  Named as defendants in the lawsuit are both Duke University and Duke University Health System, Inc. (“Duke”).

Tyler Brooks, the TMLC attorney handling the case, commented: “This case illustrates the unfortunate dangers faced today by individuals who seek to remain faithful to their religious beliefs in the workplace.”

“With this lawsuit, however, we intend to show that even very large employers must respect the civil rights of their Christian employees,” said Mr. Brooks.

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, describes how Ms. Pedro compiled an unblemished record during her eight years of work as a nurse prior to being hired by Duke.

During a classroom orientation, a group of newly-hired nurses that included Ms. Pedro was told by a nursing supervisor that Duke categorically refuses to grant religious accommodations for Emergency Department employees who object to assisting in abortions. Learning about Duke’s pro-abortion policy for the first time, Ms. Pedro made written requests for religious accommodation because of her opposition to abortion. Her requests motivated acts of discrimination and retaliation by Duke in violation of federal and state laws.

Duke’s policy and actions violate several federal and state laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Labor Standards Act, North Carolina’s Wage and Hour Act, and North Carolina common law.

The federal lawsuit details several specific acts of retaliation as a result of Ms. Pedro’s requests for religious accommodation. For example, Duke refused to advance Ms. Pedro from training status to regular duty, issued her a written warning for vague and unsubstantiated reasons, and then placed her on administrative leave when she attempted to formally dispute the warning.

To this day, nearly a year after it was first made, Duke has not issued a final decision on Ms. Pedro’s request to be excused from assisting in abortions.  In her complaint, Ms. Pedro alleges that Duke sought to force her out of her job rather than accommodate her religious beliefs as required by Title VII.

The first two paragraphs of TMLC’s complaint describe the essence of the lawsuit:

“At its heart, this case presents a simple yet important question: Must a devout Catholic abandon fundamental tenets of her faith if she wishes to be employed as a nurse at Duke University Hospital?  Despite the fact that Defendant Duke has answered ‘yes’ to this question, federal and state civil rights laws say otherwise. Therefore, Plaintiff Sara Theresa Pedro brings this action to vindicate her rights under the law.

An employee does not forfeit her right to practice her religion and abide by the tenets of her faith when she enters the workplace.”

Read TMLCs entire Federal Complaint here.

ABOUT THE THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Will Highways Become Obsolete?

Technology’s rapidly changing landscape will transform the way we travel in the next decade, much less the next half century. Sure as the sun rises, private innovators like Elon Musk will ensure outmoded travel will be obsolete in the near term. So, toll roads and the long arm of government attempting to manage our morning commute through toll ‘managed’ lanes won’t be necessary.

blue_logo
By Terri Hall

New modes of transport could replace the need for cars, sooner rather than later.

You’d think it’s counterproductive for Elon Musk to support something that could eliminate the need for his own Tesla self-driving cars, but innovators tend to be on the cutting edge of new technologies and Hyperloop One is certainly worth watching.

Hyperloop is a new form of transportation that propels a pod (whether people or cargo) through a tube across an elevated track using magnetic levitation technology. The company claims it could take a passenger from Houston to Dallas in under 30 minutes — at airline speeds of 620 MPH without turbulence or drag — at a fraction of the cost. At least that’s how it’s being promoted.

That beats high speed rail systems, including the one being planned by Japan-based Texas Central Railway, whose speeds top out at 205 MPH. The advantage of a Hyperloop type of system over the traditional high speed rail is it would not require the massive taking of rural land, eliminating the ‘eminent domain for private gain’ problem, since it’s elevated and could potentially be built within existing highway real estate. Nor would a Hyperloop create the noise problems of high speed trains because it’s inside a tube without air drag.

Hyperloop One has announced the ten teams for its Global Challenge representing the U.S., UK, Mexico, India, and Canada along with winning routes it chose from a field of hundreds of applicants to move forward with prototypes and feasibility studies, with one route set for Dallas-Laredo-Houston.

The company conducted its first successful test in July 2017, and it will continue to test the technology for longer distances and at greater and greater speeds. It plans to have a system fully operational by 2020. The company has already raised $160 million for the task.

While Hyperloop technology could transform the future of transportation, it still has many of the challenges of traditional highspeed rail. How do you get passengers from the outskirts of urban centers to their final destinations inside city centers? So far, Uber and rideshare companies have solved the door-to-door problem just fine without the fancy-dancy, hi-tech Hyperloop track. But to some extent, ridesharing contributes to the road congestion. Hyperloop would bypass it.

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has already entered into an agreement with AECOM to explore Hyperloop’s feasibility to help address the state’s mobility issues. The open question remains, who’s going to pay for such a system? Will it be entirely private funding? Aren’t the Colorado taxpayers footing at least part of the bill by entering into a public-private partnership (P3), a controversial contracting method often considered corporate welfare?

Ready for the Jetsons?

Uber announced its plans to use Dallas as its test market for a new flying car.

Your read that right. It’s called Uber Elevate and it would create a fleet of cars that can do vertical takeoff and landing or VTOLs. One of the reasons the company chose Dallas as its testing ground is its high concentration of aviators, with Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and Bell Helicopter based there.

Jeff Holden, Uber’s Chief Product Officer says it expects to begin testing as early as 2020. While many skeptics quickly emerged with the obvious concerns about commuters encountering the same potential for congestion while in the air along with safety concerns for those who have no experience in flying, the meteoric rise of drone users demonstrates the capacity for such new flying technologies to find a niche, if not a mass market in the future.

Out with the Old, In with the New

With the White House and state highway departments scurrying to enter into long-term P3 contracts for toll roads, it’s seems so yesterday when taking the vast possibilities of new technology and travel innovations into consideration. Just a few years ago, driverless cars were all the rage and many thought that would take driving into the 21st century — and it will, with the potential to use platooning vehicles and driver-to-driver communications to eliminate much of today’s urban congestion. While new technologies like the Hyperloop and flying cars seemed like outlandish futuristic pipe dreams even a decade ago, real companies and real investors are putting up serious cash to make the unthinkable a reality to help solve the endless scourge of road congestion.

So, note to policy makers. Before you rush into 50-99-year sweetheart deals with private, mostly foreign toll operators using today’s limited old school data and thinking, buyer beware.

Technology’s rapidly changing landscape will transform the way we travel in the next decade, much less the next half century. Sure as the sun rises, private innovators like Elon Musk will ensure outmoded travel will be obsolete in the near term. So, toll roads and the long arm of government attempting to manage our morning commute through toll ‘managed’ lanes won’t be necessary.

Bureaucrats need not apply.


TERRI HALL

Terri Hall is the founder of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF), which defends against eminent domain abuse and promotes non-toll transportation solutions. She’s a home school mother of ten turned citizen activist. Ms. Hall is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis of the Conservative-Online-Journalism Center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Pulls the Plug on Private Toll Roads, Center…

A Track Record of Toll Road Failures at Taxpayers …

Trump Floats Gas Tax Increase After Cold Reception…

Former Clinton HUD Secretary Calls for More Tolls …

Texas’ first foreign-owned toll road handed …

‘Men’ Get Pregnant Too, British Government Declares

The phrase “pregnant woman” needs to be more inclusive and termed “pregnant people” in a U.N. treaty, the British government announced on Monday.

The British government’s suggestion on proposed amendments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights claims the wording excludes pregnant transgender people. The treaty says “pregnant women” are protected and not subject to the death penalty, reported The Times.

dcnf-logo

The current terminology excludes transgender people who have given birth, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office claims.

“We requested that the U.N. Human Rights Committee made it clear that the same right extends to pregnant transgender people,” Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials told The Times.

There are two transgender men on record in the U.K. who have given birth after having a sex change. The biological women kept their womb and ovaries during the change, according to the Sunday report.

Some feminists are not happy about the terminology.

“This isn’t inclusion. This is making women unmentionable,” said prominent feminist writer Sarah Ditum. “Having a female body and knowing what that means for reproduction doesn’t make you ‘exclusionary.’ Forcing us to decorously scrub out any reference to our sex on pain of being called bigots is an insult.”

The British government is also considering removing a census question that asks citizens to identify gender and biological sex for the 2021 census.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s comments comes after Prime Minister Theresa May announced last week that the Gender Recognition Act will likely soon be amended to let people change genders without a doctor’s approval.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

VIDEO: Drug Companies Paid Doctors to Prescribe Opioids that Kill 33,000 Yearly

$46 million was paid to 68,000 Medical doctors for their opioid prescriptions as kick-backs, according to the CDC.

“This is outrageous and just the latest example of how drug companies are killing people with their products,” says Dr. Richard Ruhling, a retired physician who once relieved a doctor for a week in a pain clinic where everyone who came in was addicted to opioids or Xanax.

Ruhling cites his own experiences to indicate this problem shouldn’t have to exist. His solution? Doctors should quit prescribing those drugs that are so addictive.

Is it heartless not to prescribe strong drugs for patients who complain of pain?

Ruhling says in his office and emergency room practice, he never initiated a prescription for those substances now seen as the cause of deaths.

Darvon or Tylenol with Codeine are far less addictive and go a long ways to cutting pain, and there is nothing wrong with living with some pain while the body heals.

Ruhling was hit by a taxi in New York City. He woke up on the street with a crowd around him and they said lay still, an ambulance is coming. Ruhling stood up, almost fainted, but said he was ok and limped off with pain in his leg.

X-rays by an orthopedic friend showed a fractured fibula (non-weight bearing side bone in the lower leg) and Ruhling’s knee felt like a pumpkin. His leg turned purple from a broken artery but bleeding stopped from the pressure of the swelling.

He got phlebitis (inflammation of the leg vein) that throbbed and kept him awake at night. What he did to treat it is explained in a video, on this opioid problem…

Each night it got a little better. He used a cane and limped to take the weight off the leg while getting around as it healed. His leg healed without the need for surgery or habit-forming drugs that his orthopedic friend offered.

A more common problem is men at work who hurt their low back by heavy lifting and instead of seeing a chiropractor (first choice in Europe), they go to an MD who takes back x-rays that rarely show anything and he recommends moist heat and bed rest and an Rx for pain.

But if his Rx is an opioid, it is very easy for that patient to become addicted because they often return to work too early because the Rx masks the pain so well, and when they try to stop it, they feel the pain and need to continue…a perfect setup for a failed recovery and opioid addiction, says Ruhling.

But we shouldn’t look for improvement anytime soon because drug companies spend $400 million a year on donations to congress for their re-election campaigns according to Marcia Angell, MD, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. She made that statement decades ago, it’s probably tripled by now, says Ruhling, adding that the FDA also gets millions from big pharma yearly.

Drug opioid overdose deaths by state in 2014.

Angell’s interview on 60 Minutes referenced her book, “The Truth About the Drug Companies.” She should have included a chapter on congress.

Every nation practicing western medicine is on the brink of bankruptcy because of pharmaceutical greed (drugs costing 10x more than 50 or 60 years ago).

Drug companies deceive MD’s as to the benefits of drugs while they fill the Physicians Desk Reference with 3500 pages of adverse drug reactions, contraindications, drug interactions, pregnancy warnings, carcinogenesis, etc.

Pharmacology evolved from toxicology which studied how much chemical killed half the lab rats. Not much has changed.

“In the widest sense of the word, every drug is by definition a poison. Pharmacology and toxicology are one, and the art of medicine is to use these poisons beneficially.” Drill’s Textbook of Pharmacology in Medicine, chapter 5, Mechanisms of Drug Action.

The last warning in the Bible is a call to come out of Babylon which includes our healthcare system as a leading cause of death. The Bible says, “for by her sorceries [Greek word is pharmakeia] were all nations deceived.” Rev 18:23.

Ruhling says he got a penicillin shot most winters as a child, but since he became a vegetarian in college, he’s had only one prescription (for intestinal flu) in 60 years and that’s in spite of high exposure to colds and flu in emergency rooms.

ABOUT DR. RICHARD RUHLING

Dr. Richard Ruhling is a retired physician. His website is http://RichardRuhling.com where he has information on personal healthcare summarized by NEW START and a video on How to Cut Drug Costs, Feel Better and Live Longer

RELATED ARTICLE: CDC: Daily 91 Americans Die from an Opioid Overdose

Is it Really Our Job To Save The Addict?

The problem

“Drug overdose was the leading cause of accidental death in the U.S., with 64,070 lethal drug overdoses in 2016. An estimated 53,332 have been linked to opioids of some type, which is an increase of 61% from 2015,” according to Nick Szubiak, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, National Council for Behavioral Health. He observes that the epidemic is partially being fueled by the early myth started by a letter published in New England Journal of Medicine in 1980 that opioids were non-addictive. In addition to that, there has been unrestricted prescribing of medications, and increase of availability and potency of less expensive heroin.

Dr. Lantie Jorandby, is board certified in addiction psychiatry. She is currently with the Amen Clinics in the Washington. DC area. Having been involved in Medical Assistance Treatment clinics providing suboxone and methadone within the VA system, Dr. Jorandby has observed, “egregious over-prescribing in the primary care setting in the VA system.” This over prescribing, she says, is usually done by “well-meaning” doctors, getting stuck in a cycle of prescribing dangerously high levels of opiates. She added “the system perpetuates when patients complain that their doctors want to stop their opiates, putting doctors in a bind with their jobs.” She has heard “reports of patients threatening doctors if they try to take them off of opiates, creating a perfect storm,” she says. Many people are prescribed a full 60 pill prescription, when a few pills would do the trick.

Perpetuating the problem

Explaining that the medical community has been trained to prescribe for longer periods of time like ten to thirty days, Carolyn Castro-Donlan, Ph.D. suggested that there might need to be a different type of training for prescribing medications. She has been working with addictions since the 80’s when she was a nurse. She is now a consultant, currently collaborating on Medical Assisted Treatment using suboxone for maintenance, detox or helping patients taper off opioids slowly.

She observes that one of the biggest problems is that prescription monitoring across states lines is inadequate and needs to be universal. Often, she says, this is how addictions can be perpetuated.

What we can agree on

They agree that there is way too much over prescribing of opioids, so perhaps we should find a way to train differently in this area and/or regulate how much can be prescribed and in what way. On this same issue, we should probably monitor prescriptions of opioids across state lines, as suggested by Castro-Donlan. It’s way too easy for people to drive from one doctor to the other to load up on pain meds with no way of tracking whether or not there’s an obvious problem.

Another thing most of the professionals agreed on was Medically Assisted Treatment using suboxone or methadone for people struggling with addiction. If we could develop treatment that involves time-limited withdrawal support, coupled with therapeutic support to address underlying issues, that there should be a way to do that. Carolyn Castro-Donlan, PhD emphasizes that the withdrawal symptoms won’t kill you, but she said it sure feels like they will when you are going through it, and it might just be the humane way to allow someone to quit.

We are bombarded with societal messages that we are not enough.

We need more money, a faster car, a slimmer figure, and stronger deodorant if we are to be acceptable and loved. We are sent messages that we should never be in pain or suffer in any way. Jorandby and Castro-Donlan also agreed that connecting to a spiritual source through meditation, prayer, and gratitude is an important place to begin to find our true worth as human beings. Mindfulness principles like meditation and gratitude have been shown through multiple studies to actually change the brain. So, while the addiction changes the brain and alters perception in one way, meditation and gratitude are scientifically proven strategies for emotional strength and growth. So instead of looking outside of ourselves for ways to escape from our problems and stressors, we build resilience from inside.

And more than anything else, they agreed that education for prevention should start early, and awareness for reducing stigma is vital. People do not seek treatment often due to fear and shame. We are not talking about the “dregs of society” if there is such a thing; we are talking about housewives who take their kids to soccer each week, high school students who get injured in sports, businessmen and women who work hard every day, who started out with pain meds and find themselves on that slippery slope, leading to hopelessness and destruction. “Addicts are not stupid. Neither are they weak, but rather highly intelligent,” says Rev. Dr. Wesley Shortridge of Bealeton, VA.

Where to start

I don’t necessarily think the conversation should focus on whether or not it’s a choice, or whether or not society is co-dependent, but rather what we can agree on.

We may not be able to save every person who struggles with substance abuse, but we can at least do what we can to lessen availability and move in a healthier direction. Reverend Shortridge says, “We need to build a society that doesn’t need it.” And beginning with the suggestions above, that most seem to agree on, might be a good place to start.

  1. Prevention by training in mindfulness principles, beginning with even very young students.
  2. Raising awareness and offering education to reduce stigma and enhance understanding.
  3. Putting some regulations around prescribing practices to limit availability.
  4. Offering limited and focused Medically Assisted Treatment, coupled with therapy, for the purpose of a better recovery.

Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

I believe each of us has a responsibility to NOT trash the earth and our joint environment. Think about this even with such small objects like throwing cigarette butts, gum wrappers, matches, gum, etc., etc. So all the more that our elected representatives should take caution with larger items that could truly adversely impact our environment.

But the Climate Change Acolytes who are very quick to shout “the sky is falling” and “the oceans are rising” are participants in one of the largest con-games ever produced.

The climate change debate was formulated by Globalists in the late 1970s for political and monetary reasons, not for concern about the air we (they) breathe. Orchestrating an emotional even hysterical response followed by the manipulated giving of funds leading to the creation of a political platform cultural Marxists could capitalize on is the real goal, the real purpose for producing climate scare.

When you review the easy to follow data below, the reality of the mass manipulation becomes all the more evident.

Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

TEN FACTS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE:

  1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
  2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958.  In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.
  3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
  4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.
  5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).
  6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body. Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.
  7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met). The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.
  8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
  9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
  10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS:

Myth 1     Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1       Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995. 

Myth 2     During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Facts 2      The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past. 

Myth 3     AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).

Facts 3      The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4     Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

Facts 4      Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling. 

Myth 5     Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

Facts 5      A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6     Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Facts 6      No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration. 

Myth 7     Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

Facts 7      The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change. 

Myth 8     Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Facts 8      Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth 9     Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

Facts 9      SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase. 

Myth 10   The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Facts 10    Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

ABOUT ROBERT M. CARTER

The late Robert M. Carter was a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.

EDITORS NOTE: The original source of this article is James Cook University, Queensland, Australia and Global Research. Copyright © Prof. Robert M. Carter, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia and Global Research, 2017