VIDEO: CFACT interviews South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem spoke with CFACT’s Gabriella Hoffman at the annual Black Hills buffalo roundup.

The interview was part of the District of Conservation podcast, sponsored by CFACT.

WATCH:

Governor Noem has kept South Dakota wide open for business during the Covid-19 pandemic and has not ordered any businesses to close.

“For years, I’ve said I believe South Dakota can be an example to the nation,” Noem said. “And that’s really what these last six months and year have offered us: The opportunity to lead.”  The governor also stressed the need for supporters of true conservation and free market environmentalism to become proactive in these issues.  “I think that maybe us, as conservatives, just need to talk about it [conservation] more ‘cause we’re doing it every day; we just don’t tell our story very well,” the avid hunter explained.

Governor Noem never misses a chance to promote South Dakota as a destination for hunters and outdoor enthusiasts.  She recently posted a video clip to Twitter in which she said, “this is how we do soclal distancing in our state.”  She then turns, shoots, expertly drops a pheasant and says, “less covid, more hunting.”

South Dakota is expert at managing its vast natural areas to make them accessible for business, while keeping nature and wildlife thriving at the same time.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Scapegoating “White Christians” for Climate Change

California, Oregon, and Washington State are burning—and it’s all the fault of “white Christians.” So says a professor at Oregon State University because “white Christians” are “science-deniers” who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming.

CampusReform.com reports (10/2/20) that Susan Shaw, professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality studies at Oregon State University claims (as do many on the left), “the intensity and scope of these fires are a result of climate change.” She notes, “many Christians, especially white Christians, have embraced denial of climate science.” (A colleague responds: “What a crock. We have ‘denied’ climate ‘science’ while she undoubtedly believes that biological sex is meaningless.”)

Meanwhile, Shaw adds, “The disturbing link between white evangelical support for Trump and disregard for climate change that disproportionately affects poor people of color around the world should probably not be all that surprising….White evangelicals continue to support Donald Trump overwhelmingly, even though the Trump administration has tried to roll back more than 100 environmental protection regulations.”

The issue of wildfires vis-à-vis climate change came up during the presidential debate last week. Are these fires caused by man-made global warming or by misguided forestry practices?

Debate moderator Chris Wallace asked President Trump about the fires, saying, “state officials there blamed the fires on climate change….what do you believe about the science of climate change and what will you do in the next four years to confront it?”

The president responded, “I want crystal clean water and air. I want beautiful clean air….As far as the fires are concerned, you need forest management. In addition to everything else, the forest floors are loaded up with trees, dead trees that are years old and they’re like tinder and leaves and everything else. You drop a cigarette in there the whole forest burns down. You’ve got to have forest management.”

This controversy is nothing new. A few years ago, I spoke with Jarrett Stepman of the Heritage Foundation on my radio show. He told me, “We used to do a lot more clearing of the forest, a lot more actual forest management, traditional practices to keep the forest under control.” But not so today. Ironically, it has been laws pushed by environmental activists that many say have made the situation worse.

For a piece he wrote for the Heritage’s Daily Signal, Stepman quotes Rep. Tom McClintock (R, California): “Forty-five years ago, we began imposing laws that have made the management of our forests all but impossible….Time and again, we see vivid boundaries between the young, healthy, growing forests managed by state, local, and private landholders, and the choked, dying, or burned federal forests,”

McClintock added, “The laws of the past 45 years have not only failed to protect the forest environment—they have done immeasurable harm to our forests.” How so? These 1970s laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, according to the congressman, “have resulted in endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive restrictions and requirements that have made the scientific management of our forests virtually impossible.”

Meanwhile, is climate change responsible for the ongoing disasters in nature in general?

Recently, I spoke with David Horowitz, the former Communist turned conservative firebrand and author of the book, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America. When I asked him about climate change, he told me, “I’m 81 years old, so I’ve watched this for many years. Every year the Mississippi River overflows and destroys houses, livelihoods, kills people. Tornadoes sweep through Oklahoma… In Florida, there are hurricanes….Can’t do anything about it, but we’re going to control the climate of the planet?” He called climate change “a joke.”

In reference to these catastrophes in nature, Dr. E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, points out, “These tragedies have happened all through human history, this is not anything new. We should certainly have compassion for those who are hurt. We should respond with help to those who are hurt by those things, but it doesn’t do anybody any good to blame it on global warming. As a matter of fact, if anything, what folks want us to do to fight global warming, which is essentially to turn away from fossil fuels, is going to diminish economic growth. It will prolong poverty, and the best protection you have against any kind of weather emergency—hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, anything else—is the ability to build a solid home, to have reliable electricity, things like that.”

So, rather than causing these disasters, the Christians (white and otherwise) are helping the survivors through them. We see that all the time with the Salvation Army or Samaritan’s Purse. Meanwhile, more commonsense measures might vastly reduce fires on the West Coast, as opposed to scapegoating Christians for denying the politically correct version of “climate change.”

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

Do Not Be Afraid of Covid.

EDITORS NOTE: Sky News states, at the end of the above video, there have been 1 million Covid deaths world wide, a death rate of 1.2%, and 200,000 in the U.S., a death rate of .0006%. According to the CDC there are 2,813,503 deaths in America from a variety of causes, a death rate of .008%. The top three causes of death in America are:

  • Heart disease: 647,457
  • Cancer: 599,108
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936

In another dramatic day for the President of the United States and presidential politics, President Donald Trump left Walter Reed Hospital Monday under his own power and sporting a confident stride.  The departure capped a stunning turn of events that gripped the nation, for better and for worse, with millions expressing their affections for the President and some from the left wishing for his death.  In the end, however, the President found himself nestled back in the White House, in what can be described as a miraculous recovery.

Upon arriving at the White House on Monday evening, the President had a message for Americans that will stand out as one of his hallmarks.  “Don’t be afraid of Covid,” he tweeted, a message meant not only as a rallying cry for Americans generally, but also as a very personalized one for those suffering from the contagion and those overtaken with the fear of contracting it.

Later, in a video from the White House, the President said, “Don’t let it dominate you,” referring to COVID.  “Don’t be afraid of it.  You’re going to beat it.  We have the best medical equipment.  We have the best medicines, all developed recently.  And you’re going to beat it.” His words, his resolve, and his personal experience are not only symbols of hope, but they have placed him in a unique position to lead a beleaguered nation through the rest of this pandemic.

Unquestionably, President Trump will need that resolve moving forward.  The spiteful attacks against him have intensified as the left continues to be besieged by amazing successful performances, in politics and in health, from a man with whose hatred it has become intoxicated.  President Trump’s return to the White House, although triumphant, will also be a challenging one as he meets up with a staff that itself has been riddled by a localized outbreak.  And of course, there is the campaign, which has long entered a critical phase where any mistake can be lethal.

Despite these challenges, one thing remains certain.  Through his ability to persevere, President Trump has positioned himself to be remembered as the President who conquered coronavirus.  The President now joins Prime Minister Boris Johnson and a small group of others who have been able to take on the virus and prevail.  For Mr. Johnson, who took on the virus earlier in the pandemic, his plight was private and marked by sheer will.  For President Trump, the struggle was as public as any President could make it, and his success a testament to the incredible progress made in the medicine’s fight against the virus.

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This Federalist Pages column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Recent Energy and Environmental News

Welcome to our latest Energy & Environmental Newsletter… (For all 2020 Newsletters, go here.)  To review the current issue’s highlights, see below (and page 75)…

For US Citizens —

A lighter video: Boy’s dog retrieves the baseball…


— This Newsletter’s Articles, by Topic —


COVID-19: Therapies

19 HCQ positive studies of early treatment: NONE were negative

COVID-19: Prevention and Treatment Recommendations

Study: HCQ and the Burden of Proof

Remdesivir: Soros & Gates Partner with China on Coronavirus Drug?

COVID-19: Prevention

Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Down Gov’s Lockdown

The UN Ignores NGO’s Warnings About Mandated Vaccines

COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants Are Reporting Serious Side-Effects

CDC: COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook

CDC: It Published New Guidance on Risks of Airborne COVID-19 “In Error”

China Begins Unproven But Widespread Vaccination Program

Researchers hypothesize COVID-19 immunity from dengue exposure

COVID-19: Models and Data

Is the Official COVID-19 Death Toll Accurate?

The Brave New World of Coronavirus Safetyism

The Second Wave Of COVID-19 Will Be A Casedemic, Not Pandemic

COVID-19: Misc

President Trump, first lady test positive for COVID-19

Congressional Report: COVID-19 could have been prevented by China/WHO

Tucker: COVID-19 and Climate Change, and more

The Pandemic, From the Virus’s Point of View

COVID World – Resist!

Lethal Lockdowns: The WHO-CDC Global Genocide

No, I’m Not Saying this is Like Nazi Germany — just Listen

Lawsuits about state COVID-19 actions and policies

Greed Energy Economics

Wind and Solar Developers Want You To Pay Their Transmission Costs

Working families should not subsidize renewable energy

US Republican Senators Push to Eliminate Wind Tax Credit

Wind developers’ claims of providing local jobs is undermined

“Clean” Energy Push Results in Regressive Taxation

Nikola founder quits amid fraud allegations

Wind Energy: Offshore

Report: The Costs of Offshore Wind Power – Blindness and Insight

Hot Air and the Offshore Wind Industry

Offshore drilling moratorium endangers wind power too

Ocean Turbine Electric Cable Ship Eludes Public

Wind Energy: Other

Grid congestion a growing barrier for wind and solar developers

Wind Turbines Generate Mountains of Waste

Short video: Noise Monitoring a NYS Wind Project

Short video: Out of State Workers Employed on NY Wind Project

UMass Pipe Dream Wind Turbine Down

Solar Energy

Solar in NC: Raising Prices and Pollution

Solar Power Could Force New Yorkers to NYC?

Nuclear Energy

Cheaper and safer than wind or solar: Dutch on new nuclear plants

Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor Is ‘Very Likely to Work’

South Korean-Built Mini Nuclear Reactors Approved For US

Thorium-based reactor fuel could revive Nuclear’s fortunes

Nat Academy of Engineering Report: Nuclear Energy Revisited

The Perception of Yucca Mountain

Natural Gas Energy

Why Are Natural Gas Prices Plunging?

What a Biden-Harris Fracking Ban Would Mean

Trump to include NC in offshore drilling moratorium?

Energy: American Energy Innovation Act

The Ugly Underbelly of S.2657

American Energy Innovation Act Is Dangerous Green Virtue Signaling

Citizens must speak out against dangerous energy bill

Senate sets table laden with green pork

Democrats want to hand climate science over to the mob

Oppose US Senate Climate Bill S. 2657

Administration’s position on H.R.4447

Incomprehensible: API Statement On House Energy Bill

Over 100 Groups Oppose Democrats’ Energy Bill as Insufficient

Energy: California Prohibits Gas Vehicles

CA Gov signs order to stop sales of gasoline-powered cars

Chevrolet Releases California-Compliant Horse And Buggy

Ramifications of Gov Newsom’s ban on gas-powered vehicles

Written debate: How Green are Electric Cars

Energy: China

China Lies and Pursues Fossil Fuels as Naive Enviros Buy it

Don’t Fall for China’s ‘Net-Zero Carbon’ Trick

If China plans to go carbon neutral, why is it building so many coal plants?

Misc Energy

Fossil Fuels: The Best Way Out For The Poor

Report: Cost of Electrification — A State-by-State Analysis and Result

Short video: Baseload Power

Video: Energy, Geopolitics, And The New Map

Where the Green New Deal Was Tried, Failed and Repealed

Your life under the Green New Deal

EO: Threat from Reliance on Critical Minerals from Adversaries

The Energy and Policy Institute is a totally phony entity

No more renewable offsetting for Google

Manmade Global Warming: Some Deceptions —

Climate Change Apocalypse: “Permanently Immunized From Falsification”

Theoretical climate debate between Trump and Biden

Atlantic Hurricane Season Update

New video: Climate Hustle 2 Trailer

Weather Isn’t Climate, No Matter How Many Times You Might Think So

Manmade Global Warming: Misc.

COVID-19 induced CO2 emission reductions are not yet detectable

India: Reject this inequitable climate proposal

La Niña Is Here: What Will It Do To Global Temperatures?

Short video: 10,000 years of temperature history

New Book: Asking the Non-Consensual Questions on Climate Change

Archive: Hayden-Denning Climate Debate

Soros/Gates-Funded Org Says World May Need ‘Climate Lockdown’

Drones Can Reforest The Planet Faster Than Humans Can

US Politics and Socialism

Then They Came for Beethoven

Excellent short video: We’re Not Meant to be Sheep

Short video: As Far As I Can See

Short video: I Love America Too Much to Stay Silent

Method in the Madness

A Book with a Kernel of Truth—and a Grain Silo of Nonsense

What happened in Virginia should scare every conservative into voting

For Socialists Who Can’t Stand Trump

I Mastered Xi Jinping Thought, and I Have the Certificate to Prove It

US Supreme Court

Short video: Trump announces his nominee for Supreme Court

Meet Amy Coney Barrett

Fill Ginsburg’s Seat Before November 3

Ginsburg: Senate should hold confirmation hearing during election year

Short video: 2020 Democrats should listen to 2016 Democrats

US Presidential Debate

1st Presidential Debate: Clear Policy Contrast Shines Through Crosstalk

Debate Conclusions

Contrary To His Debate Claim, Biden Supports the GND

Biden’s Energy Plan: Sacrificing Goats to the Sun Gods

Other US Politics and Related: Other

Why national culture matters to our future

A black deliveryman tells why he’s voting for Trump

President Trump will Stand Up to Hateful Mobs

While Good Americans Dither, Rioters Are Taking Over

Proud Boys Leader Refutes ‘White Supremacist’ Claims

How the National Popular Vote Scheme Would Cause Election Chaos

It’s past time to pull the plug on Cuomo’s dictatorial pandemic powers

Andrew Cuomo: America’s Absolute Worst Governor

Religion: The Pope

Is Judge Barrett too Catholic for Pope Francis?

The real reason for Pope Francis’s disgraceful Pompeo snub

Pope: Capitalism has failed in pandemic, needs reform

Pope: Social aggression has found unparalleled room for expansion

Religion: General

Duck-and-Cover And Burn The Heretics: The Modern-Day Cult of Corona

Christians be prepared for an onslaught of ignorance as Court debate looms

Ecology and Economics for Religious Leaders

Americans’ Right to Worship Is Being Denied by Governments

Religion on Campus: A Marketable Skill, or a Diversity & Inclusion Fight?

Education Related

Of Academic Freedom and False Alarms

How Cultural Marxism is Grinding Down America’s Public Schools

On Campus, “Freedom” is Just Another Word for Before COVID-19

NYS has highest per pupil school costs in the world

Science and Misc Matters

Short Video: Why I Left Liberalism and the Democratic Party

Who Was John Muir, Really?

Archive Study: Scientific method — Defend the integrity of physics

The Cheating Scandal That Ripped the Poker World Apart

Heartbreaker

Note 1: It’s recommended to read the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen…  Common fonts, etc. have been used to minimize display issues.

Note 2: To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles, we’ve put together detailed archives — where you can search by year, or over the ten+ years of the Newsletter. For a detailed background about the Newsletter, please read this.

Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change that complements the Newsletter. As a parallel effort, there is also a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on our WiseEnergy.org website.

Note 4: If you’d like to join the 10,000 worldwide readers and get your own free copy of this periodic Newsletter, simply send John an email saying that.

Note 5: John is not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or the WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. His recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical issues.

Copyright © 2020; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org)

In Amy Coney Barrett, Trump Picks an Exacting Scholar for Supreme Court


President Donald Trump on Saturday evening nominated U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the vacancy created by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Trump appointed Barrett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in October 2017 and, less than a month later, her name was added to those Trump said he would consider for the Supreme Court.

Senate Democrats have vowed to do everything they can to block Barrett’s nomination, but that will be hard given her impressive record, fidelity to the Constitution, and respect for the rule of law.

Now that Trump has nominated Barrett, 48, Americans want to know who she is and what kind of Supreme Court justice she will be.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Her husband, Jesse M. Barrett, is an attorney and former federal prosecutor. They live in South Bend, Indiana, with their seven children, five biological (the youngest with special needs) and two adopted from Haiti.

Barrett herself was the oldest of seven and grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana. She received a bachelor’s degree, magna cum laude, in English literature from Rhodes College, where she was a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Barrett attended Notre Dame Law School on a full-tuition scholarship as a Kiley fellow. She graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame and was first in her 1997 class, receiving the Hoynes Prize. She was executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review and received awards for the best exam in 10 of her courses.

Barrett, a Roman Catholic, also belongs to People of Praise, a nondenominational, faith-based group that grew out of the Pentecostal revival of the early 20th century. Members provide each other with practical and spiritual advice, and have opened eight Blue Ribbon schools and undertaken missionary work throughout the country.

Barrett clerked for two prominent federal judges, Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1997-98) and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (1998-99).

Back to Notre Dame

After a brief time in private practice, during which she was on  the team representing George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore following the 2000 presidential election, and teaching law at George Washington University and the University of Virginia, Barrett headed in 2002 to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School, where she would teach for the next 15 years.

Barrett became a full professor in 2010; three graduating classes voted her “Distinguished Professor of the Year.”

Barrett’s extensive scholarship focuses on areas of particular relevance to appellate judges, such as constitutional law, the federal courts, and statutory interpretation. In particular, her work on originalism and judicial precedent earned her a national reputation. This scholarship reflects her understanding of the defined, limited role that judges play in our system of government.

In a 2003 article in the University of Colorado Law Review, Barrett examined the relationship between precedent and due process, arguing that a rigid or inflexible adherence to precedent actually might deprive litigants of a full opportunity to present the merits of their claims.  The legal doctrine of stare decisis, or adherence to precedent, Barrett wrote, must be “flexible in fact, not just in theory.”

In a 2010 article in Boston University Law Review, Barrett explored textualism, stating:

The bedrock principle of textualism, and the basis on which it has distinguished itself from other interpretive approaches, is its insistence that federal courts cannot contradict the plain language of a statute, whether in the service of legislative intention or in the exercise of a judicial power to render the law more just. … There is no justification for departing from the plain text of a constitutional statute.

In a 2013 article in Texas Law Review, Barrett examined how the principle that the Supreme Court should follow its own past decisions is a “weak presumption” in cases that interpret the Constitution.

She endorsed the view that “a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she clearly thinks is in conflict with it.”

In the article, she explained that “public response to controversial cases like Roe [v. Wade] reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging.”

Joining the 7th Circuit

When Trump nominated her to the 7th Circuit, every Supreme Court clerk from the year when Barrett clerked there wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting her nomination.

One signatory, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, a noted liberal scholar, said this about Barrett in 2018 when she was under consideration for the Supreme Court seat that ultimately went to Brett Kavanaugh:

There were just under 40 Supreme Court clerks in October Term 1998, none exactly a slouch. She was one of the two best lawyers of the 40—and arguably the single best. Any Senate Democrat who tries to go toe to toe with Barrett over her legal abilities is going to lose. Badly. She has only eight months’ experience on the court of appeals after a career as a law professor. But she was legally prepared enough to go on the court 20 years ago.

At Barrett’s confirmation hearing for the seat on the 7th Circuit, Senate Democrats subjected her to harsh and inappropriate questions.

Although Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Barrett: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”

And then Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., proclaimed: “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”

Democrats also focused extensively on an article in Marquette Law Review that Barrett co-authored with Notre Dame law professor John H. Garvey. They examined the “cultural collision” that can occur when a Catholic judge handles a death penalty case and whether her church’s teaching can be at odds with her judicial responsibility.

Barrett and Garvey concluded: “Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.”

The solution to an irreconcilable conflict, they wrote, is “the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job.”

Barrett’s critics accused her of believing the opposite of what she wrote in this article, continuing to claim that she “thinks judges should put their religion ahead of the law.” By creating this false impression, these critics could suggest that Barrett would rely on her Catholic faith to decide cases on other divisive issues such as abortion.

In response to this onslaught during her confirmation hearing, Barrett exhibited grace under fire, stating what she would do if she faced a conflict between her religious faith and judicial duty.

“I would recuse,” she testified. “I would never impose my own personal convictions upon the law.”

It is “never appropriate,” she added, “for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

What Her Record Shows

As a judge, Barrett’s record reflects what she actually wrote in that article and what she actually said in her Senate testimony.

In Lee v. Watson, for example, Barrett joined an opinion by Chief Judge Diane Sykes vacating an injunction that blocked the execution of Daniel Lewis Lee, a member of the Aryan People’s Republic, convicted of a 1996 triple murder. The opinion is a straightforward application of the Federal Death Penalty Act and criticized the district court judge’s improper “maneuver” of creating her own theory of the case to reach her result.  Barrett joined a similar opinion, also written by Sykes, in Peterson v. Barr.

Barrett’s judicial docket has included some hot-button issues. In Kanter v. Barr, Kanter pled guilty to mail fraud, a felony that, under both federal and state law, resulted in a lifetime ban on firearm possession. Kanter sued, arguing that the categorical ban violated the Second Amendment when applied to nonviolent felons like him. The district court rejected his challenge and, by a 2-1 vote, the 7th Circuit affirmed.

The lone dissenter was Barrett, arguing that “[a]bsent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment.”

In Barrett’s view, the Constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms to all, while giving Congress the limited authority to take that right away from some. She rejected the alternative view that, in effect, Congress gets to decide who has the right to keep and bear arms and who does not. This may seem like a fine distinction to some, but it shows that Barrett gives fundamental constitutional rights the importance they deserve.

Barrett has joined, but has not written, opinions in abortion-related cases. Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner was a challenge to Indiana’s law prohibiting abortion for the purpose of sex selection or on the basis of disability and regulating disposal of fetal remains. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the prohibition was unconstitutional.

After the full 7th Circuit declined to rehear the case, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Barrett.  Although Indiana had not appealed the decision striking down the abortion ban, Easterbrook noted that Supreme Court precedents such as Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey did not address whether the right to abortion they established extends to abortion “designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children … We ought not impute to the Justices decisions they have not made about problems they have not faced.”

Regarding the portion of the decision striking down the fetal-disposal regulations, Easterbrook noted that states may protect the welfare of animals, including regulating the disposal of their remains, such that “[t]he panel has held invalid a statute that would be sustained had it concerned the remains of cats or gerbils.” If animal welfare statutes are rational, he wrote, “[i]sn’t that equally true of a statute about fetal remains?”

Planned Parenthood v. Box involved a challenge to an Indiana law requiring minors to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit found the statute unconstitutional before it ever had been implemented, and the full 7th Circuit declined to review that decision.

Barrett, with three colleagues, joined a one-paragraph opinion by Judge Michael Kanne, arguing that the full 7th Circuit should have tackled the issue of when federal courts may issue pre-enforcement injunctions against state laws. “Preventing a state statute from taking effect,” he wrote, “is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure.”

In Price v. City of Chicago, pro-life activists challenged a Chicago ordinance that prohibited communication within eight feet of persons in the vicinity of abortion clinics. The district court upheld the ordinance, relying on a Supreme Court decision that the First Amendment permitted a “nearly identical” Colorado law.

Barrett joined a unanimous 7th Circuit panel affirming that decision. The opinion observed that the Supreme Court’s decisions in this area are “hard to reconcile” and are “in tension” with each other. Although the panel stated that the biding precedent “is incompatible with current First Amendment doctrine,” the judges said that they were nonetheless bound by the decision, and that it was up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to overturn that precedent.

Objectively Applying the Law

Barrett’s opinions on the 7th Circuit demonstrate that she is a judge who pays close attention to the factual record in each case and takes seriously the limited role of a federal appellate court (see here, and here).

Her judicial method, for example, emphasizes an objective application of the law, rather than her own subjective feelings about a case. In Mathews v. REV Recreation Group, she wrote that “[w]e sympathize with the Mathews’ plight; they bought a lemon.” But because the plaintiffs had not shown that the manufacturer had failed to honor its warranty, which was the legal issue in the case, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s judgment for the defendant.

Barrett also wrote the opinion in Doe v. Purdue University, in which a male college student challenged his suspension after he was found guilty of sexual violence. That one-year suspension resulted in his expulsion from the ROTC program and loss of his related scholarship. He sued the university, claiming its procedures resulting in the suspension violated his constitutional rights as well as federal anti-discrimination laws.

In an opinion by Barrett, the 7th Circuit reversed the lower court, which had dismissed the case.  Barret’s opinion was not a decision on the merits of the student’s claims, but rather a decision on whether the lawsuit could proceed or should be thrown out before it really began. Barrett concluded:  “Purdue’s process fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension.”

The university, for example, refused to disclose the evidence on which it based its decision to suspend the student. This alone, Barrett wrote, is “sufficient to render the process fundamentally unfair.”

She noted that the student might have problems later proving his claims later, “and the factfinder may not buy the inferences that he’s selling.”

“But his claim should have made it past the pleading stage,” she concluded, “so we reverse the magistrate judge’s premature dismissal of it.”

In Cook County v. Wolf, the Illinois county and a nonprofit advocacy organization challenged the Trump administration’s rule implementing the “public charge” provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision allows denial of admission to an immigrant who is “likely at any time to become a public charge.”

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 7th Circuit affirmed a lower court order enjoining the administration from implementing the rule. Barrett dissented, arguing that the majority erred when it said that the term “public charge” referred very narrowly to those who were “primarily and permanently dependent on public assistance.”

Barrett looked at how the term was understood when it first appeared in federal statutes in the late 19th century, concluding that both state legislatures and Congress viewed the term more broadly as a lack of self-sufficiency. Barrett also looked at how courts and administrative agencies used the term in the 20th century, concluding that the 1996 amendments to the public charge provision also took a broader view.

As a result, Barrett concluded that the Trump administration’s rule, which is consistent with this view, is reasonable and therefore likely would be upheld on the merits. As such, an injunction was inappropriate. Those challenging the rule, she wrote, really are challenging the policy choice that it represents, and litigation “is not the vehicle for resolving policy disputes.”

Speaking Outside Court

Barrett has continued to address significant issues outside the courtroom that also help others to understand her judicial philosophy.

In a 2018 speech, she stated that, properly understood, originalism does not involve trying to “think your way into the minds of the Framers.” Rather, she said, it is a recognition that “The text of the Constitution controls, so the meaning of the words at the time they were ratified is the same as their meaning today.”

Speaking days before the 2016 election about what impact the next president would have on the Supreme Court, Barrett declared

People should not look to the Supreme Court as a super Legislature. They should look at the Court as an institution that interprets our laws and protects the rule of law, but doesn’t try to impose policy preferences – that’s the job of Congress and the president.

Barrett’s record gives every indication that she would do just that, and would put the law above her personal views.

Again, although Senate Democrats have vowed to do everything in their power to try to block her nomination to the Supreme Court, it will be a hard case for them to make given Barrett’s impressive record, fidelity to the Constitution, and respect for the rule of law.

Amy Coney Barrett no doubt would be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court.

COMMENTARY BY

John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Read his research.  Twitter: .

Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Nominates Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court

Heritage Foundation Launches Campaign for Barrett’s Confirmation

Dirty Attacks Against Amy Coney Barrett Begin Early


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

California’s Planned Ban on Gas-Powered Auto Sales Is Great for Elon Musk, but It Won’t Help the Environment

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced an order this week to ban the sale of new gas-powered road vehicles in the state by 2035.

CNBC reports the proposed rule would not prohibit people from driving or owning gas-powered cars, but would ban the sale of all new gasoline-powered passenger vehicles in the Golden State in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent.

The proposed rule would make California the first state to eliminate sales of such vehicles, though several European countries, including Sweden and Denmark, have made similar commitments.

There are reasons to be skeptical of such policies, however.

Proposals to eliminate gas-powered automobiles are likely to win politicians media coverage and cheers at town hall meetings (at least in some places). But the actual environmental impact of such policies remains unclear.

It’s important to remember that CO2 emissions are not just about what comes out of vehicles, but also what goes into vehicles. Electric vehicles might not emit emissions through exhaust pipes like gas-powered cars, but they expend tremendous amounts of CO2 during their production and charging cycles, and require numerous elements—such as lithium, cobalt, and manganese—that must be mined from the earth.

While conventional wisdom says electric vehicles are more environmentally friendly and an effective tool to fight climate change, research suggests electric vehicles may have environmental costs that actually exceed those of internal combustion engines when the full cycle of production is included.

Jonathan Lesser of the Manhattan Institute, for example, has published research showing that electric vehicles are worse for the environment than modern gas-powered vehicles. Using the Energy Information Administration’s long-term forecasts for the number of electric vehicles through 2050, Lesser estimated how much electricity these vehicles would require. He then broke down the effects on three key pollutants that are regulated in the US Clean Air Act: sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and carbon dioxide (CO2).

“What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution,” Lesser wrote in Politico.

The fact is, modern gas-powered vehicles are not what your grandaddy was driving. Today’s vehicles emit very little pollution, Lesser concluded, about 1% of what they did in the 1960s.

Lesser’s findings are not isolated.

The World Economic Forum has also called attention to the “dirty secrets of electric vehicles,” which includes both adverse environmental impacts and children as young as seven working in cobalt mines in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where more than half of the world’s cobalt is produced.

“[R]aw materials needed for batteries are extracted at a high human and environmental toll. This includes, for example, child labour, health and safety hazards in informal work, poverty and pollution,” the World Economic Forum’s Global Battery Alliance notes. “A recycling challenge looms over the eleven million tonnes of spent lithium-ion batteries forecast to be discarded by 2030, with few systems in place to enable reuse and recycling in a circular economy for batteries.”

Recycling is not the only environmental problem facing the lithium-ion batteries used in electric cars.

The bulk of these batteries are manufactured in places such as Japan, China, and South Korea, where generation of electricity remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels, including coal, which increases the carbon footprint of electric car batteries. For this reason, Amnesty International is calling on nations to disclose the carbon footprint of electric car batteries, so their environmental impact can be accurately assessed.

While it’s difficult to gauge the environmental costs of these batteries with precision, one German study found that every Tesla battery requires between 23,000 pounds and 32,000 pounds of carbon emissions. Considering that Tesla produced 368,000 cars in 2019 alone, that’s up to 11.8 billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions in just Tesla batteries in a given year.

It’s unclear if Gavin Newsom truly has three Teslas—a New Yorker journalist found three in the driveway when he went to Newsom’s home in 2018 for an interview—but if he did that would put Newsom’s carbon footprint at close to 100,000 for just the Tesla batteries.

This of course is of little concern to Newsom or Tesla founder Elon Musk, who “liked” Newsom’s announcement on Twitter that California would be “phasing out the internal combustion engine.”

Of course Musk likes this news. Newsom is sidelining Tesla’s competition, which stands to increase the market share of the world’s most valuable automobile company even further. This isn’t capitalism, however, it’s crony capitalism—the use of government regulations to shift the market toward a favored company or economic sector.

As the regulatory state grows, so does the phenomenon of what economists call “rent-seeking.” It involves companies diverting resources toward lobbying efforts (versus production) that seek regulatory measures designed to hamstring their economic rivals to increase their own share of the market.

Rent-seeking is, unfortunately, often an effective business strategy. But it’s not capitalism and is unlikely to improve the environment.

The law of unintended consequences, one of the proverbial building blocks of economics, shows that actions, those undertaken by people but especially those undertaken by governments, have consequences that go far beyond their desired effects.

Many people of good faith wish to help the environment by rejecting or limiting the use of gasoline. The desired effect is lower consumption of gasoline. However, there are also unintended consequences of this action.

By restricting the use of gasoline, environmentalists increase the demand for electricity. This in turn increases the price of coal, which incentives production of coal, a fossil fuel that produces more CO2 emissions than gasoline.

The great economist Claude-Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), in his seminal essay “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen,” observed there was a tendency for humans to judge actions based on immediate effects (“a small present good”) while ignoring their long-term consequences (“a great evil to come”).

Bastiat said it was man’s inability to see the results of actions in their totality—the seen and the unseen—that resulted in mankind’s greatest depredations.

“This explains the fatally grievous condition of mankind,” Bastiat warned. “Ignorance surrounds its cradle: then its actions are determined by their first consequences, the only ones which, in its first stage, it can see.”

If we celebrate the decline in emissions from gas-powered vehicles but ignore the considerable environmental costs of electric vehicles, we fall into the trap Bastiat described 170 years ago.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

RELATED ARTICLE: Restaurant Chain Announces Bankruptcy, Says Minimum Wage Hike to Blame

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Film ‘Climate Hustle 2’ Targets Hollywood’s Green Hypocrisy, Double Standards

Politicians, media figures, and Hollywood elites who maintain lavish lifestyles while advocating restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions are on full display in a new documentary.

Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy” is a sequel to the 2016 documentary film “Climate Hustle,” which questioned the premise of theories linking human activity with potentially catastrophic climate change.

“Climate Hustle 2” is not in theaters because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but was scheduled to be streamed as of  8 p.m. Thursday and available for replay through Sunday.

The new film builds on the findings of the first one while taking a deeper dive into motivations behind climate change initiatives such as the congressional resolutions called the Green New Deal and the United Nations’ Paris climate agreement, which the Trump administration has exited.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Actor Kevin Sorbo is narrator of the new documentary. In opening scenes, Sorbo cites “an increasing number of scientists who are becoming skeptical” about “overhyped claims made about severe weather events, temperatures, rising sea levels, and even disappearing polar bears.”

Sorbo then asks some questions in arguing that science has shifted against alarmist claims.

“Why would those claiming a global warming catastrophe spread a false narrative?” he asks, adding:

What would motivate them? Why would they try to hustle you? Are they trying to control the climate, or you? …

At its core, the motivations are as old as mankind itself.  They revolve around money, power, ideology, and control. …

Stopping climate change is … about climate elites trying to convince us to accept a future where they call all the shots, plan our lives, and regulate how we should live our lives. They want to create, in essence, a climate monarchy.

“Climate Hustle 2” is a project of the Washington-based nonprofit Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT, which describes itself as promoting “a much-needed, positive, alternative voice on issues of environment and development.”

Marc Morano, the organization’s communications director and editor of  its Climate Depot blog, provides the film’s reporting and interviews key figures on both sides of the climate debate.

Featured climate scientists and researchers include Patrick Moore, co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace; Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Willie Soon, an astrophysicist and geoscientist based in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Robert Giegengack, a geologist who chaired the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at University of Pennsylvania; and David Legates, a climatologist and geology professor at the University of Delaware.

Morano appears in front of the Palace of Versailles, just outside Paris, to establish some major themes of the film. The palace, he says, was “designed to show the supremacy of the state and the ruling class over the common man.”

“Today, like the nobility of old, world leaders, celebrity activists, and Western environmentalists also enjoy a lavish lifestyle and have no problem with multiple homes, endless airline flights, and luxuries galore,” Morano says.

The action moves to Sicily, Italy, where celebrities such as actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Bradley Cooper, singer Katy Perry, and Prince Harry attend what E! News describes as a “billionaires’ summer party” to discuss climate change. The program’s host comments on gas-guzzling private jets and yachts used by attendees.

Conservative commentator Mark Steyn, who makes multiple appearances in “Climate Hustle 2,” weighs in on motivations he says are behind climate activism.

“Al Gore and John Kerry and the prince of Wales, they want to return us to an Age of Kings in which they fly around from one climate conference to another and the rest of us are just contained within our carbon allowance—which if we’re lucky will enable us to take a long weekend for a fishing trip somewhere once a year,” Steyn says.

Gore, the former U.S. vice president and long-time crusader for limiting carbon emissions to prevent global warming, again comes under scrutiny for the large “carbon footprint” associated with his Tennessee residence and his travel arrangements.

DiCaprio and other Hollywood celebrities who have pledged to “live a green lifestyle” also come under criticism for lifestyles that don’t square with their rhetoric. DiCaprio owns multiple homes and makes frequent use of private jets and yachts, the documentary notes. Singer-actress Barbra Streisand has flown her dogs to London to watch her perform, it adds.

Morano then discusses what science actually says about carbon dioxide.

“If these global leaders and activists really think we face a man-made climate apocalypse, why have they not changed their ways and cut back on their CO2 emissions and overall excess?” Morano asks. “Is there something they’re not telling us about the science?”

Some answers come from scientists, researchers, and academics in the documentary who set out to dismantle alarmist claims that don’t fit with rigorous scientific research.

“Carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life,” Moore, the Greenpeace co-founder, says in a “Fox & Friends” interview used in the film. “In fact, the whole climate crisis as they call it is not only fake news, it’s fake science. There is no climate crisis.”

Giegengack, the geologist, is equally dismissive.

“You don’t find strong empiric support for the idea that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are the primary drivers of atmospheric temperature and global climate, and there are so many other variables that are much more likely to have been responsible for that,” Giegengack says in the film.

Legates, the climatologist, warns that carbon rationing proposals, such as those advocated by liberals in Congress, ultimately could lead to human beings lacking the “basic necessities of life” such as “food, clothing, shelter, and security.”

Near the film’s close, Sorbo asks viewers to resist the political agenda of climate activism.

“We have the gift of freedom,” he says. “Don’t let it slip away. Don’t let them establish a climate monarchy.”

For details on viewing or purchasing “Climate Hustle” and “Climate Hustle 2,” go here.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Recent Energy and Environmental News

Welcome to our latest Energy & Environmental Newsletter… (For all 2020 Newsletters, go here.)  To review the current issue’s highlights, see below (and page 70)…

Two upbeat specials:

Short video: Stranger Accused of Saying Hello

Short video: Bugatti Chiron breaks through magic 300 mph barrier


— This Newsletter’s Articles, by Topic —

 

COVID-19: Therapies

19 HCQ positive studies of early treatment: NONE were negative 

Why Big Pharma is Out to Kill HCQ at All Costs

Antihistamines May Help Calm COVID-19 Cytokine Storm

COVID-19: Masks

E-Mask-ulation: How we have been lied to about Masks

COVID-19: Prevention

Scientists discover antibody that ‘neutralizes’ COVID-19 virus

Video: Robert Kennedy Talk re Vaccines

Precaution Can Kill—During a Pandemic and Beyond

Doctors studying why obesity may be tied to serious COVID-19

UN Admits Polio Outbreak In Sudan Caused By Gates-Funded Vaccine

FDA Nears Approval of Injectable Biochip Implants for COVID Detection

Community and Countries United! We Say NO to forced Vaccines!

Why mass PCR testing of the asymptomatic is counter-productive

Dr. Fauci takes vitamins C and D to lessen COVID-19 susceptibility

COVID-19: Data

How Long Does the Coronavirus Live on Surfaces?

Yelp Data: 60% Of Pandemic Closures Are Now Permanent

On COVID-19 and Race, Sports Suddenly Ignore Analytics

Unwarranted Fear Has Won The COVID-19 Narrative

More COVID-19 Lawsuits Against Cuomo Than Any Other Gov

Tens of thousands of unexpected deaths: CDC silent

COVID-19: Misc

Fauci Looks To UN To ‘Rebuild The Infrastructure Of Human Existence’

Tucker: From the start, COVID-19 has been shrouded in lies

Priest’s Homily: We’ve been fooled

Distortion and Twisting of COVID-19 facts linked to politics

The Hidden Agenda behind COVID-19 Lockdown

Federal Judge Rules PA COVID-19 Restrictions Unconstitutional

Chinese virologist: China intentionally released COVID-19

During pandemic, keep calm and carry on

Greed Energy Economics

Good Report: BEIS Electricity Generation Costs

Renewable Energy Means a Pay Cut for Energy Workers

Offshore Wind is Really a Pirate Ship on the Sea of Subsidies

Renewable Energy Eco-system Consequences

Environmentalists Cause Environmental Disaster In Europe

Green Energy Isn’t So Green

The Red-Hot, Hardly Serene Green vs. Green New Deal

Wind Energy

State utility questions efficacy of wind for power generation

Short video: The Impossibility of Wind Turbines

The Plague of Renewable Portfolio Standards

Nevada County Approves 1 Mile Setback on Wind Turbines

Short video: What’s Wrong with Wind and Solar?

Podcast: Rational Environmentalism – The Truth About Renewables, etc.

Intermittent Renewables Are Nothing to Throw Money At

‘Green’ billionaires suppression of ‘Planet of the Humans’ documentary

Inconvenient Facts About Renewable Energy

Short video: Climate or Environment?

FERC lowers barriers to DERs in wholesale markets

California’s energy scorecard fails on the world stage

Keep enemy (China) out of our backyard

Solar Energy

Not So Green

Solar panels generate mountains of waste — and heat the planet

Farmers fear solar arrays will cause 1000s of acres of prime land to vanish

California’s Energy Vampire: Solar at Night

Solar power plunges as smoke shrouds California

Sorry, Solar Panels Won’t Stop California’s Fires

Nuclear Energy

US gives first-ever OK for small commercial nuclear reactor

If Nuclear Energy is So Great, Then Why …?

Nuclear Reactor Co Adds Molten Salt Storage to its SMR System

Video: High time for nuclear energy!

The iPhone 16 could be powered by nuclear waste diamond batteries

Natural Gas Energy

Pipeline Opponents Will Learn the Worm Always Turns

Fossil Fuels Make Modern Life Possible

The Future of Fracking in the US

US energy production and consumption: fossil fuels are tops

Pipeline Infrastructure Delays Costing Us $14 Billion

Misc Energy

Short video: World’s biggest dam: China’s engineering masterpiece or environment disaster?

Important New Book: Looming Energy Crisis

NYS Practices to Deceive on Green Energy

NYISO Study: What is needed to augment renewables

US Renewable Power Giants to Join Forces for More Lobbying

How Refusing to Wisely Manage CA’s Resources Led to Blackouts

New film about energy poverty: Switch ON

Power Hungry Podcast: Yergin – Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations

Lithium May Be the Next Chinese Virus to Threaten the US

Manmade Global Warming: Some Deceptions

Fake Science, etc: Why We Must Take the Fight to the Climate Zealots

Study: Greenhouse Gas Emissions — The Global Picture

It’s the nonsense, not the climate, that is reaching extremes

Cooling The Hothouse

Real Climatologist Scares the Media

Facebook Creates New Climate Change ‘Indoctrination’ Center

Doubling down on climate change and censorship

CLINTEL open letter to Bill Gates

Easy way to assess the accuracy of the IPCC CO2 claim

Manmade Global Warming: Misc

Climate Science and the Rise and Fall of Evidence

Report: US Climate in 2019

Climate Change: Most Brazen Scientific Hoax In Human History

Europe’s Green Deal Likely To Fail

New Film: Return to Eden

Why clouds are the missing piece in the climate change puzzle

Updated CLINTEL document with signers

Surviving the Super Grand Solar Minimum

From Cold to Warm Without Formulas

Newsom vows to fast track toward Germany’s failed climate goals

Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act — A Disaster in the Making

US Reaches $1.5 B Settlement with Daimler Over Emissions Cheating

NYS CLCPA Climate Law Will Have Big Ramifications

Western Wildfires

Study: Humans (not AGW) are behind costly, increasing risk of wildfires

Separating Fact From Fiction About Wildfires

Tony Heller video: CNN Identifies The Fire Culprit

Environmental Alarmism Makes Wildfires Worse Than Necessary

California burning: Fewer fires made worse by misguided policies

Western Wildfires Are Due to Arson and Stupidity, Not Climate Change

Western Forest Fires Hijacked to Promote Global Warming

Climate-Friendly Battery Boom Presents Growing Fire Safety Challenge

Satellite Observations Reveal Decreasing Trend in Global Wildfires

Study: Wildfires Offer Roadmap for Forest Management’s Effects on Water

The Pelosi/Newsom/Harris Climate-Howlers Are Truly Dangerous

US Politics and Socialism

Woke Me When It’s Over

Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States

Smithsonian’s “Race Guidelines:” Rational Thinking and Hard Work Are White Values

The Pinnacle of Looting Apologia

“Systemic racism” is emotional semantics

Systemic racism is not racism

Crushing the Constitution on the Road to Tyranny

The Coming Coup?

Who Is Opposed to What Free Market Capitalism?

Scientific American Reminds You It’s Not “Scientific” or “American”

Yes, It Was “Real Socialism.” No, We Shouldn’t Try Again.

Roots of US Black Communism

Blueprint For Overthrow: Transition Integrity Project

Oscars: the New World Order of Mediocrity and Neutered Equality

Dozens of Mueller Team Cell Phones Were ‘Accidentally Wiped’

Where Leftists Met the Enemy and It Was … One of Them

Short video: What happened on 9/11?

Short video: America to Boycott NFL

Other US Politics and Related

RBG death makes Supreme Court major 2020 campaign issue

Trump’s Supreme Court court pick likely to be one of two women

President Trump Releases Second-Term Agenda

Video: Riding the Dragon — The Bidens’ Chinese Secrets

Voters Need the Whole Story on Joe Biden, Before Voting

Video: Defending the “Defender in Chief”

Short video: Keep America Great

Why the 2020 Election Will Be Decided in Suburbia

Legislator Calls Out Environmentalists’ Racism

Presidential Succession Act: Can Congress manage chaos?

Disinformed to Death

Who Killed George Floyd?

Short video: Who is responsible for US civil unrest?

Trailer: Safeguard — An Electoral College Story

Religion

One Priest’s View (short video).

How Cultural Marxism Is Grinding Christianity Down

The Religion of COVID-19

Short video: Pastor MacArthur on Church Services Defying the State

Paradise and Paranoia

New Netflix Film Sexualizes Children

Education Related

Candace Owens: Conservatives have lost the education battle to Left

NC Assoc of Educators President promotes BLM at School

Report: Blueprint for Reform — Institutional Neutrality

In Reopening, UNC Leaders Failed Their Students

Eliminate or Radically Restructure Federal Student Loans

Science and Misc Matters

Forgetting and Misrepresenting History is America’s Real Pandemic

Breakthrough: The Ideas That Changed the World: Season 1

A Master Class on Winning from General George Patton

EPA finalizes first ever transparency rule for regulations

‘Good Enough’ Rules the World

EPA Chief Touts Environmental Gains, Hits ‘Single Issue Advocacy’

Mulan Rouge: Disney Film Betrays a Shade of Red China

Five Reasons Why India Will Become the Center of the World Economy

Trump signs new executive order to lower US drug prices

Note 1: It’s recommended to read the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen…  Common fonts, etc. have been used to minimize display issues.

Note 2: To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles, we’ve put together detailed archives — where you can search by year, or over the ten+ years of the Newsletter. For a detailed background about the Newsletter, please read this.

Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change that complements the Newsletter. As a parallel effort, there is also a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on our WiseEnergy.org website.

Note 4: If you’d like to join the 10,000 worldwide readers and get your own free copy of this periodic Newsletter, simply send John an email saying that.

Note 5: John is not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or the WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. His recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical issues.

Copyright © 2020; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org)

VIDEO: The Biden Express is Headed Left — AOC as EPA Administrator

This video was published by Senator Ted Cruz. In it shows how Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez would become the EPA Administrator in a Biden Cabinet.

WATCH:

©All rights reserved.

The Facts About Climate Change and California Fires

Despite some progress made by heroic firefighters, wildfires continue to tear through the West. Tragically, the fires have taken more than 30 lives (with many more missing), destroyed thousands of structures, and burned millions of acres.

Here are answers to some of the commonly asked questions on causes for the wildfires and obstacles that stand in the way of solutions.

What caused the wildfires?

At least several factors. At the end of August, a storm with a lot of lightning and little rain struck. An estimated 11,000 lightning strikes hit California over a three-day span, sparking fires throughout the state.

More recently, two of the fires started because of hot soot from a car tailpipe and a family using a “smoke-generating pyrotechnic device” for a gender reveal party. One man in Oregon has been charged with arson.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Investigations continue into the causes of some of the fires. In the past, campfires, discarded cigarettes, fallen power lines, and arson have been the culprit.

Despite accusations that extremists on both the left and right set certain wildfires, neither has been the case. In fact, false rumors have served only to spread resources thinner and detract from serious investigations.

Are these fires the worst ever? Are wildfires more frequent and destructive?

The more than 3.2 million acres burned thus far in California are the most in recorded history.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, data over the past 30 years shows that the number of fires is on a downward trend while the number of acres burned is on an upward trend.

However, as Mother Jones reports, ecologists and fire scientists estimate that prehistoric fires were worse, burning between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres per year.

On a national scale, data from the National Interagency Fire Center shows a downward trend for both fires and acres burned from 1926 through 2019, though reporting methods differed before 1983.

Why have the wildfires been so severe?

California is a hot and dry place. The winds can be fierce this time of year and the steep slopes of the topography can make them practically unstoppable.  Although the winds come every year, they’re also unpredictable.

Alexandra Syphard, an ecologist at the Conservation Biology Institute, noted that “wind-driven fires are the ones most associated with catastrophic losses” because of their difficulty to contain and propensity to reach places where people live.

Then there’s the fuel load. Without proper management, whether prescribed burns or timber harvesting, California is a tinder box comprised of dry trees, grass, and shrubs. Invasive species, including grasses and shrubs, also contribute to worse wildfires because they dry out and have a higher likelihood of burning than native plants.

Better land management long has been understood as a necessity to reduce the severity of fires. Malcolm North, of the U.S. Forest Survey, says: “Climate dries the [wood] fuels out and extends the fire season from four to six months to nearly year-round. [B]ut it’s not the cause of the intensity of the fires. The cause of that is fire suppression and the existing debt of wood fuel.”

Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director for Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology, told ProPublica: “We need to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load.”

If controlled burns and thinning forests are effective, why are they so hard to do?

California’s fuel load has been a long-standing, worsening problem and a top priority for ecologists and land managers who want to reduce the severity of wildfires.

Jon Keeley, senior scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Ecological Research Center, said: “We ought to be much more concerned with ignition sources than a 1- to 2-degree change in temperature.”

Prescribed burns (see photos here) are an effective, non-controversial way to reduce the fuel load and consequently reduce the destruction caused by a wildfire. Fires also help  to control pests, to remove non-native plants, and to provide nutrients to trees and other vegetation.

As the narrator says in this National Geographic video: “Giant sequoias depend on fire to reproduce. The heat opens their seed cones, their seeds are released, the flames clear the earth for their germination. While lesser trees blaze around them, the giant sequoias stand virtually unscathed by the flames.”

Studies have shown that these prescribed burns do not harm the ecology of the forest. California has implemented controlled burns for an average of 13,000 acres from 1997 to 2017. But a February article in the journal Nature Sustainability suggests that California needs about 20 million acres burned.

Controlled burns are by no means a silver bullet, but an overwhelming consensus exists among land managers that such burns are the most immediate and effective action to take.

As for why that hasn’t happened, the same article in Nature Sustainability breaks it down to three categories: risk, resources, and regulation.

Some have concerns about the smoke from controlled burns, and that the fires may get out of control; others have concerns over liability should that occur. Even so, the practice largely has won public acceptance.

Another barrier is presented by weather and location. Controlled burns take into account ideal humidity ranges, as well as wind direction and speed. Some controlled burns occur where there are power lines or pipelines, which require additional attention. COVID-19 postponed many of the prescribed burns.

Regulation presents a major obstacle. Prescribed burns go through a lengthy approval process. Securing a permit can take up to 18 months.  These burns are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and must meet federal, state, and local air quality standards.

Of course, the pollution and air quality is much worse from the wildfires than from a controlled burn. Even when a plan seemingly checks all the necessary boxes, it still may be held up in the courts. Although some progress has occurred to expedite the process, more needs to be done.

Another solution is timber harvesting, which helps thin the landscape and put those resources to productive use.

What is the role of climate change?

It stands to reason that as the planet warms, the American West will become drier and states’ wildfire seasons will be longer. The planet has been in a warming period for the past 160 years, and part of that warming is a result of human activity.

One study out of UCLA estimates that the number of days with extreme fire weather in the fall has more than doubled over the past 40 years. Another study in Earth’s Future found similar results for warming’s effect on fuel drying, but noted that a changing climate has not affected wind or precipitation patterns:

In fall, wind events and delayed onset of winter precipitation are the dominant promoters of wildfire. While these variables did not change much over the past century, background warming and consequent fuel drying is increasingly enhancing the potential for large fall wildfires.

Cliff Mass, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, emphasizes that even without the warming that is occurring, fuels are “plenty dry enough to burn already.”

Soil moisture is another factor that can determine how severe a wildfire might be. Last year, in a very mild season, soil moisture in California was 40% above average for most of the state and even higher in some parts.

Droughts can be both bad and good. Droughts obviously create a dry climate for vegetation to burn, but extended droughts can result in less fire because, as NASA’s Ben Cook points out, “the vegetation will not grow back as vigorously, and you may run out of fuel to burn.”

Some parts of California, such as the area where the Camp Fire wildfire occurred in 2018, saw no discernible trend in fuel moisture or precipitation, but the winds were strong enough to dry out the vegetation anyway.

Which brings us to another point of the discussion: how climate change affects wind patterns. California is known for intense winds, such as the Diablo winds in the north and the Santa Ana winds in the south.

Several studies show that warming actually could reduce the frequency of the Santa Ana winds and potentially weaken the pressure of Diablo winds. If precipitation patterns change, however, that merely might push the wildfire season from the fall into the winter.

That’s to say that the link between climate change and wildfires exists, but it also is quite complex.

What about where we live, and housing policies?

Residents of the West are moving to more fire-prone areas. The New York Times podcast “The Daily” explains that this is called the Wildland Urban Interface, where development meets wild vegetation.

People choose to live in more rural areas for a host of reasons. They may want to be closer to nature and where houses are more affordable. The higher number of homes and businesses in these areas also increases the likelihood of a human-induced fire and puts more lives and structures at risk. These threats as they pertain to the Wildland Urban Interface are not specific to California, but exist in many places around the country.

Housing policies also contribute to the decision by some to move to the Wildland Urban Interface. A homelessness problem plagues California and home prices are high, particularly in the cities.

The combination of the difficulty in expanding housing in the cities, the ease of building on green space, and state and local incentives to build in more remote locations encourages development in places that are at higher risk for wildfires.

Both state-subsidized housing (140,000 units in the Wildland Urban Interface) and local subsidies result in more houses than otherwise might be there. Also, because subsidies for building are still there, not to mention that a town’s budget and operations are paid for through property taxes, a strong incentive exists to rebuild.

And yet another piece of this puzzle is insurance. Insurance prices can be the great arbiter of accepting a certain amount of risk, whether that’s accepting the insurance premium of a sports car or purchasing a home in a flood- or fire-prone area.

A major part of the problem, however, is that the government can distort that risk by socializing it among taxpayers, or, in the case of California, banning insurers from refusing to renew fire insurance policies they deemed too risky. At the same time, some of the state’s housing policies encouraged expansion of homes and businesses to these more remote areas.

It’s understandable why homeowners are frustrated at the prospects of not being able to have insurance, but these policies skew the actual risk of living in these areas.

Alternative, market-based risk models are cropping up in parts of the country to better assess the risk and deploy fire- suppression resources where they’re needed most.

When the risk is accurately assessed, it should incentivize more prescribed burns, timber harvesting, and installation of fire- resistant materials on homes and other buildings. But even then, it is challenging because most often reducing the fuel load is out of the hands of the home or business owner.

The Western wildfires are tragic and devastating. A nearly universal consensus exists that prescribed burns can measurably reduce the risk of future fires.

Now is the time for the political will to make it happen, so we’re not writing and reading the same story a year from now.

COMMENTARY BY

Read his research. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why There Are So Many Wildfires in California, but Few in the Southeastern United States

California wildfires continue to blaze in one of the worst fire seasons in recent memory. While California fires are nothing new, government data show the damage has been substantial.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection says that since August 15, when California’s fire activity accelerated, there have been at least 24 fatalities and more than 4,200 structures destroyed. (Ten people have also died in Oregon, CNN reports.) So far in 2020, California wildfires have burned more than 3.2 million acres of land—an area roughly the size of Connecticut.

As the fires rage, politicians argue over what (and who) is to blame.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti say climate change is the culprit, while President Donald Trump says the fires are the result of poor land management.

These answers are not mutually exclusive, of course, and evidence suggests that both poor land management and California’s high temperatures and arid climate have played a role.

While addressing California’s extreme temperatures is difficult, especially in the short term (unless you’re a member of the X-Men named Storm), evidence suggests immediate solutions are available to improve state and federal forestry management.

Citing the fires scorching the West, The New York Times last week ran an article that stated it was time for government agencies to rethink their fire management policies.

“For over a century, firefighting agencies have focused on extinguishing fires whenever they occur. That strategy has often proved counterproductive,” the Times reports. “Many landscapes evolved to burn periodically, and when fires are suppressed, vegetation builds up thickly in forests. So when fires do break out, they tend to be far more severe and destructive.”

This was precisely what economist Jairaj Devadiga pointed out in a 2018 FEE article that examined why California’s wildfires historically have been much worse than those of Baja California, where fires are allowed to burn naturally at low intensity, regularly clearing out forest floors and limiting the spread of large conflagrations.

Though the Times doesn’t mention Baja California, the paper does endorse the Mexican state’s strategy of allowing fires to burn naturally to eliminate vegetation, pointing out that experts attribute the tactic to the more successful fire prevention approach found in the Southeastern United States.

Scientists who study wildfires agree that allowing forests and grasslands to burn periodically — by, say, intentionally setting smaller fires under controlled conditions — can be a more effective way to clear out vegetation. In Ponderosa pine forests, for instance, low-level fire can nurture ecosystems and help prevent destructive large-scale fires from breaking out.

This already occurs in the Southeastern United States, where officials use prescribed fires to burn millions of acres each year. While the region still sees destructive blazes — like Tennessee’s drought-fueled Great Smoky Mountains fires in 2016, which killed at least 14 people — experts credit the use of controlled burns with sparing many Southeastern communities from fire damage.

Contrary to Western states, “fire is widely accepted as a tool for land management in the Southeast,” fire scientist Crystal Kolden told the Times. This is in stark contrast to California, where just 50,000 acres were intentionally burned in 2017. (As a point of reference, academics estimate between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres of forest burned annually in prehistoric California.)

Fortunately, it appears that political leaders are beginning to recognize the problem. In August,

Newsom signed a memo acknowledging California needs more preventive fire.

While this is a step in the right direction, federal regulations could prove an obstacle to the strategy.

As Sam Rutzick at Reason point outs, the Clean Air Act of 1990 treats the smoke from a controlled burn as a pollutant (in contrast to a wildfire allowed to burn) and the National Environmental Policy Act requires “a couple-thousand-page document analyzing every single conceivable impact to the environment that the (burn) plan might have.”

The wildfires are a reminder of an unpleasant reality: the governments are poor stewards of the environment.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Wildfires Will Get Worse Under Decades-Old Liberal Policies, Veteran Forester Says

Nearly 30 years ago, President Bill Clinton made a significant change to federal land management that created the conditions necessary for massive wildfires to consume portions of the West Coast, according to a fire expert who predicted the problem years ago.

Shortly before leaving office in 2001, Clinton limited the ability of the United States Forest Service to thin out a dense thicket of foliage and downed trees on federal land to bring the West into a pristine state, Bob Zybach, an experienced forester with a Ph.D. in environmental science, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The former president’s decision created a ticking time bomb, Zybach argues.

“If you don’t start managing these forests, then they are going to start burning up. Thirty years later, they are still ignoring it,” said Zybach, who spent more than 20 years as a reforestation contractor.

He was referring to warnings he made years ago, telling officials that warding off prescribed burns in Oregon and California creates kindling that fuels fires.

Such rules make it more difficult to deploy prescribed burns, which are controlled burns designed to cull all of the underbrush in forests to lessen the chance of massive fires, Zybach noted.

Years of keeping these areas in their natural state result in dead trees and dried organic material settling on the forest floor, which become like matchsticks soaked in jet fuel during dry seasons, he said.

Zybach’s comments come as wildfires continue churning through parts of California, Oregon, and Washington, media reports show.

Fires have killed 26 in West Coast states since August, including 19 in California, and have culminated in more than 500,000 evacuating Oregon, a number representing roughly 10% of the state’s overall population.

Roughly 100 massive fires are blazing Saturday in the West, including 12 in Idaho and nine in Montana, the National Interagency Fire Center said Saturday. All told, the wildfires have churned through more than 4.5 million acres in 12 states.

Shortly before leaving office, Clinton introduced the Roadless Rule that restricted the use of existing roads and construction of new roads on 49 million acres of National Forest, making it difficult for officials to scan the land for the kind of kindling that fuels massive conflagrations.

The move was part of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), a resolution adopted by Clinton in 1994 to protect forests from being over-logged.

Ten years before Clinton’s rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service placed the northern spotted owl on the Endangered Species Act, forcing the Forest Service to adopt a new policy that resulted in a greater reduction in timber harvests. The amount of timber removed from federal lands plummeted, according to data accumulated in 2015 by the Reason Foundation.

An average of 10 million feet of timber was removed each year from Forest Service land between 1960 and 1990, the data show. Those numbers dropped between 1991 and 2000 and continued dropping—an average of only 2.1 billion feet of timber was removed from the land between 2000 and 2013, according to the data. That’s an 80% decline.

“They’ve gone and left hundreds of thousands of acres of burnt timber, a fire bomb waiting to happen, standing in place because the black back woodpecker prefers that habitat,” Zybach said. “It’s great for lawyers, but it’s bad for people who breathe air or work in the woods.”

“The prescribed burns are an ancient form of management for keeping the fuels down so these events don’t happen,” Zybach added, referring to Native American Indians who used controlled burns to ward away pests and prevent wildfires from licking their homes.

The Clinton administration’s plan to turn forests in the West into pristine land free of human interference risked fueling “wildfires reminiscent of the Tillamook burn, the 1910 fires, and the Yellowstone fire,” Zybach, who is based in Oregon, told Evergreen magazine in 1994, when the NWFP came into effect.

Western Oregon had one major fire above 10,000 acres between 1952 and 1987, reports show. The Silver Complex Fire of 1987 snapped that streak after torching more than 100,000 acres in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area, killing rare plants and trees the federal government sought to protect from human activities.

Fire Experts Agree: Prescribed Burns Are Critical 

Overzealous fire suppression across California are helping to build up wildland fuels, which contribute to wildfires, according to Tim Ingalsbee, a fire ecologist who began a career in the 1980s as a wildland firefighter. The solution is “to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load,” he told ProPublica in August.

“It’s just … well … it’s horrible. Horrible to see this happening when the science is so clear and has been clear for years. I suffer from Cassandra syndrome,” Ingalsbee said, referring to the Cassandra Syndrome, a Greek metaphor people use when they believe their valid warnings are not heeded.

“Every year I warn people: Disaster’s coming. We got to change. And no one listens. And then it happens.”

Other experts have made similar arguments in the past.

Overgrown grasslands, forests, and woodlands contributed to California wildfires in 2017, Sasha Berleman, a fire ecologist, told High Country News that year. “I’m more certain than ever that there’s a lot we can do between now and the next time this happens to make it so that the negative consequences to people are nowhere near as dramatic,” she said.

The devastating fires that ran through California’s wine country in October of 2017 killed 42 people and destroyed nearly 7,000 buildings, High Country News noted.

The solution might be easier said than done. Nearly 20 million acres in California, or an area about the size of Maine, will need to experience controlled burns to limit catastrophic wildfires, a January study from Nature Sustainability found.

Blaming Climate Change

Former President Barack Obama suggested in a tweet Thursday that California’s wildfires are a result of climate change.

“The fires across the West Coast are just the latest examples of the very real ways our changing climate is changing our communities,” Obama wrote in a tweet that included pictures showing how soot and ash from the wildfires are turning San Francisco’s sky bright orange.

Obama isn’t the only prominent Democrat tying the fires to global warming.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, published a tweet Saturday that read: “The proof of the urgency of the climate crisis is literally in the air around us.” Schumer included a link to a Sept. 10 article from CBS blaming climate change for the fires.

Zybach is not convinced. “The lack of active land management is almost 100% the cause,” he told The Daily Caller News Foundation, noting that climate change has almost nothing to do with fire kindling gathering across the forest floors. Other researchers share his skepticism.

“Global warming may contribute slightly, but the key factors are mismanaged forests, years of fire suppression, increased population, people living where they should not, invasive flammable species, and the fact that California has always had fire,” University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass told The Daily Caller News Foundation in 2018.

Mass’ critique came as the Mendocino Complex Fire was spreading across California on its way to becoming the largest wildfire in the state, engulfing more than 283,000 acres.

COLUMN BY

Chris White

Chris White is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @ZanderKelly30.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump, Newsom Shun Heated Partisanship in Confronting California Wildfires

How to Get California’s Wildfires Under Control

Countering the Left’s Climate Power Grab With Facts

It Turns Out a Number of Fires on the West Coast Aren’t Because of ‘Climate Change’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. 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 of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Recent Energy and Environmental News

Since early voting has started in some states, and since this Presidential election is of extraordinary importance, this is a special Newsletter on just that one topic.

For over a decade now, together we have made significant impacts with energy, environmental and educational matters. Thank you for being a loyal contributor to this well-educated, open-minded community of 10,000+ members.

The upcoming US federal election is of colossal importance to our future, our financial welfare, our national security, and our freedoms.  Considering the disappointing state of the once proud field of journalism, it has become difficult to make informed election decisions based on issues rather than personalities.

As always, my aim is to separate the wheat from the chaff: i.e. to provide readers a better understanding of the choices than they would get from mainstream media.

Put a different way, here are Five Ways the Election Will Determine the New Normal. This is another point of comparison: Trump vs. Democrats on Higher Education.

Since there has been very little media reporting about what the President has actually done regarding policy, etc., carefully read through this detailed list.

A good question is: can a committed Christian support President Trump?

Please watch this: Nothing is More Important Than God. Read this insightful correspondence: Archbishop Viganò’s powerful letter to President Trump Lastly here is a detailed, thoughtful answer, plus a letter to a Christian friend.

Regarding the COVID-19 matter, please seriously consider the following:

1 – Like any President would, Mr. Trump expected that the World Health Organization (WHO) would provide timely, helpful COVID-19 assistance. They not only did not do that, WHO was exposed as being politically driven. To his credit, he subsequently responded like no other President would have.

2 – Also like any President would, Mr. Trump relied on the advice of a recommended scientific person, Dr. Fauci. It later became clear that Dr. Fauci was part of the problem, and that (regrettably) he did not provide the President (or the country) with optimum advice (e.g. see this fine letter).

3 – Unlike any other President would have, Mr. Trump shared inside information he was receiving about likely beneficial therapeutics (esp HCQ) for citizens inflicted with COVID-19. Instead of this being treated as a helpful consideration, the press continually attacked him. The scientific studies to date (ignored by the media) have shown that his suggestion was sound.

4 – To see what Democrat leaders would have done if they were in charge, simply look at large states with Democrat governors — e.g. New York and California. They have been pandemic disasters (e.g. see here).

The bottom line is that the President has done a very reasonable job in dealing with a unique and unprecedented global challenge, where even top experts disagree (to this day!) about what the best courses of action are.


CLICK HERE FOR AN INFOGRAPHIC ON WHERE TRUMP AND BIDEN STAND ON KEY ISSUES –  PLEASE SHARE


Please consider: The Real Reason They Want You To Hate Donald Trump.

Finally: citizens need to see the Big Picture of what is going on. China (and Russia) are not our friends. They are working aggressively to take America down. The President has stood up to them like no other President in recent memory.

Turn off the fake news. Don’t listen to the dividers and the haters. Instead turn on to supporting God and America, pray for us, and vote responsibly!

P.S. — In addition to praying for our country, please pass this onto any open-minded associates you have.

Thank You and God Bless America!

©All rights reserved.

Climate Change: Most Brazen Scientific Hoax In Human History

Based on years of terrifying reports about the climate, I was a firm believer in man-made global warming theory as recently as 11 years ago. My position abruptly changed in 2009, when a climate research cheating scandal rocked the scientific world to the core. Hacked emails among highly influential scientists at the center of worldwide hysteria over climate change revealed routine data tampering and other instances of flagrant scientific misconduct.

Although the scientists implicated in “Climategate 2009” denied wrong-doing, emails hacked from computers at their employer, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, revealed a consistent pattern of climate data manipulation, conspiracies to falsify data and withhold findings that cast serious doubt on man-made global warming theory, to exaggerate the existence and threats posed by global warming, and to obstruct contrary research from appearing in scholarly publications. Aided and abetted by the thoroughly complicit western media establishment, the climate crisis industry portrayed the scandal as much ado about nothing, and continued beating the drums of climate hysteria as if nothing had happened.

Climategate cheating scandal exposed man-made global warming theory for what it is: the most brazen scientific hoax in human history

The Climategate cheating scandal exposed man-made global warming theory for what it is: the most brazen scientific hoax in human history, an international collusion to destroy capitalism in the world’s largest capitalist nation to pave the way for that nation’s sovereignty being handed over to a global governing authority run by the United Nations. That is a serious charge on my part, so please allow me to justify it by citing the words of two high profile UN officials in the thick of the effort to strip away America’s sovereignty.

You might want to sit down for this

Christiana Figueres served as Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change. In a frank admission that laid bare the stealth agenda behind climate alarmism, Figueres said during a February 2015 press conference in Brussels that the UN’s real purpose in promoting climate fear is to kill off capitalism throughout the world:

This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.

The economic model to which she referred is free-market capitalism. A year earlier, Figueres revealed what U.S. capitalism must be replaced with when she complained that America’s two-party constitutional democracy is hampering the UN’s climate objectives. She went on to cite China’s communist system as the kind of government America must have if the UN is to do as it pleases. In other words, if the UN is to have its way, America must become a communist nation.

Stealth agenda behind climate alarmism:  Redistribution of Wealth

Figueres is not alone. Another high-level UN official had comments of his own about the stealth agenda behind climate alarmism. If you’re among those who believe climate alarmists when they tell you all they’re trying to do is save the planet, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor. In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the UN IPCC’s Working Group III, made this stunning admission:

One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we’re doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to [re]distribute de facto the world’s wealth.  

On the same date, Edenhofer added this: 

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which [re]distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the UN’s top climate officials, effectively admitted that the organization’s public position on climate change is a hoax. The same admission was made in July 2019 by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who told governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) that the Green New Deal is not about saving the planet:

It wasn’t originally a climate thing at all … we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.

In other words, the intent of the Green New Deal is to use climate alarmism as a false flag excuse for dismantling America’s capitalist economy.

Figueres, Edenhofer and Chakrabarti aren’t the only high profile communists to recognize the effectiveness of using environmental hysteria

Figueres, Edenhofer and Chakrabarti aren’t the only high profile communists to recognize the effectiveness of using environmental hysteria as a fig leaf to hide their true intent. In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev advocated using climate fear to incite a global communist revolution:

The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.

The “new world order” to which he referred is global governance under the banner of the hammer and sickle. For global governance to happen, America’s sovereignty must be ceded to the UN, an organization infested from top to bottom with revolutionary Marxists hell-bent on disemboweling western civilization.

Powerful globalists in this country feel it’s not fair that billions of people in the world sleep on the ground in mud huts, while Americans sleep on soft mattresses in air-conditioned comfort. The progressive elites who feel that way also believe that America’s wealth must therefore be “shared” to an unprecedented extent with poor nations of the world. Global wealth redistribution is the foremost tenet of communism, and those who advocate it are by definition communists, whether they are open about it or not.

They’re coming for your liberty

The stunning pronouncements by Figueres and Edenhofer are all the evidence a rational mind needs to conclude that climate alarmism is being used as a Trojan horse to justify the stratospheric new carbon taxes clamored for by progressive elites like Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, not one of whom has ever denounced the profoundly anti-American sentiments of two of the UN’s top climate officials.

The words of one of those officials revealed that such taxes would be used not for environmental healing, but to fund the most massive redistribution of wealth in history, literally trillions of dollars extracted under false pretenses from hard-working U.S. taxpayers, and handed over to corrupt governments of every undeveloped nation on earth, all in the guise of “climate aid.”

Progressives in high places are attempting the largest heist in human history, a collusion to plunder unprecedented sums from taxpayers of the world’s largest capitalist nation. Why? To implement on a global scale the mandate set forth in The Communist Manifesto: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Outraged that President Trump dealt their plan to redistribute America’s wealth a setback when he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords, the high profile socialists who preach climate fear would have you believe they’re nothing more than environmentally-concerned citizens who would never even dream of participating in a subversive attempt to quietly turn their country communist. These wolves in sheep’s clothing have deceived to you, and now you know it.

No intelligent person can fail to see that the modern Democratic Party is using climate alarmism as a ruse to help culminate Barack Obama’s vow to fundamentally transform the United States of America. But because political egos are loathe to admit they’ve been duped, many patriotic Democrats will continue allowing themselves to be led like sheep into the closing noose of the hammer and sickle. By the time they realize what happened, it will be too late.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

Overpopulation is an Environmental Red Herring

It is not too much of a stretch to suggest that 2020 has been an interesting year (in the sense of “May you live in interesting times”). Fires, plagues, floods, Presidential impeachment, global economic meltdown, lockdowns: this year has seen them all. And we’re only in September. Thank goodness there isn’t a major election coming up where some are predicting social breakdown in nearly every conceivable scenario or anything

It’s not quite dogs and cats living together in peace and harmony, but another sign that the end is nigh is that I find myself nodding along to an article of George Monbiot (greenie extraordinaire) in the Guardian. In it, Monbiot argues that blaming overpopulation for environmental concerns is a cop out, particularly for rich people in first world nations who get to lecture the third world on the need to have fewer children while they enjoy a lifestyle with a carbon footprint bigger than that of small central African nations.

As he states, the current population growth is overwhelmingly concentrated among the world’s poorest people. This means that a rising human population is only producing a tiny fraction of the extra resource use and greenhouse gas emissions due to consumption growth. Instead, we in the West should be turning our attention on our own behaviours (that latest iPhone, the plane trip to Davos to discuss climate change) rather than fretting about more Indian or African babies.

The example Monbiot gives of Dame Jane Goodall is a good one. She told the World Economic Forum in Davos that if only we had the same population as we did 500 years ago (500 million) then the current environmental issues would not be with us. The audience of course consisted of those with ecological footprints many thousand times greater than the global average. But the greater irony is that Goodall has previously appeared in British Airways advertising. If the world’s population was 500 million, and it was entirely composed of the average UK plane passenger, then our environmental impact would probably be greater than the 7.8 billion people alive today. When it comes to the environment, population size does not matter nearly as much as lifestyle.

Indeed, wishing that the world’s population was one-sixteenth its current size is the same as wishing for the moon and just as useless. Tut-tutting about more people being born over there saves us from having to worry about anything we are doing over here. It is environmental virtue-signalling.

Except when it leads to policy outcomes that are far worse than virtue-signalling. Population panic has led to barbaric, coercive population control measures in many countries throughout the world. And this is not an historical problem: UK foreign aid was helping to fund crude, dangerous and coercive sterilisation in India as recently as 2011, it was justified on the grounds that it was helping to “fight climate change”. (At the same time the UK aid was also pouring money into developing coal, gas and oil plants around the world…)

Of course, Monbiot could have been reading Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si in which the Holy Father said that:

“To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.”

And both Monbiot and Pope Francis had perhaps been reading this very blog, since nearly a decade ago I wrote of the thinly-veiled condescending bigotry underlying much of the West’s panic about overpopulation. Perhaps now that the more people are coming around to the view that the world’s population will stop growing in a few decades, we will see less insistence on the kinds of arguments Monbiot is railing against.

This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

COLUMN BY

Marcus Roberts

Marcus Roberts was two years out of law school when he decided that practising law was no longer for him. He therefore went back to university and did his LLM while tutoring. He now teaches contract and… .

RELATED ARTICLE: Grandma took her life yesterday. Her doctors helped her

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator Net column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.