My New Year/New Decade Message — The Big Picture

Successful, happy people typically have the wise habit of periodically stepping-back to get a broader perspective as to what’s going on in their life, and society in general.

Since we are now not only beginning a New Year, but also a New Decade, it seems that doing such a careful analysis is strongly advisable.

You’ll have to decide about the pros and cons of your own life, but here is my perspective as to what is societally going on — what I’m calling the Big Picture.

On the one hand, a competent review of the last ten years would indicate that a LOT of good things have transpired. I’ve seen no better summary of this progress than:

We’ve Just Had the Best Decade in Human History. Seriously!

Please read that carefully so that you have a strong understanding of that unpublicized (and accordingly, not popularly appreciated) reality.

Based on the facts, the logical conclusion is that global citizens should be experiencing widespread happiness, satisfaction, and enthusiasm for the future.

Is that the case? Generally NO.

Well why not?  Because we still have good and evil.

For example, there are diabolical, well-connected parties who have a lust for power. Citizen contentment is a major obstacle to their taking over control of the planet. The most effective way they can get people to want to change, is to make them unhappy with the way things are now…

To deal with substantial good news, their strategy is to resort to three proven tactics:

a) instill fear into the masses,
b) undermine the pillars of the current, successful society, and
c) sow societal discord.

Consider that the leader of the free world is under an intense, incessant, coordinated attack — including removal from office — primarily because of his policies.

The subversives are leaving no stone unturned to try to make the public afraid of him and his policies (e.g. his rightfully withdrawing from the Paris sham).

They claim that they are opposed to his “lying,” but the reality is that they are actually angered by the swamp-exposing truths that he has said.

His opponents — actually OUR opponents — are also:

1 -Willfully eroding the Judeo-Christian principles that our society was built on.
2 – Purposefully corroding our democratic form of government (a Republic).
3 – Aggressively diluting our academic system (to produce propagandized lemmings).
4 – Consciously sabotaging true Science (as it is a barrier to their agendas).
5 – Knowingly subverting our economic system (Capitalism).
6 – Deliberately undermining our Electric Grid (the foundation of our economy and national security).

What’s even worse, in all of these campaigns, these parties have no apparent standards (note #1 above) regarding truth, fairness, rights, freedoms — yet they speciously claim the moral high ground!

As mentioned, one of their main strategies for pulling off their political agenda is to sow divisiveness and discord — so that we fight among ourselves.

In this vile effort they are pitting: men vs women, whites vs minorities, young vs old, wealthy vs not-so-much, hard workers vs entitlement advocates, citizens vs immigrants, traditional religions vs secular religion, etc., etc.

Once one fully understands these attacks, it should be very clear that we are in the biggest war ever experienced in history.


In the face of such adversity, it may seem that nothing YOU do will make any real difference. That is yet another lie they are feeding us, so don’t buy it!  The truth is what Margaret Meade insightfully said:

“A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

A less well-known insight she also wrote:

“Prayer does not use up artificial energy, doesn’t burn up any fossil fuel, doesn’t pollute.”

My recommendation is to be aware of what is going on, and then consciously oppose the efforts of those who wish to bring us down, e.g. by actively supporting:

1 – the Judeo-Christian principles that our society was built on (e.g. more love and unity, less hate and alienation),
2 – our democratic form of government (a Republic),
3 – our academic system (to produce critical-thinking graduates),
4 – real Science (which is apolitical by definition),
5 – our economic system (while working to make it better), and
6 – our Electric Grid (by not allowing any alternative energies on it that haven’t been scientifically proven to be a NET societal benefit).

By doing all that you will be doing the Right Thing.

The world may (or may not) change because of your efforts, but your positive actions will assure you and yours of having a genuinely Happy New Year, and New Decade.

PS — I’ve shared this before, but it bears repeating. I’m aware of no better videos that insightfully explain some of the larger picture of what is going on, than these two five-minutes movie trailers:

 Agenda: Grinding America Down plus Agenda 2: Masters of Deceit.

Copyright © 2020; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see

Greta Thunberg: A Living Explanation of the Left

It is not easy to understand what the left—as opposed to liberals—stands for. If you ask a Christian what to read to learn the basics of Christianity, you will be told the Bible. If you ask a (religious) Jew, you will be told the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. If you ask a Mormon, you will be told the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Ask a Muslim and you will be told the Quran.

But if you ask a leftist what one or two books you should read to understand leftism, every leftist will give you a different answer—or need some time to think it over. Few, if any, will suggest Marx’s “Das Kapital” because almost no leftists have read it and because you will either not finish the book or reject it as incoherent.

So, then, how is one to understand what leftism stands for?

The truth is it is almost impossible. What leftist in history would have ever imagined that to be a leftist, one would have to believe that men give birth or men have periods, or that it is fair to women to have to compete in sports with biological males who identify as females?

Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. Defend your principles before it is too late. Find out more now >>

There are two primary reasons it is so difficult, if not impossible, to define leftism. One is that it ultimately stands for chaos:

  • Open borders.
  • “Nonbinary” genders.
  • Nonsensical and scatological “art.”
  • “Music” without tonality, melody, or harmony.
  • Drag Queen Story Hour for 5-year-olds.
  • Rejection of the concept of better or worse civilizations.
  • Rejection of the concept of better or worse art.
  • Removal of Shakespeare’s picture from a university English department because he was a white male.
  • The end of all use of fossil fuels—even in transportation (as per the recent recommendation by the head of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization).
  • The dismantling of capitalism, the economic engine that has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty.

And much more.

The other major reason it is impossible to define leftism is that it is emotion-based. Leftism consists of causes that give those who otherwise lack meaning something to cling to for meaning.

Two things about Greta Thunberg, Time magazine’s 2019 person of the year, embody these explanations.

With regard to chaos, here is what Greta Thunberg wrote at the beginning of the month: “The climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice and of political will. Colonial, racist and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all.”

Thunberg, like all leftists, seeks to dismantle just about everything. As former President Barack Obama said five days before the 2008 election, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

As regards emotion and meaning, The Guardian reports, this is what Thunberg’s father just told the BBC:

Greta Thunberg’s father has opened up about how activism helped his daughter out of depression … how activism had changed the outlook of the teenager, who suffered from depression for ‘three or four years’ before she began her school strike protest outside the Swedish parliament. She was now ‘very happy’, he said … ‘She stopped talking … she stopped going to school,’ he said of her illness.

The post-Judeo-Christian world the left has created has left a vast number of the West’s citizens, especially more and more young people, with no meaning. This Grand Canyon-sized hole is filled by leftist causes.

The fact is life is better, safer, and more affluent, and offers more opportunities for more people, than ever before in history. Just about all emotionally stable, mature people should be walking around the West almost delirious at their good fortune. Americans in particular should feel this way.

But leftists (again, as opposed to many liberals) are not usually emotionally stable and are certainly not mature. That is why depression among young Americans (and perhaps Swedes) is at the highest levels ever recorded.

So, like Thunberg, they look to left-wing causes to find meaning and emotional fulfillment. Until she embraced climate crisis activism—a chance, as she sees it, to literally save the world—Thunberg was so depressed “she stopped talking.” But thanks to climate activism and other left-wing activism, she is now “very happy” (an assessment I suspect many observers find hard to believe).

Feminism and “fighting patriarchy” (in an age when American women have more opportunities than ever before and more opportunities than women almost anywhere else in the world), fighting racism (in the least racist multiracial society in history), fighting white supremacy (which has almost disappeared from American life), and fighting on behalf of myriad other leftist causes—in other words, fundamentally transforming society—gives meaning to people with no meaning.

None of that is morally or rationally coherent. But it is very emotionally satisfying. Just ask Greta Thunberg’s dad.



Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU.

A Note for our Readers:

As progressives on the far Left continue to push for greater government control under the disguise of “free stuff,” our lawmakers need conservative research and solutions to guide them towards promoting your principles instead.

That is why we’re asking conservatives to unite around the key values of limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense by making a special year-end gift to The Heritage Foundation before December 31.

Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. The Left won’t pull any punches. They stand ready to trade the principles of the American founding for the toxic European socialism that has failed so many times before.

That is why finishing this year strong is so critical. The Heritage Foundation is challenging you to rise up and claim more victories for conservative values as we battle socialism in 2020.


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

Climate Change Protesters’ Traffic Tie-Ups Are No Way to Win Friends or Influence People

The environmental zealots who regularly take to the streets of the nation’s capital for climate change protests clearly have never read Dale Carnegie’s classic self-help bestseller “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

That’s evident from the demonstrations the global warming alarmists stage at downtown D.C. intersections during morning rush hours, unapologetically snarling traffic and creating commuter gridlock.

Causing motorists to be late for work and/or miss appointments is hardly the way to win friends among those they’ve seriously inconvenienced or to influence them to buy into the climate-calamity hysteria. It’s far more likely to alienate them.

For more than seven hours on Dec. 6, for example, hundreds of “Shut Down DC” coalition environmental activist demonstrators lived up to their billing, snaking through downtown Washington, blocking intersections with their bodies, banners, and other props, and forcing traffic to be diverted and detoured.

Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. Defend your principles before it is too late. Find out more now >>

All the while, they beat on drums, chanted mindless left-wing couplets (“Hey, hey, ho, ho! / [Fill in the blank] has got to go!”) and barked calls and responses (“What do we want?” / “Climate justice!” / “When do we want it?” / “Now!”).

What the amorphous “climate justice” they “want now” entails is anyone’s guess, but it presumably tracks closely along the lines of the radical multitrillion-dollar Green New Deal scheme hatched by far-left freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D.-N.Y.

This much is certain, however: The enormous taxes and spending the Green New Deal would mandate would do a grave injustice to the nation’s economic climate.

According to news accounts, the demonstration in early December began at about 7:30 a.m. with a march from George Washington University to World Bank headquarters along Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, with gridlock ensuing at the height of the morning rush.

Later in the day, for two hours, seven of the protesters reportedly chained themselves to the door of a Wells Fargo bank branch, preventing customers from entering. Cheered on by octogenarian actress Jane Fonda—a longtime agitator who never met a leftist cause she didn’t reflexively support—demonstrators mindlessly chanted, “Wells Fargo, hey, you! / We deserve a future, too.” (Just as an aside, what’s with the left’s obsession with rhyming couplets?)

The bank, presumably targeted for supposedly helping finance the fossil fuel industry, should sue them all for restraint of trade.

When all was said/chanted and done, The Washington Post reported, “Despite hours of disruptions and tense moments between protesters and D.C. police, officials said no arrests were made.”

How is that even possible? Why does the city blithely allow these protests to disrupt traffic and inconvenience motorists and pedestrians, as well as businesses and their employees and customers? At minimum, why weren’t the most disruptive and unruly among the protesters not fined and/or arrested?

These protests, organized by groups with names like Extinction Rebellion, surely cost the city thousands of dollars for policing and security, so District of Columbia taxpayers are in effect subsidizing them.

There was no indication, however, that that seems to faze the ultraliberal city’s officials, many of whom no doubt support the protesters and their cause. Did either D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser or D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham issue to police a stand-down order? One has to wonder, inasmuch as 32 people were arrested during a similar protest on Sept. 23.

Regardless, do these climate change extremists really think they’re winning “hearts and minds” to their cause by grossly inconveniencing commuters, businesses, and others? To the contrary, one would reasonably expect they’re having the exact opposite effect, turning off those who aren’t already global warming “true believers.”

In the demonstrators’ self-righteous view, the end justifies the means, even if it’s counterproductive in terms of public relations. They went so far as to insist to those who complained of the inconvenience: “We’re doing this for you. It’s your planet, too.”

But this smug notion—“It’s for your own good”—is belied by a January poll conducted by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. It found that 68% of respondents oppose paying an additional $10 a month to combat climate change, while 43% aren’t even willing to pay an extra $1 a month on their electricity bills for that purpose.

More telling, the poll failed to include any mention of how much warming supposedly would be abated by paying an additional $1, $20, or $50 per month. In each scenario, the answer is next to nothing, and that would only decrease even further their willingness to pay such a tax.

Another irony, lost on these climate change Chicken Littles, was that the traffic tie-ups they caused resulted in long lines of cars idling, spewing more—not less—of the tailpipe carbon emissions they claim are contributing to the supposed impending climate catastrophe.

On its website, Shut Down DC insists that there’s “no time left for business-as-usual,” but regardless of how righteous the protesters consider their cause to be, D.C. officials and police need to remind them, forcefully, that the right to swing one’s fist ends where someone else’s nose begins.


Peter Parisi is an editor and writer for The Daily Signal.

A Note for our Readers:

As progressives on the far Left continue to push for greater government control under the disguise of “free stuff,” our lawmakers need conservative research and solutions to guide them towards promoting your principles instead.

That is why we’re asking conservatives to unite around the key values of limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense by making a special year-end gift to The Heritage Foundation before December 31.

Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. The Left won’t pull any punches. They stand ready to trade the principles of the American founding for the toxic European socialism that has failed so many times before.

That is why finishing this year strong is so critical. The Heritage Foundation is challenging you to rise up and claim more victories for conservative values as we battle socialism in 2020.


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

The World’s Recycling System Is Falling Apart. What’s Going On?

All recycling in history, in all its innovative variants—and at levels from individual scrap collectors to energy-conserving industries—had been economic. What happened?

Recycling was one of those great ideas of the 1970s, right?

One of the first great movements to save the earth from resource depletion and the land and sea from human refuse?

Who could even imagine, now, a modern nation without recycling bins, recycling plants, and yogurt containers made with recycled materials? And everybody, always, sorting what used to be called their “garbage,” now their “recyclables,” to participate in the eternal renewal of earth’s resources?

Environmentalists and, as always, the media—and governments eager for a new job—used every resource of propaganda to plant the idea that recycling was just good terrestrial citizenship.

And inseparable from the parable was that anything this important had to be a matter of law, the responsibility of government. Recycling was so good that people had to be forced to do it. We needed new laws at every level of government. The private actions of private citizens, business, and industry could not be relied on—not without coercion.

In fact, of course, arguments for recycling can be found in the writings of Plato, according to no less a source than Wikipedia. Athens launched the first known municipal dump program in the Western world, with laws requiring citizens to dispose of their waste at least a mile outside the city walls (no curbside collection). History records every variant of reclaiming trash by people—and, in time, businesses built upon recycling.

For times before records were kept on such matters, archeologists discovered that what was thrown into dumps differed markedly over time. Layers corresponding to periods of economic shortage and hardship tend to be stripped of everything reusable; layers corresponding to periods of economic abundance and plenty are far less picked over.

As the Industrial Revolution took hold in Europe, and goods of all kinds flowed from new factories, mines, and mills—and arrived from around the world on trading ships—entrepreneurs began to develop processes and plants to recycle even rags (rewoven with virgin wool to produce a new material unpretentiously called “shoddy”).

At war with the British Empire in 1776, Americans turned to salvage and reuse both to fight the wars and to stretch out the use of all the manufactured goods they bought from England.

Cities in Europe and then America spawned armies of thousands of scavengers for valued recyclables like iron, aluminum, tin, and copper. In England, in 1865, the new Salvation Army organized them. Railroads went into the sideline of reclaiming iron.

It was during WWI that recycling went into high gear in economies on all sides of the war. In part, it was again individuals and families driven by shortages to reclaim and use refuse; in part, it was collection by individuals, sometimes organized by government, to collect desperately needed war materials. In England and Scotland, grand old iron gates and fences were melted for munitions, shipbuilding, and other weaponry.

A turning point in history was WWII’s huge acceleration of government intervention in virtually every area of life. Perhaps prefiguring the 1960s and 1970s, recycling became a patriotic duty, a war-winning strategy on the home front. Social pressure increased on every hand to reclaim and reuse resources. The U.S. military continues to this day to recycle certain scarce metals, including depleted uranium for artillery shells.

An impetus to nationwide recycling, before it became a parable of salvation of the Earth, was the energy savings to be achieved by recycling metals, paper, and, to a much lesser extent, plastics. Depending on the material, with metals such as aluminum being the best, it requires significantly less energy to produce a useable material by recycling than from the raw ore or other resources. Recycling aluminum uses only 5 percent of the energy required by virgin production. Savings on glass and paper are less but very significant. That made the energy crisis of the 1970s a major motivator for recycling.

All recycling in history, in all its innovative variants—and at levels from individual scrap collectors to energy-conserving industries—had been economic. They had been activities justifiable by economic calculation, for-profit—including wartime scavenging undertaken simply because that was the available economic source of what was needed. There was little or no recycling mandated by law or regulation; all of it simply made economic sense in a given context. As time passed and economies grew, more production meant more refuse. Accordingly, economic forces drove more research and innovation, and recycling grew.

The interventionist thrust in the United States, accelerating in the 1960s and 1970s, produced the usual arguments for a government takeover of recycling—because it must become universal and it might not be profitable. A prime ideological justification was supplied by the “limits to growth” movement of the Club of Rome and others, taking advantage of the fear spurred by the energy crisis of 1974 to argue that all necessary natural resources on earth were rapidly depleting. Economies would crash and populations would starve, left cold and in the dark, without drastically curtailing economic growth (translation: rein-in free markets, economic growth, and “consumerism”) … and without urgent, mandated recycling. “Almost overnight, it seemed, recycling was embraced by the public as a kind of all-purpose absolution for our environmental sins,” Popular Mechanics noted in 2008.

Since then, the “limits to growth” movement and its ideology have faded as resources such as oil—but all others, too—have been produced and shown to be available in huge quantities thanks to new technologies such as fracking, new mining technology, and new means of using heretofore wasted resources such as natural gas.

But that has been the triumphant achievement of semi-free markets—succeeding in spite of every obstacle created by regulation—and of the advance of technology. In contrast, the ideological twin of the limits to growth movement—recycling—became the domain predominantly of government and laws. It has therefore been more or less impervious to any “market test” of benefits versus costs. Driven by ideology, the analyses of recycling have been plagued by a “confirmation bias” and by the argument, offered for everything that government does, that “Even if it isn’t profitable, it’s a good thing, and we’ve got to do it.”

Back in 2008, a typical article was like the one in Popular Mechanics, which promised “some real answers” about recycling. It reported:

To resolve the environmental debate … experts have begun to conduct detailed life-cycle analyses on recycled goods, calculating the energy consumed from the moment they’re picked up by recycling trucks until they are processed into brand-new products. When compared with the amount of energy required to send the same goods to landfills or incinerators and make new products from scratch, the results vary dramatically, depending on the material.

But, of course, the whole history of salvage and recycling as a normal economic activity has been guided solely by considerations of costs versus benefits.

In fact, however, the course run by government intervention in recycling was predictable from the outset. Taken out of the context of the market economy, so that economic calculation by prices and profits no longer is possible, the benefits versus the costs of a process as complex as recycling simply cannot be known. Libraries of books and articles have reported studies, arguments pro and con, and the most esoteric efforts to identify “externalities” and make cross-national comparisons, and we know no better today than 50 years ago if recycling is “good” or “bad.”

Core arguments for recycling, such as panic over available landfills, fell by the wayside. According to one calculation, all the garbage produced in the U.S. for the next one thousand years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles across on each side—not that big (unless you happen to live in the neighborhood). Put another way, it would take another 20 years to run through the landfills the U.S. has already built. So the notion that we’re running out of landfill space—the original impetus for the recycling boom—turns out to have been a red herring.

What we do know is that the complex admixture of government programs, private contractors, profits and subsidies, media propaganda, and stark realities have now reached the point of collapse. For decades, the economic growth of communist China created a voracious demand for every resource, introduced labor rates a fraction of those in some developed countries, and showed a willingness to accept some pollution and waste as the price of economic growth.

To an extent almost unimaginable, the developed world “recycled” literally billions of tons of waste over decades—metals, plastics, paper, wood—by shipping it to the People’s Republic of China on Chinese ships returning from delivering Chinese goods for sale in developed countries. China accepted it all, paid for it, and used its huge and eager workforce—paid often less than one-tenth of comparable U.S. labor—to transform whatever was in truth recyclable into materials for its industrial-manufacturing-construction powerhouse.

In fact, though, as we now know, somewhere between 30 and 50 percent of what was promiscuously shipped out of the developed economies to be “recycled” was actually dumped by China, as unusable, into landfills and the oceans of Southeast Asia, where it has become a major cause and poster-child of environmentalists as an “island” (sometimes) or a “sea” (sometimes) of floating plastic waste.

Today, we know this in far more detail and know that the developed world never really faced the “economics” of recycling—impossible without the market pricing system. We know it now because, on the first day of 2018, China announced to the world its “National Sword Policy.”

No longer would China accept and pay for the hundreds of millions of tons of often unrecyclable trash from the developed world, trash arriving in China so hopelessly mixed, dirty, and loaded with impurities that China was polluting its own country and also its coastal waters. China was finished with this arrangement. Henceforth, “recyclables” shipped to China must be 99.5 percent pure or, to put it another way, limited to one-half of one percent impurities. Plastic imports to China have plummeted 99 percent.

China’s action may have been triggered by the decision of recycling programs to make recycling even easier for households, making a switch from “sort trash” to what is called “single stream.” This hugely increased the number of people recycling—because it wasn’t recycling.

Today, some 25 percent of everything recycling-eager consumers put into recycling bins cannot possibly be recycled by the programs that collect them. For example: food waste, rubber hoses, wire, low-grade plastics—all tossed into bins by over-hopeful recyclers. They waste haulage, jam recycling machinery, contaminate what is valuable, and are dangerous to recycling plant workers. China had been taking all this from the United States for “processing” but actually dumping it—hence the new, aggressive “China Sword” policy. China had handled almost half of the world’s supposedly recyclable waste for at least a quarter of a century.

In the period since China’s dramatic announcement, the developed world’s “recycling” system has fallen apart. In many states and municipalities, trash is still collected in blue recycling bins and carted away, but the media began to break stories like that of The New York Times: “Your Recycling Gets Recycled, Right? Maybe or Maybe Not.”

Or Stanford Magazine: “How Much of Recycling Actually Gets Recycled?”

Or The Guardian: “’Plastic Recycling Is a Myth’: What Really Happens to Your Plastic?”

Or Forbes: “These Three Plastic Recycling Myths Will Blow Your Mind.”

Or Wired: “The World’s Recycling Is in Chaos. What Has to Happen?”

Recycled trash was still being collected, including plastics—among the most problematic, least profitable materials to recycle—but they were being dumped in landfills, like in the old days, or they were being sent to incinerators. Wired reported:

Globally, more plastics are now ending up in landfills, incinerators, or likely littering the environment as rising costs to haul away recyclable materials increasingly render the practice unprofitable. In England, more than half a million more tons of plastics and other household garbage were burned last year.

The Australian news show 60 Minutes lamented in April of this year: “When you throw this stuff in your recycle bin at home you might like to think again …” Australia alone has unloaded some 71,000 tons of plastic in Malaysia in just the past year. There, the mountains of plastic waste tend to end up in illegal processing facilities and junkyards.

The European Union has invested vast sums in recycling plants of all kinds, and in the EU (of course), recycling is the most intense in the world, with the strictest legal mandates. But EU countries are shipping the bales of “recycled” waste that used to go to China to Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, and other Southeast Asian nations—who were willing to buy it, even if China was not? Recent reports are that some countries are being paid to take it, and, since it can’t really be recycled, dumping it in the ocean.

Government takes over an economic activity deemed “in the national interest.” It is too important to be left to private economic activity and the market—as it had been throughout history. Government codifies the activity into law and regulation. At first, it seems to work all right, and, after all, is a “very good thing.” Initial claims are that its economic benefits are evident and extraordinary.

Then, some remnant of critical thinking catches up with the propaganda. Arguments fly back and forth with recycling bins full of statistics and increasingly complex considerations. There are studies and experiments, but mostly, lots of theories until it becomes obvious that there is no means by which the benefits actually can be compared with the costs. Without the economic calculation that is fundamental to the market—the radically decentralized decisions and economic exchanges of hundreds of millions of individuals reckoning their own costs and profits—it is impossible to determine if resources are being used optimally to satisfy needs and wants.

And then, at some point, the government system is revealed to be unworkable. For example, it stakes everything on a single short-term strategy that cannot be expected to continue—and abruptly fails. No alternatives, no choices, are in place.

What supposedly had been a “system” is revealed as a series of makeshifts—now increasingly desperate. No one had thought about what might happen next because the “mind” of government had dictated a single answer.

Where do we go from here? The inevitable course of government is that when it fails, either the “free” market is blamed or the terms of debate are abruptly and arbitrarily switched.

In our time, the left’s quest to justify government command and control of the economy—a fascist variant of socialism—has shifted the grounds of its entire argument to the “crisis” of long-term climate change. No surprise: the argument for recycling is mutating before our eyes, from the broken “limits to growth” argument to the new climate change arguments.

Who would have guessed back in the 1970s that we were recycling to control the long-term surface temperature of the planet?

This article was reprinted with permission from The Savvy Street.


Walter Donway

Walter Donway was a program officer for the Commonwealth Fund, a New York City foundation supporting biomedical research. He was program officer for the Dana Foundation and editor of “Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science.” With David Kelly, he was involved in founding what is now known as the “Atlas Society.”  His most recent books are Not Half Free: The Myth that American is Capitalist and Donald Trump and His Enemies: How the Media Put Trump in Office.

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

Energy and Environmental Newsletter — Special Notice

We get many requests for studies, reports and articles on a specific topic (e.g. wind energy infrasound) that were in previous Newsletters. Although Master Resource has generously posted some prior issues of the Newsletter, there was no way to quickly search over multiple prior Newsletter issues — until now!

Although it took a substantial amount of time, we’ve now put each of our prior eleven years (!) of Newsletters into eleven separate (searchable) documents.

Additionally, we’ve combined all eleven years into one (very large but still searchable) document — which has 13,500± studies, reports and articles!

See here for this new, hopefully helpful index.

Since this archive goes all the way back to 2009, there will undoubtedly be broken links. Just let us know and we’ll try to fix what we can.

(The revision date of each document is in the heading, after Note 4.)

Again, best wishes to all our faithful 10,000+ Newsletter readers. Have a safe, enjoyable and profitable New Year. Thank you for your continued support.

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: Originally this was a monthly Newsletter. However, as pertinent material proliferated, it has been issued more frequently. As a guideline once we collect a hundred worthwhile articles, a new Newsletter will be issued on the following Monday. Recently this has resulted in a once every three weeks frequency — and occasionally once every two weeks.

Note 3: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy, environmental and education issues… As always, please pass the Newsletter on to open-minded citizens, and link to it on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our Energy & Environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 4: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 5: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or the website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Copyright © 2019; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see

Millions Died Thanks to the Mother of Environmentalism

On Jan. 24, 2017, PBS aired a two-hour special on Rachel Carson, the mother of the environmental movement. Although the program crossed the line from biography to hagiography, in Carson’s case, the unbridled praise was well deserved – with one exception.

Rachel Carson was an American hero. In the early 1960s, she was the first to warn that a pesticide called DDT could accumulate in the environment, the first to show that it could harm fish, birds, and other wildlife, the first to warn that its overuse would render it ineffective, and the first to predict that more natural means of pest control – like bacteria that killed mosquito larvae – should be used instead.

Unfortunately, the PBS documentary neglected to mention that in her groundbreaking book, Silent Spring, Carson had made one critical mistake – and it cost millions of people their lives.

Carson’s Literary Acclaim

On Nov. 1, 1941, Rachel Carson published her first book, Under the Sea-WindAlthough written for adults, the book had a child-like sense of wonder. Under the Sea-Wind told the story of Silverbar, a sanderling that migrated from the Arctic Circle to Argentina; Scomber, a mackerel that traveled from New England to the Continental Shelf; and Anguilla, an American eel that journeyed to the Sargasso Sea to spawn. “There is poetry here,” wrote one reviewer.

On July 2, 1951, Carson published her second book, The Sea Around Us. Two months later, The Sea Around Us was #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, where it remained for 39 weeks: a record. When the dust settled, The Sea Around Us had sold more than 1.3 million copies, been translated into 32 languages, won the National Book Award, and been made into a movie. Editors of the country’s leading newspapers voted Rachel Carson “Woman of the Year.”

In October 1955, Carson published her third book, The Edge of the Sea, a tour guide for the casual adventurer. The New Yorker serialized it, critics praised it and the public loved it: more than 70,000 copies were sold as it rocketed to #4 on the New York Times bestseller list.

Today, most people under the age of 40 have probably never heard of Rachel Carson. But in the early 1960s, almost every American knew her name.

Demonizing DDT

On Sept. 27, 1962, Rachel Carson changed her tone. Her next book, Silent Spring, which she called her “poison book,” was an angry, no-holds-barred polemic against pesticides: especially DDT.

The first chapter of Silent Spring, titled “A Fable for Tomorrow,” was almost biblical, appealing to our sense that we had sinned against our Creator. “There was once a town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings. Then a strange blight crept over the area and everything began to change… the cattle and sheep sickened and died… streams were lifeless… everywhere there was the shadow of death.”

Birds, especially, had fallen victim to this strange evil. In a town that had once “throbbed with scores of bird voices there was now no sound, only silence.” A silent spring. Birds weren’t alone in their suffering. According to Carson, children suffered sudden death, aplastic anemia, birth defects, liver disease, chromosomal abnormalities, and leukemia – all caused by DDT. And women suffered infertility and uterine cancer.

Carson made it clear that she wasn’t talking about something that might happen – she was talking about something that had happened. Our war against nature had become a war against ourselves.

In May 1963, Rachel Carson appeared before the Department of Commerce and asked for a “Pesticide Commission” to regulate the untethered use of DDT. Ten years later, Carson’s “Pesticide Commission” became the Environmental Protection Agency, which immediately banned DDT. Following America’s lead, support for international use of DDT quickly dried up.

The Global Killer

Although DDT soon became synonymous with poison, the pesticide was an effective weapon in the fight against an infection that has killed – and continues to kill – more people than any other: malaria.

By 1960, due largely to DDT, malaria had been eliminated from 11 countries, including the United States. As malaria rates went down, life expectancies went up; as did crop production, land values, and relative wealth.

Probably no country benefited from DDT more than Nepal, where spraying began in 1960. At the time, more than two million Nepalese, mostly children, suffered from malaria. By 1968, the number was reduced to 2,500; and life expectancy increased from 28 to 42 years.

After DDT was banned, malaria reemerged across the globe:

  • In India, between 1952 and 1962, DDT caused a decrease in annual malaria cases from 100 million to 60,000. By the late 1970s, no longer able to use DDT, the number of cases increased to 6 million.
  • In Sri Lanka, before the use of DDT, 2.8 million people suffered from malaria. When the spraying stopped, only 17 people suffered from the disease. Then, no longer able to use DDT, Sri Lanka suffered a massive malaria epidemic: 1.5 million people were infected by the parasite.
  • In South Africa, after DDT became unavailable, the number of malaria cases increased from 8,500 to 42,000 and malaria deaths from 22 to 320.

Since the mid-1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.

Costing Lives

Environmentalists have argued that when it came to DDT, it was pick your poison. If DDT was banned, more people would die from malaria. But if DDT wasn’t banned, people would suffer and die from a variety of other diseases, not the least of which was cancer. However, studies in Europe, Canada, and the United States have since shown that DDT didn’t cause the human diseases Carson had claimed.

Indeed, the only type of cancer that had increased in the United States during the DDT era was lung cancer, which was caused by cigarette smoking. DDT was arguably one of the safer insect repellents ever invented – far safer than many of the pesticides that have taken its place.

Carson’s supporters argued that, had she lived longer, she would never have promoted a ban on DDT for the control of malaria. Indeed, in Silent Spring, Carson wrote, “It is not my contention that chemical pesticides never be used.” But it was her contention that DDT caused leukemia, liver disease, birth defects, premature births, and a whole range of chronic illnesses.

An influential author can’t, on the one hand, claim that DDT causes leukemia (which, in 1962, was a death sentence) and then, on the other hand, expect that anything less than that a total ban of the chemical would result.

In 2006, the World Health Organization reinstated DDT as part of its effort to eradicate malaria. But not before millions of people had died needlessly from the disease.

Reprinted from The Daily Beast.


Paul A. Offit

Paul A. Offit is a professor of pediatrics and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He is the author of Pandora’s Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong (National Geographic Press, April 2017).

RELATED ARTICLE: Germans using children to make climate hysteria propaganda. Again.

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

Recent Energy and Environmental News

This is our last Energy & Environmental Newsletter for 2019. For the full version of this issue, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

To accommodate the diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into ten (10) categories (see below).

My votes for the most outstanding articles this cycle are:

We’ve Just Had the Best Decade in Human History. Seriously!
Science and the West: Then and Now
100 Scientific Papers: CO2 has Minuscule Effect on Climate
Video: False to claim health & climate benefits from coal plant closures
In 2020 Climate Science Needs To Hit The Reset Button, Part One
Madrid Climate Conference Ends in Failure
Greta Thunberg Is the Perfect Hero for an Unserious TimeExxon Wins Against NY’s Hypocritical Legal Lunacy
The Rise and Fall of CELDF
President Trump Video Clips: Nothing is More Powerful than God

Energy Economics

It’s time to hit the off switch for solar, wind power tax breaks
U.S. House spending bill holds win for wind energy, setback for solar
Subsidized Wind, Noncompetitive Wind
Tax deal in hand, US spending package grows in size
Report: Financial groups gave $745 billion for 258 new coal power plants

Wind Energy Ecosystem Impact

The Renewable Fuel Standard is killing the environment
Bird Conservation Groups File Federal Lawsuit over Icebreaker Wind Project

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Power’s Phoenix Moment in Canada and Abroad
The Tiny, Simple Nuclear Reactor That Could Change Energy
NuScale’s SMR Design Clears Phase 4 of Review Process

Energy Misc

Alex Epstein’s Clear Thinking on Climate and Energy

Global Warming and Madrid (COP25)

Madrid Climate Conference Ends in Failure
Global Climate Income Transfer Scheme Doesn’t Go Well
UN’s Climate Change Strategy is a Wealth Confiscation Game
COP 25: Climate Alarmists wage a war of words, but where’s the beef?
COP 25: Paris Accord destroyed

Global Warming and Greta

Greta ‘Ignored’ By World Leaders, Admits Protests Have Achieved ‘Nothing’
Greta wins TIME Award: It’s a symptom of a sick & confused world
Greta Thunberg Is the Perfect Hero for an Unserious Time

Manmade Global Warming (other)

100 Scientific Papers: CO2 has Minuscule Effect on Climate
Toxic climate propaganda is poisoning US public policy
In 2020 Climate Science Needs To Hit The Reset Button, Part One
Report: Climate Truth File 2020
Exxon Wins Against NY’s Hypocritical Legal Lunacy
Memo to the Media: Don’t Use Bad Words!
Short video: Michael Moore and Me
How Wrong Can One Article Be?
EU states reject green finance law in setback for climate goals
“Emmas” to be annual celebration of achievement in world-leading eco-hypocrisy

Misc Education

How Secularism Fuels Campus Outrage
Social Justice Education in America
How Medical Schools Are Polarizing Tomorrow’s Doctors
Seattle Public Schools Will Start Teaching That Math Is Oppressive
Good Book: Restoring the Promise Higher Education in America

Misc US Politics

President Trump Video Clips: Nothing is More Powerful than God
Video: Barr Criticizes Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation
President Trump’s Letter to Nancy Pelosi, regarding Impeachment
FISA court slams FBI over surveillance applications
Court rules that Obamacare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional
US Spending Deal Buoys Science Agency Budgets
UK election sends ‘catastrophic warning’ to 2020 US Dems

Science and Misc Matters

We’ve Just Had the Best Decade in Human History. Seriously!
Science And The West: Then And Now
The Internet is 50 Years Old. Will we Survive the Next 50 Years?
Video: How Deep-fakes Undermine Truth and Threaten Democracy
Important EPA Advisory Letter on Pollution Regulations
The Rise and Fall of CELDF
The Subconscious and Climate Change

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: Originally this was a monthly Newsletter. However, as pertinent material proliferated, it has been issued more frequently. As a guideline once we collect a hundred worthwhile articles, a new Newsletter will be issued on the following Monday. Recently this has resulted in a once every three weeks frequency — and occasionally once every two weeks.

Note 3: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy, environmental and education issues… As always, please pass the Newsletter on to open-minded citizens, and link to it on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our Energy & Environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 4: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 5: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or the website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Copyright © 2019; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see

Greta Sails To Hong Kong To Lecture Protesters On Their Carbon Footprint

HONG KONG—Many have criticized climate activist Greta Thunberg for lecturing Western countries on their inaction on climate change when most of the pollution comes from developing countries like China and India. Well, Greta has finally gone to Hong Kong to address what she believes to be a major source of carbon emissions: the Hong Kong protesters.

“How dare you burn things as part of these protests when our planet is in crisis!” she said in her scathing rebuke of the pro-democracy protesters. “Every time you throw a gasoline bomb at the totalitarian police officers, you rob a little more of my childhood from me.”

Beijing thanked Thunberg for her “important work” in identifying the real root of the problem: democracy. “Thunberg is an example of true Person of the Year material, using her platform to call out the villains who would disrupt our safe, efficient, government,” Beijing wrote in a statement.

Time Magazine quickly gave the Hong Kong protesters “Villain of the Year” awards for not using green protest methods.

Thunberg also condemned the protesters’ use of tear gas when there are carbon-neutral options like throwing rocks or using pointy sticks.


JJ Abrams Reveals Whole Sequel Trilogy Was Just A Dream Rey Had While On Some Kind Of Island In Purgatory

Middle East Leaders Working On Peace Plan For America

Readers of the Bee,

If you value The Babylon Bee and want to see us prevail against Snopes and anyone else who might seek to discredit or deplatform us, please consider becoming a subscriber. Your support really will make a difference.

Support Us Learn More

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by The Babylon Bee is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’ 36-Page Report Released at UN Climate Summit in Madrid

Full 36-page PDF report available here: Climate Talking Points Report December 2019

Selected Excerpts:

MADRID, Spain – How to Talk About Climate Change Issues & Alleged “Solutions” – 2020

INTRODUCTION: Global warming hype and hysteria continue to dominate the news media, academia, schools, the United Nations, and the U.S. government. The Green New Deal being pushed on Capitol Hill and in the 2020 presidential race is based upon “solving” an alleged “climate crisis.”

Teen school-skipping climate activists are testifying to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations and young children are being recruited for lawsuits against the U.S. government for its alleged climate “inaction.” The phrase ‘climate emergency’ has emerged as the favorite for climate campaigners.

But the arguments put forth by global warming advocates grossly distort the true facts on a host of issues, ranging from rising sea levels and record temperatures to melting polar caps and polar bears, among others. In short, there is no “climate crisis” or a “climate emergency.”

The UN, climate activists, the media, and academia are using the climate scare as an opportunity to lobby for their alleged “solutions” which require massive government expansion and central planning.

This talking points memo is designed to arm people with the voices of the rising number of scientists, the latest data, peer-reviewed studies on key facts so they can better engage in climate change debate with those advocating the UN/Al Gore/Green New Deal positions.

The global warming movement has morphed into a coalition of “climate cause deniers.” They deny the hundreds of causes and variables that influence climate change and instead try to pretend that carbon dioxide is the climate “control knob” overriding all the others factors and they pretend that every bad weather even it somehow “proof” of their “global warming.”

Footnotes and weblinks are provided to source material in this document.

Claims of an alleged “97% consensus” of scientists are “pulled from thin air”

Despite former Vice President Al Gore’s claim in 2019 that “It’s beyond consensus of 99 percent of the scientists,” the facts say otherwise. There is absolutely no scientific “consensus” about catastrophic man-made climate change. Claims that 97 or 99 percent of scientists agree are not backed up by any “credible” study or poll.

UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol: “The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.”

Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics William Happer in 2017 drew parallels to the “consensus” on witches. “I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 percent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed,” Happer quipped.

CO2 is not the “control knob” of the climate

There is a lack of connection between higher levels of CO2 and warming.  During the Ice Age, CO2 levels were 10 times higher than they are today.

There are many, many factors which impact climate – including volcanoes, wind oscillations, solar activity, ocean cycles, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, and land use. CO2 is just one factor, and not the control knob of the climate.

University of Pennsylvania geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack has declared, “CO2 is not the villain that it has been portrayed.”

Today’s levels of roughly 400 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 are not alarming.  In geologic terms, today’s CO2 levels are among the lowest in earth’s history.

“Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets. Its scientific nonsense,” University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted.

There is no “climate emergency”

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, a former Trump Science Advisor ripped the claims of a “climate emergency” in 2019.  “We are here [at the UN climate summit in Madrid] under false pretenses, wasting our time talking about a non-existent ‘climate emergency.’”  Happer explained from Madrid. “It’s hard to understand how much further the shrillness can go as this started out as ‘global warming’ then it was ‘climate change’ or ‘global weirding’,  ‘climate crisis’, ‘climate emergency’. What next? But stick around it will happen. I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the holiness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end.”

University of Colorado’s Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. explained how the UN helped shape the hysterical nonsense of a ‘climate emergency.”  The UN IPCC switched to “extreme scenarios” in the most recent report and thus “helped to create the climate apocalypse, a scary but imaginary future,” Pielke explained in 2019.

The world is not going to end in 11 or 12 years due to “climate change.”

Green New Deal pusher Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) famously predicted in 2019: “We’re Like the World Is Going to End in 12 Years if We Don’t Address Climate Change.”

But relax. AOC is wrong.

Climate Tipping Points date back to at least 1864. Explained: “As early as 1864 George Perkins Marsh, sometimes said to be the father of American ecology, warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,” and he warned of “climatic excess, as to threaten the depravation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’”

In 1989, the UN was trying to sell their “tipping point” rhetoric to the public. U.N. Warning of 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ Began in 1989 – According to the 1989 AP article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

It’s difficult to keep up with whether it is hours, days, months, or a millennium. Here are a few recent examples of others predicting “tipping points” of various duration.

HOURS: Flashback March 2009: ‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster — Declares Elizabeth May of Canadian Green Party

Days: Flashback Oct. 2009: UK’s Gordon Brown warns of global warming ‘catastrophe’; Only ’50 days to save world’

Months: Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009

Years: 2009: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Only Has First Term to Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’ or Flashback Oct .2009: WWF: ‘Five years to save world’

Decades: 1982: UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the ‘world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.’

Millennium: Flashback June 2010: 1000 years delay: Green Guru James Lovelock: ‘Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out’

Prominent scientists say don’t fear CO2 and instead tout its benefits.

Excerpt from Marc Morano’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:

“Einstein’s Successor” Touts the Virtues of Carbon Dioxide: Renowned physicist Freeman Dyson of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, who has been called Einstein’s successor, says, “I like carbon dioxide, it’s very good for plants. It’s good for the vegetation, the farms, essentially carbon dioxide is vital for food production, vital for wildlife.”

Princeton professor Dr. William Happer testified to Congress: “Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind …  CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning.”

MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen mocked claims that carbon dioxide is dangerous. “CO2 , it should be noted, is hardly poisonous. On the contrary, it is essential for life on our planet and levels as high as 5000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station (current atmospheric levels are around 400 ppm, while, due to our breathing, indoor levels can be much higher),” he said in 2017.

Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever explained: “The Earth has existed for maybe 4.5 billion years, and now the alarmists will have us believe that because of the small rise in temperature for roughly 150 years (which, by the way, I believe you cannot really measure) we are doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels…You and I breathe out at least thirty tons of CO2 in a normal life span, but nevertheless the Environmental Protection Agency decided to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health.”

The Green New Deal is neither “Green” or “New”

“Global warming” is merely the latest environmental scare with the same big government solutions. The deal claims to be “a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War II to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

But the “Green New Deal” has very little to do with the environment or climate. The Deal claims free college or trade schools for every citizen, ensuring “safe, affordable, adequate housing,” incomes for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work, etc.

The cost of the Green New Deal is not cheap. Bloomberg News reported in 2019 that it could cost $93 Trillion (or $65k per year per family) over 10 years, according to the group American Action Forum. “That includes between $8.3 trillion and $12.3 trillion to meet the plan’s call to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors and between $42.8 trillion and $80.6 trillion for its economic agenda including providing jobs and health care for all.”

The Green New Deal is using the “global warming” scare as merely the latest environmental scare with the same solutions of wealth redistribution and central planning. 2019 Green New Deal proposed “solution”: Government would have “appropriate ownership stakes” in ALL Green New Deal businesses.

Flashback: The 1970  proposed solution to overpopulation: Amherst College professor Leo Marx warned in 1970 about the “global rate of human population growth. All of this is only to say that, on ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.”

Architects of Green New Deal admit it is NOT about the climate

AOC’s staff has bragged that the Green New Deal is about wealth redistribution, not climate. Former Ocasio-Cortez campaign aide Waleed Shahid admitted that Ocasio-Cortez’s GND was a “proposal to redistribute wealth and power from the people on top to the people on the bottom.”

In addition, AOC’s Chief-Of-Staff Saikat Chakrabarti also revealed that the Green New Deal was not about climate change. The Washington Post reported in 2019: Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Claims of “Hottest Year on Record” are scientifically meaningless

Global temperatures have been holding nearly steady for almost two decades according to satellites from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).

2018 is the 3rd year in a row of cooling global temperatures – So far 2018 was the third year in a row that the globe has cooled off from its El Nino peak set in 2015.

Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum explained in his 2018 “State of the Climate Report”: “After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year (in 2018) continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming ‘pause’ of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”

While 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2016 were declared the “hottest years” or “near -hottest,”  based on heavily altered surface data by global warming proponents, a closer examination revealed the claims were “based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that were within the margin of error in the data.”

Earth’s temperature is not outside the range of natural variability.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever points out that “.8 degrees is what we’re discussing in global warming. [Just] .8 degrees. If you ask people in general what it is, they think  – it’s 4 or 5 degrees. They don’t know it is so little.”

Award-winning climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson stated: “We are creating great anxiety without it being justified … there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic.” “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

Green New Deal would have NO impact on climate even if you believe the UN & Al Gore’s scientific claims

A 2019 study by American Enterprise Institute found that Green New Deal Would Have ‘No Effect’ On Climate Change – even if you use  UN ‘science,’ GND’s temperature impact would be ‘barely distinguishable from zero’. Excerpt: A new study from the American Enterprise Institute: “In total, completely enacted, funded, and efficiently meeting goals,  – things AEI does not anticipate the GND would ever do — – the full plan would cut the global increase in temperature by a whopping “0.083 to 0.173 degrees,” a number, the report says, is “barely distinguishable from zero.”

In 2019, Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels ran the Green New Deal’s alleged climate impact through the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s so-called “MAGICC” climate model simulator, developed with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency. The results? “I seriously think the effect would  – at best – be barely detectable in the climate record,” Patrick Michaels explained. “The year-to-year variation is very close to the total amount of warming that would be ‘saved’ by 2100, according to EPA’s own model,” Michaels said.

Youth climate activists badly misled by adults (who should know better)

Teen school-striking activist Greta Thunberg has declared: “I want you to feel the fear I feel.” Thunberg also explains: “This is my cry for help. Why should we be studying for a future that’s soon to be no more?” 

Thunberg told the UN in 2019, “How dare you!?” “This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back at school on the other side of the ocean…You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.”

The Green New Deal, the UN Paris agreement, carbon taxes, and EPA regulations can’t control the climate

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

Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, noted in 2017 about the UN Paris agreement: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree  … the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. … Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.” Lomborg added: “If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”

Sea level rise is not accelerating

Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. Global sea levels have been naturally rising for ~20,000 years. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any effect of mankind on sea levels. According to tide gauges, sea levels are rising LESS than the thickness of one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny (1.52 mm thick) a year.

Former NASA Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer’s research showed: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every 10 years.”

Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum explained in his 2018 “State of the Climate Report”: “Data from tide gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1–1.5 mm/year, while the satellite record suggests a rise of about 3.2 mm/year. The large difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation.”

The UN and other organizations push manmade “global warming” fears to further a political agenda

The UN and EPA regulations are pure climate symbolism designed to promote a more centrally planned energy economy. The UN and EPA regulations are simply a vehicle to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of our energy economy and “save” us from bad weather and “climate change.”

UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

In 2009, former Vice President Al Gore touted U.S. cap-and-trade legislation as a method to help bring about “global governance.”

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres declared in 2012 that she is seeking a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.”

Greta Thunberg explained in 2019: “The climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.”

Thunberg’s advisor, environmentalist George Monbiot explained in 2019 that in order to prevent “climate breakdown,” a complete change to our way of life has to occur: “We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it,” Monbiot explained. 

The UN IPCC climate panel is a political organization masquerading as a scientific body

After extensive analysis, climate data analysis John Mclean concluded: “The UN IPCC is, in fact, no more than a craftily assembled government-supported lobby group, doing what lobby groups usually do.” Essentially, the UN IPCC is a lobbying organization that seeks to enrich the UN by putting it in charge of “solving” climate change. If the UN fails to find man-made global warming a problem, it no longer has a reason to continue the climate panel and therefore cannot be in charge of proposing “solutions” to climate change.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds … I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” said Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warned in 2019 of the UN led “drive to manufacture a scientific consensus” and the ‘tremendous political pressure on scientists’ to support policy making goals.

Curry explained: “For the past three decades, the climate policy ‘cart’ has been way out in front of the scientific ‘horse’. The 1992 Climate Change treaty was signed by 190 countries before the balance of scientific evidence suggested even a discernible observed human influence on global climate. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was implemented before we had any confidence that most of the recent warming was caused by humans. There has been tremendous political pressure on the scientists to present findings that would support these treaties, which has resulted in a drive to manufacture a scientific consensus on the dangers of manmade climate change. Fossil fuel emissions as the climate ‘control knob’ is a simple and seductive idea. However this is a misleading oversimplification, since climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways.” … We have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean circulations) will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over man-made warming.”

Polar bear extinction fears not based on data

New 2019 Study: Polar bears ‘thriving’ as their numbers may have ‘quadrupled’ – Attempts to silence research – In The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, a book published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Dr. Susan Crockford concludes that polar bears are actually thriving: “My scientific estimates make perfect sense and they tally with what the Inuit and other Arctic residents are seeing on the ground. Almost everywhere polar bears come into contact with people, they are much more common than they used to be. It’s a wonderful conservation success story.”

STUDY: Polar bear numbers reach new highs – Population increases to the highest levels in decades. “Far from the 2007 predictions of a 67% decline in global polar bear numbers, the new report reveals that numbers have risen to the highest levels in decades. The US Geological Survey estimated the global population of polar bears at 24,500 in 2005. In 2015, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group estimated the population at 26,000 (range 22,000–31,000)7 but additional surveys published 2015–2017 brought the total to near 28,500. However, data published in 2018 brought that number to almost 29,5009 with a relatively wide margin of error. This is the highest global estimate since the bears were protected by international treaty in 1973.”

Gore makes no mention of polar bears in his sequel

The polar bear catastrophe that never happened has been so embarrassing that Al Gore, after helping make the bears the poster child of his cause in his first film, failed to even mention them once in his 2017 sequel.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature 2017 estimate of the current polar bear population is “the highest estimate in 50 years.”

Evolutionary biologist and paleozoologist Dr. Susan Crockford of the University of Victoria: “Polar bears have survived several episodes of much warmer climate over the last 10,000 years than exists today.”

She also wrote, “There is no evidence to suggest that the polar bear or its food supply is in danger of disappearing entirely with increased Arctic warming, regardless of the dire fairy-tale scenarios predicted by computer models.”

Extreme weather failing to follow predictions

In 2017, Prof. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. testified to Congress there was simply “no evidence’ that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes are increasing.”

On nearly every metric, extreme weather is on no trend or declining trend on climate timescales. Even the UN IPCC admitted in a 2018 special report that extreme weather events have not increased. The IPCC’s special report found that “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”

The IPCC report also concluded that there is “low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale.”

Prof. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.’s 2014 testimony on the current state of weather extremes: “It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.”

A 2017 study on floods found ‘approximately the number expected due to chance alone’ – No ‘global warming’ signal.

Another 2017 study in Journal of Hydrology found no increase in global floods – ‘Compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.’

But on nearly every metric, extreme weather is on no trend or declining trend on climate timescales. Climatologist Dr. John Christy explained why the extreme weather claims are unscientific: “The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, ‘whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.’ In other words, there is no event that would ‘falsify’ the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in any way informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is ‘anything may happen.’ In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science.”

Tornadoes failing to follow “global warming” predictions

Big tornadoes have seen a drop in frequency since the 1950s. The years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 all saw at or near record low tornado counts in the U.S.

2018 saw a record low tornado death toll & no violent (EF4 or EF5) tornadoes for first time since records began in 1950.  The Weather Channel reported that the United States saw the fewest tornado deaths on record with no EF4/5 tornadoes hitting the U.S. It marked the first time that none have hit in a calendar year since that record-keeping began in 1950, according to The Washington Post.

Hurricanes are not getting worse

An August 2019 NOAA statement concluded: “It is premature to conclude … that global warming has already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity.” The NOAA statement added that U.S. landfalling hurricanes “show a slight negative trend’ since ‘late 1800s.” 

Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum explained in his 2018 “State of the Climate Report”: “Tropical storm and hurricane accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) values since 1970 have displayed large variations from year to year, but no overall trend towards either lower or higher activity. The same applies for the number of hurricane landfalls in the continental United States, for which the record begins in 1851.”

Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. noted that the federal National Climate Assessment released in 2018 ignored one of its own expert reviewers, who wrote: “National Hurricane Center going back to the 1800s data clearly indicate a drop in the decadal rate of US landfalling hurricanes since the 1960s … instead you spin the topic to make it sound like the trends are all towards more cyclones.”

In 2019, extreme weather expert Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. explained: The WMO (World Meteorological Organization) concluded, “no observational studies have provided convincing evidence of a detectable anthropogenic influence specifically on hurricane-related precipitation,” but also that an increase should be expected this century … The WMO assessment concludes: “anthropogenic signals are not yet clearly detectable in observations for most TC (tropical cyclones) metrics.”

A study by a NOAA Hurricane Researcher Chris Landsea found that using 1940s observational methods “only 2 of these [recent] 10 Category 5s would have been recorded as Cat 5 if they had occurred during the late-1940s period.” 

Hurricane Maria, which hit Puerto Rico in 2017, was not an unprecedented storm, with the eighth-lowest landfall pressure (917 mb) on record in the Atlantic Basin. Meteorologist Anthony Watts noted, “With Irma ranked 7th, and Harvey ranked 18th, it’s going to be tough for climate alarmists to try connecting these two storms to being driven by CO2/global warming. But they’ll do it anyway.”

Droughts are NOT getting worse

“Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century,” Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. observed.

A 2015 study found megadroughts in past 2000 years were worse and lasted longer than current droughts.

In 2017, drought conditions in the U.S. dropped even more, as they were limited to only 1.6% of the continental U.S and California’s “Permanent Drought” came to an end.

Wildfires are not increasing

There is ”less fire today than centuries ago,” as scientists and multiple studies counter the claim that wildfires due to “climate change.” 

The following is an excerpt from author Marc Morano’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.

A 2016 study published in The Royal Society journal found: “There is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail.”… “The ‘wildfire problem’ is essentially more a social than a natural one.”

Antarctica ice melt fears not based on data

A 2015 NASA study found that Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and “not currently contributing to sea level rise,” but actually reducing sea level rise.

The NASA study found that the ice mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet are greater than their losses.

In 2018, the NASA research confirmed that Antarctica was still not losing ice mass. See: NASA researcher: Despite recent claims, Antarctica is still GAINING ice – NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally is working on a paper that will show the eastern ice sheet is expanding at a rate that’s enough to at least offset increased losses the west. The ice sheets are “very close to balance right now,” Zwally said.

Other Antarctica ice studies receive lots of media hype, but miss the key scientific significances.

A 2019 hyped study that alleged a 6 times increase in Antarctic ice melt was found to be “statistically insignificant” by climate analysts. “Such a tiny loss in comparison to the total mass of the ice sheet, it’s microscopic … statistically insignificant.”

In addition, though this 2019 Antarctic ice study used observational data, it also relied on climate models –  not actual data –– to simulate what the authors thought the actual ice conditions were and it gave them a huge ice fudge factor.

Another 2017 NASA study found volcanic activity is heating up the western portion of the continent’s ice sheet.

In addition, the Associated Press has a long history of hyping alleged catastrophic Antarctic melt fears. The AP recycled the same scary Antarctic melt claims from 2014, 1990, 1979, 1922 & 1901

Arctic sea ice not disappearing, despite “ice free” predictions

2018 Arctic Ice Volume Holds Steady For A Decade. “Arctic sea ice volume data show earlier projections of ice-free Arctic summers were a sham. Sea ice now steady 10 years.”

2019 study revealed that the Arctic region was 4.6°C warmer than ‘Present Day’ during the decade of the 1930s. 

Recent Arctic ice changes are not proof of man-made global warming, nor are they unprecedented, unusual, or cause for alarm, according to experts and multiple peer-reviewed studies.

Recent Arctic ice changes are not proof of man-made global warming, nor are they unprecedented, unusual, or cause for alarm, according to experts and multiple peer reviewed studies. Six New Papers Link Arctic/North Atlantic Climate Changes To Natural Factors.

Greenland ice is not disappearing

‘A surprise’: NASA 2019 Study: Key Greenland glacier growing again after shrinking for years“A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds. The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Nature Geoscience.”

Climatologists: ‘The death of the Greenland disaster story’ – ‘Taming the Greenland Melting Global Warming Hype.’ Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels in 2016 on Greenland: “Humans just can’t make it warm enough up there to melt all that much ice.”

A 2006 peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research concluded, “The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades.” The paper, authored by B. Vinther, K. Andersen, P. Jones, K. Briffa, and J. Cappelen and titled “Extending Greenland Temperature Records into the Late 18th Century,” examined temperature data from Greenland going back to 1784.

A study by Danish researchers from Aarhus University in the same year found that “Greenland’s glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.” Glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde was quoted in an August 21, 2006, Agence France-Presse report explaining that the study was “the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland’s glaciers.” As Yde explained, “Seventy percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s.”

Global warming does not cause wars, it is not a national security threat

The data and studies reveal that warm periods coincide with less conflict. This same argument was used by the CIA in 1974 to claim that “global cooling” would cause conflict and terrorism.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies report noted the opposite of recent claims regarding “global warming” and war. “Since the dawn of civilization, warmer eras have meant fewer wars.”

How many times do we have to “save the world”?

2019: The UN admits ‘historic’ Paris climate pact did not save Earth after all! Now says: Cutting CO2 ‘not enough’ – ‘We must change food production to save the world.’

But back in 2015, the UN Paris climate pact was supposed to have saved the planet! Here is how it was promoted:

Al Gore in 2015 on Paris pact: “Years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity’s moral courage to solve the climate crisis and they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act.”

Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2015: “This is a tremendous victory for all of our citizens,  – not for any one country or bloc, but a victory for all of the planet, and for future generations.”

French foreign minister Laurent Fabius in 2015: “History is coming, in fact, history is here,” he said. “On 12 December 2015, we can have a historic day, a major date to go down in the history of mankind. The date can become a message of life.”

Now that the UN treaty ‘solved’ global warming in 2015, can we all just move on to something else?

Obviously not, as 2019 brought a huge expansion of the UN regulatory climate agenda, with new UN tipping points and reports on the alleged climate linked species extinctions. See: Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore’s testimony to Congress: The UN is using species ‘extinction as a fear tactic to scare the public into compliance.’

And a UN-led war on meat eating: Eat insects? ‘Meat patch’ to stop cravings? New UN report takes aim at meat-eating – UN seeks expansion of climate agenda to regulate what you eat.

Despite being told we already “saved” the planet with the 2015 UN Paris pact, we are being lobbied daily for the Green New Deal, carbon taxes, EPA and new species regulations, as well as meat -eating restrictions. A whole new round of proposals to ban energy and other products is under way. Bans have been proposed on everything from plastic straws, fracking, coal plants, lightbulbs, oil drilling, and meat. “Climate change” is not about the climate.

Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger explained how climate fear is distorting public policy.  “Journalists and activists alike have an obligation to describe environmental problems honestly and accurately, even if they fear doing so will reduce their news value or salience with the public. There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over,” Shellenberger wrote.


Excerpt from Marc Morano’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:


It bears repeating: if we actually faced a man-made climate crisis and we had to rely on the UN or the EPA or Congress to save us, we would all be doomed! But more importantly, if we actually did face catastrophic global warming, the last “solution” we would want to seek would be one that saddles us with sovereignty-threatening, central-planning, wealth-redistributing, economy-crippling regulations and the most expensive treaty in world history.

If we did face a man-made climate change crisis, we would want to unleash the free market and entrepreneurship to come up with new technologies and make them viable and affordable—without banning or regulating current fossil fuel energy out of existence until we had replacements. If Al Gore is correct in his assertions that there are financial fortunes to be made for young entrepreneurs and inventors in developing new forms of energy—and Al Gore himself has already made his climate fortune many times over—then all that is really needed is advancing technology.

The day Americans, or anyone on planet Earth, can go to their local Walmart and buy a solar panel and install it on their roof and get off the grid is the day climate “solution” debate ends. There is no need for central planning, or banning energy that is cheap and abundant in favor of energy that needs massive subsidies and is not yet ready for prime time. No need for a UN Paris pact, no need for carbon taxes and no need for a Green New Deal.

We need to stop climate campaigners from using an alleged climate change scare to get impose a political agenda on the U.S. and the world that couldn’t otherwise get implemented. As the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, (CFACT) has noted, “There is all pocketbook pain, and no climate gain, from any plan to eliminate fossil fuels in the US. And any talk of a ‘climate emergency’ is an absurd attempt to force an irrational debate on a complex issue.” 

Lord Christopher Monckton, the former Thatcher adviser, summed up the climate “solution” debate this way in his testimony to the U.S. Congress: “The right response to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Full 36-page PDF report available here: Climate Talking Points Report December 2019 – Delivered to UN Climate Summit in Madrid_FINAL

© All rights reserved.

Greta Thunberg Is the Perfect Hero for an Unserious Time

Who better than a finger-wagging teen bereft of accomplishment, or any comprehension of basic economics or history, to be Time magazine’s Person of the Year in 2019? Greta Thunberg’s canonization is a perfect expression of media activism in a deeply unserious time.

Has there ever been a less consequential person picked to be Person of the Year? I doubt it. I mean, Wallis Simpson, 1936’s Person of the Year, got King Edward VIII to abdicate the throne. Thunberg can’t even get you to abdicate your air-conditioning.

These days we celebrate vacuous fire and brimstone. “Greta Thunberg”—the idea, not the girl—is a concoction of activists who have increasingly taken to using children as a shield from critical analysis or debate. She’s the vessel of the environmentalist’s fraudulent apocalypticism-as-argument. Her style is emotion and indignation, histrionics and fantasy. She is a teenager, after all.

How dare you attack a poor defenseless child who suffers from Asperger syndrome!

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

You’ll notice that, on one hand, Thunberg’s champions demand that the world take her Malthusian crusade seriously, and on the other, they feign indignation when you actually do. The argument that young people, because they will inherit the future, are also best equipped to comprehend it is as puerile as any of Thunberg’s positions.

Perhaps a better question is this: What kind of parents, editors, producers, or U.N. officials would thrust a vulnerable child, with Asperger syndrome, no less, into a complex and contentious debate? I have great sympathy for her. It’s her ideological handlers who have stolen her childhood.

Surely, we should be allowed to consider the positions of Time magazine’s 2019 Person of the Year? Because the problem with Greta Thunberg—the idea, not the girl—is that she proposes not only that the people of her native Sweden abandon modernity but that billions of people in Asia and Africa remain in destitution. Thunberg, unlike many of her ideological allies, does not hide the truth of modern environmentalism. She believes that wealth and economic growth—modernity—are the problem.

Shamefully, radical environmentalists have convinced Thunberg and millions of others that the world is on the precipice of “mass extinction.” Even poor Prince Harry struggles to get out his Kensington Palace bed and start the day, so crushed is he by the weight of “eco-anxiety.” (You know, I have some ideas on how he might lower his carbon footprint.)

Like Joan of Arc, as Thunberg’s mother tells it, she experienced her first vision in her early teens, going months without eating properly. Thunberg, her heart rate and blood pressure indicating starvation, stopped talking to anyone but her parents and younger sister.

Rather than helping Thunberg overcome this irrational dread, her parents sacrificed her childhood to Gaia. Now, Thunberg is a child warrior, unrestrained by fact or reason, the human embodiment of years of fearmongering—in our schools, in culture, in our news—over progress, technology, and wealth.

Thunberg is merely repeating “unassailable science,” Time claims. “Oceans will rise. Cities will flood. Millions of people will suffer.” The unassailable truth is that climate deaths have plummeted dramatically and billions of people have been lifted from abject poverty by the system that Thunberg assails.

There is no “unassailable science” that tells us how the future looks: what technologies humans will devise, how they will adapt. One imagines a magazine such as Time, which once published pieces about now-discredited predictions of a “population bomb” and global cooling, might understand that the future is always more complicated than we imagine.

The reality is that Thunberg was bequeathed the healthiest, wealthiest, safest, and most peaceful world that humans have ever known. She is one of the luckiest people ever to have lived. And unlike most of her ancestors, she can continue to be a professional activist her entire life, thanks to market economies and emerging technological advances.

In a just world, she would be sailing her high-tech, multimillion-dollar, ocean-racing yacht and crew to the United Nations to thank the United States for helping to create this uniquely wonderful circumstance. In a just world, she would be in school with her friends and teachers.

It’s been years, of course, since Time, or the magazine’s Person of the Year, mattered very much. The truth, though, is that Time did an admirable job of mapping out consequential people of the 20th century. Looking back now, I see a list populated by the men and women, nefarious and heroic, who helped shape the modern world. Sadly, Time has come a long way from “The Hungarian Freedom Fighter,” its choice for Man of the Year in 1957.

If we Americans lived in a more serious time, the Hong Kong freedom fighter, the men and women who risk their lives for liberty, would be Time’s Person of the Year. We don’t.



David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .


Time Magazine Names Greta Thunberg ‘Person of the Year’—After Honoring Che Guevara Among ‘Heroes and Icons of the Century’

Unlike Climate Change Predictions, Trump’s Greta Thunberg Tweet Ages Well

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


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

Recent Energy and Environmental News

For the full version of the latest Energy & Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

If your community is threatened by an industrial wind energy project, the key question is:  1) should you fight this situation primarily on your own, or 2) should you engage an experienced pro-citizen consultant?  Here is an analogy that explains our recommendation.

To accommodate the diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into eleven (11) categories (see below).

My vote for the most outstanding articles this cycle are: Dr. Judith Curry: Madrid and Lessons From Three Decades Of Failed Climate PolicyClimategate: Untangling Myth and Reality Ten Years LaterGlobal Warming’s Apocalyptic PathThe Incredible Story Of How Climate Change Became ApocalypticWhy Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are WrongGoodbye Freedom, Democracy and the Rule of Law, short video: The Dark Art of FramingWhy “Green” Energy is a Terrible IdeaGreen Energy Studies: Consulting, or Advertising?America needs to wake up to the real threat.

Energy Economics

Another Round of Energy Pork
With climate change Science and Economics should be paramount
Ontario saves $500± Million by dumping wind turbines
Expect the ECB to Use a “Climate Crisis” to Justify Their Next Stimulus Plan

Wind Energy Ecosystem Impacts

EPA working aggressively to address “forever chemicals” (e.g. in Solar)
This Wood is Key to Wind Energy — Too Bad there’s a Shortage
UK Wind Project Extension: Environmental and Economic Downsides
Seabird Populations Plummet As Offshore Wind Projects Proliferate

NY State’s Race to the Bottom

In NY National Grid fails under pressure
National Grid and Cuomo Settle Moratorium; Who Blinked?
NY PSC Needs To Be Independent Of Cuomo, Not A PawnNY Editorial: Don’t limit access to power grid talks

Nuclear Energy

Rolls Royce wants innovative financing for its first-of-a-kind nuclear SMRs
Short video: Gates Goes Nuclear
Bitter Cold Stops Coal, While Nuclear Power Excels
Nuclear Energy is the Future (click on American flag for English)
Nuclear Power isn’t Green Enough for Germany
Archive: Solar Produces 300 times more waste than Nuclear does

Energy Misc

Why “Green” Energy is a Terrible Idea
Green Energy Studies: Consulting, or Advertising?
Tech Breakthrough Could Spark A Geothermal Energy Boom
Recent DOE Presentation about Geothermal (download)
Some Facts About Energy
MIT: Why electric cars cannot compete against petrol engines
Video: Good talk about the cons of renewable energy
Can we go back to the pre-fossil fuel era?

The UN and Global Warming

Dr. Judith Curry: Madrid and Lessons from 30 Years of Failed Climate Policy
The UN’s impossible climate action pyramid
Principled Inaction in the Face of Climate Change Extremism
30 Years Of UN Climate Policy Failure
COP25: the “easy wins” are coming to an end. What now?
Professor Says UN Could Use Military To Enforce Climate Change Agenda

The European Union and Global Warming

Goodbye Freedom, Democracy and the Rule of Law
EU Parliament’s ‘Climate Emergency’ Will Lead to Disastrous Consequences
Short video: CLINTEL meets with European Parliament
Revolt Brewing Against EU’s ‘Unrealistic’ Climate Goals
Europe’s Climate Fiasco: EU Set to Miss 2030 Climate Goal
European Parliament splits over “climate emergency” motions

Manmade Global Warming (other)

Climategate: Untangling Myth and Reality Ten Years Later
Global Warming’s Apocalyptic Path
The Incredible Story Of How Climate Change Became Apocalyptic
Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
Who is Winning the Climate Wars?
Educational deficiencies lead to doomsday projections
New Dr. Lindzen Study: On Climate Sensitivity
The great failure of the climate models
Carbon Dioxide Emissions on Steady Upward Trend
Four Renowned Scientists Expose Major IPCC Shortcomings 
Report: Carbon Futility —  Five Essays on Climate Policy
Alarmists Propose Rebranding ‘Climate Change’ for Greater Shock Value
Good short video: Naomi Seibt on Climate Change
Bishops urge Catholics to divulge ‘eco-sins’ in confession

Misc Education

Creepy: Greta Thunberg Being Taught As Religion In Swedish Schools?
Despite Common Core Promises, U.S. Kids Repeat Poor Performance On Latest Global Tests
A New-Schools Strategy to Fix Higher Education
The Majors that Pay and the Degrees that Don’t for Graduates

Misc US Politics

America needs to wake up to the real threat
President Trump and the Popularity of Socialism
New Poll Shows US Voters Aren’t Buying Into Sales-Pitch For Socialism
Hong Kong protestors sing American National Anthem as thanks
Mask off: Greta Thunberg comes out full Marxist
Greta Thunberg the teenage Climate Puppet has gone Marxist
Climate Change: The Democratic Party’s ultimate coup d’etat
Recommended Gift: Agenda Documentary Package

Science and Misc Matters

Short video: The Dark Art of Framing

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: Originally this was a monthly Newsletter. However, as pertinent material proliferated, it has been issued more frequently. As a guideline once we collect a hundred worthwhile articles, a new Newsletter will be issued on the following Monday. Recently this has resulted in a once every three weeks frequency — and occasionally once every two weeks.

Note 3: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy, environmental and education issues… As always, please pass the Newsletter on to open-minded citizens, and link to it on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our Energy & Environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 4: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 5: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or the website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Copyright © 2019; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see

New Greta On The Shelf Doll Will Track Your Climate Sins

U.S.—A fun new “Greta on the Shelf” doll will watch you every day and fly back to the UN each night to report your climate sins to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The doll is equipped with eye sensors programmed to detect activities that are harmful to the environment.

“Greta sees you when you’re sleeping, she knows when you drive your SUV to the store instead of taking public transportation,” the manufacturer said. “She knows if you’ve been bad or carbon-neutral, so be carbon-neutral for goodness’ sake!”

One couple in Portland proudly displayed their new doll and lectured their children on the true meaning of Christmas: fighting climate change. “We’re gonna play a fun game for the holidays this year — try to be good little carbon-neutral children, or Greta will tell on you!”

“How dare you!” the doll chanted as the kids of the household left the door open while the heater was on. “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood.” The doll then blasted off toward UN headquarters using its jet engines to report on the naughty children, who will receive coal in their stocking. They will be snitched on again, however, if they burn the coal for warmth.

Greta is programmed to detect activities including these:

  • Leaving the light on when you exit a room
  • Leaving the fridge open
  • Driving an SUV
  • Parents participating in illicit activities that may lead to the creation of more humans
  • Using a plastic straw instead of sticking your face in a beverage and slurping
  • Forgetting your reusable grocery bags at home
  • Getting a cut-down Christmas tree
  • Getting a carbon-heavy plastic Christmas tree
  • Turning on any electric appliances
  • Using the heater instead of rubbing two sticks together for warmth

Children have responded enthusiastically to the doll so far, saying things like, “Mommy, I’m scared,” and “Make the bad girl go away.”

Babylon Bee subscriber Mark Scheffler contributed to this report. If you want to get involved with the staff writers at The Babylon Bee, check out our membership options here!

If you value The Babylon Bee and want to see us prevail against Snopes and anyone else who might seek to discredit or deplatform us, please consider becoming a subscriber. Your support really will make a difference.

Support Us                 Learn More


Narwhal Tusk Surrender Bins Installed Throughout The UK

Lisa Page To Teach College Course On How To Make Yourself Out To Be A Victim

Wise Men Actually Just Sent Gifts Using Free Prime Shipping, Scholars Now Believe

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by The Babylon Bee is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Kerry Launching ‘World War Zero’ Against ‘Climate Change’

Former Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Saturday that he is launching “World War Zero,” forming a coalition of dozens of celebrities and former heads of state to help mobilize resources against “climate change” similar to the way in which the Western allies mobilized in World War II.

The New York Times reports that Kerry, the Vietnam War-era anti-American protester who helped former President Barack Obama craft the traitorous Iranian nuclear power deal, has recruited such figures as Bill ClintonJimmy Carter, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Leonardo DiCaprio to “treat this like a war.”

“We’re going to try to reach millions of people, Americans and people in other parts of the world, in order to mobilize an army of people who are going to demand action now on climate change sufficient to meet the challenge,” Kerry told the Times.

It’s ironic that Democrats are so eager to mobilize for war against anything but America’s real-world enemies like the Iranian regime Kerry colluded with.


196 Known Connections


Also in the early months of 2018, as speculation swirled that President Donald Trump might decide to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, Kerry secretly engaged in shadow diplomacy aimed at salvaging the deal. Most notably, he met twice with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, to discuss ways of possibly keeping the agreement intact. Kerry also met on separate occasions with French President Emmanuel Macron (in both Paris and New York) and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and he spoke by phone with European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. Moreover, Kerry placed dozens of phone calls in an effort to persuade members Congress to try to influence President Trump’s decision.

To learn more about John Kerry, click on the profile link here.

Search our constantly growing database of the left and its Agendas


We need your support.

Donate Now

RELATED ARTICLE: Leftist Leonardo Di Caprio funded NGO’s behind Brazil jungle fires?

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column republished with permission. © Copyright 2019, Discover the Networks

Does Crime Go up or down When Guns are More Controlled?

Following the shooting on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, the pandemonium regarding gun control seems to be on the increase. Also, the increasing uproar is being directed to the Second Amendment. From every part of the country, citizens are exercising strong opinions on gun rights, the possibility of a gun control policy and what its impact would be.

Many Citizens Still Advocate for Gun Ownership Rights

The argument for and against gun control is quite heated. While a lot of people are clamoring for gun control in the United States, many citizens still maintain their stand and support on the need for a well-armed citizen. According to these people who advocate gun ownership rights, “well-armed citizenry is valuable in keeping all individuals and the entire country better protected and safer at all times.”

The media has also witnessed an increase in gun violence topics, especially after the mass shooting and other serious gun-related crimes that followed. Obviously, the topics on gun violence are discussed side by side gun control policy in America. Particularly, the gun control topic has provoked an outcry from many US citizens and even concerned individuals from other parts of the world who are bent on their rights to defend and protect themselves as well as the people around them.

In the heat of these arguments, some of which are live discussions with the United States’ president himself, one argument stands out: It is the argument about preventing gun control in the Second Amendment particularly and the United States Constitution as a whole. The argument in favor of not restricting gun ownership rights seems to be gaining the upper hand as the citizens involved are presenting strong reasons to have their own weapons as directed by the 2nd  Amendment.

According to the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being essential to the security of a free State, the right of the citizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So, those who are opposing the proposal to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms are strongly pointing to this portion of the second amendment. They strongly advocate for the right to purchase a handgun of their choice – one you can conceal easily in your pocket and use for self-defense when the need arises.

The Argument in Favor of Gun Control

Those clamoring for gun control are also presenting their strong points. Some of those strong points are based on the record of violent crimes accomplished with various gun types and weapons.

One such records are the one curled from the FBI program data; according to the data, throughout the country, the use of firearms for violent crimes was more than any other weapon. The data revealed that approximately 72% of all murder cases and manslaughter were committed with firearms.

In addition, those in favor of gun control are of the opinion that;

  • Increased guns in circulation will lead to increased violent crime
  • Making it difficult for criminals to access guns prevent violent crime
  • Gun ownership increases the risk of suicide or being killed by others

Supporters of Gun Ownership Rights Insist Gun Control is not an Answer to Crime Reduction

Despite the strong reasons and statistics presented by those who support gun control, people who are clamoring for the sustenance of gun ownership rights insist that the nation won’t reduce crime by restricting ownership and use of guns by individuals.

According to NRA (National Rifle Association), those who think that gun control is the answer to crime reduction should ponder on the following;

  • People kill, and not guns. Therefore, violent crimes will decrease if more people use guns to defend and protect themselves.
  • The Brady Bill is an example of waiting period laws that should precede a police state
  • Since they are contrary to the 2nd Amendment, gun control laws do not conform to the constitution. According to the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.”
  • In fact, crime rate reduction is not contingent on gun control.

Instead, the government and those concerned should focus on more viable alternatives – people who engage firearms to commit crimes should be subjected to mandatory sentences. This is the solution to increased crime reduction rate – it will yield better results than gun control laws.”

Now, back to the Major Question – Does Gun Control Laws Reduce Crime or Not?

The major question here is whether or not crime goes up or down with gun control. So far, bans on handguns have not met desired expectation in terms of significant impact on crime rates, including murder. Besides, prior to the ban, the amount of handguns out there is huge.

All the efforts to beat the importation and manufacture of handguns with laws have not produced the envisaged result. Why? Such laws end up promoting the existence of the black market for guns.

Laws that attempt to prevent juveniles, criminals and mentally ill people from accessing handguns have not succeeded in accomplishing crime reduction. This is because many of these people already possess guns or would find a way to own one illegally.

A More Viable Solution?

Experts suggest proactive arrests by officers of the law. Particularly, police officers should engage field interrogations and traffic enforcement while on patrol to make proactive arrests in gun-crime spots – and should take away guns from criminals right there and then. A typical example is what happened during the mid-90s in Kansas City; Proactive arrests made by police on crime spots for concealed weapons carry was able to cut back crimes substantially in this city.

In conclusion, it would also be helpful to take a cue from John Lott’s book titled “More Guns, Less Crime“. According to the book, “the rates of violent crime reduce when state pass “shall issue” concealed carry laws.”

In this book, More Guns Less Crime, Lott presents the outcome of the analysis he carried out on crime data involving every county. The analysis covered 29 years period – 1997 to 2005. The University of Chicago Press refereed the different editions of the book.

Globalist Climate Candidate Michael Bloomberg and the Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change

Michael Bloomberg became a multi-billionaire by understanding global markets. He analyzed the 2020 U.S. presidential political marketplace and concluded three things:

  • None of the hysterical, radically leftist Democrat candidates can beat President Trump in 2020.
  • Joe Biden’s political corruption exposed in the Ukraine is irreversible and focuses unwelcome attention on the political corruption of the Clintons, the Pelosis, the Kerrys, and the Obamas.
  • The single most successful humanitarian hoax and galvanizing political issue of our time is climate change.

So what does astute multi-billionaire globalist Michael Bloomberg do? He announces himself the climate candidate of the 2020 presidential election. In a November 26, 2019 article, Billionaire Buys Climate Change on Google, Brian Kahn reveals how Bloomberg plans to spend $1 billion of his personal fortune to buy Google ads that will reinforce his image as the climate candidate.

It is a brilliant political move by a brilliant market analyst because anyone opposing Bloomberg is seen as opposing climate change. The advertorial message is that Bloomberg will deliver the world from the catastrophic threat of climate change, so a vote for Bloomberg is a vote to save the planet.

Bloomberg is betting that the galvanizing message of climate change is powerful enough to overcome any anti-Semitic objections to his candidacy.

Let’s examine what it means in real terms, in real life, to the lives of real voters if this self-described climate candidate wins in 2020.

We begin by debunking the foundational premise of Bloomberg’s political ads: Climate change is the greatest challenge and threat to life in the 21st century.

I have written three articles on the humanitarian hoax of climate change:

The first, The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change, introduces the purpose of the con:

The Humanitarian Hoax of climate change is the whopper of the 21st century. It is a deliberate political scheme to transfer the wealth of industrialized nations (particularly the U.S.) to non-industrialized nations. It is globalized socialism where the assets of productive nations are transferred to non-productive nations. WHY?

The answer is found in understanding the nature of the hoax which has two parts. First, it is necessary to focus attention on the fabricated specter of catastrophic climate occurrences that will devastate the planet to deflect attention away from the actual threats to America from a nuclear Iran, the spread of Islamic terrorism, and the economic instability of a an unsustainable trade deficit.

Second, Obama’s long term plan of an internationalized globalized world requires the de-industrialization of America. His crippling energy restrictions were designed to weaken America’s defenses by destroying America’s energy industry, making us more dependent on foreign energy, and increasing our trade deficit to unsustainable levels. Obama actively supported the punitive anti-American Paris Climate Agreement deceitfully presented as the premier humanitarian effort to save the planet from catastrophic climate change. Obama disguised his crippling rules and regulations to destroy U.S. energy as altruism and a humanitarian concern for the planet.

In a laughable outburst Big Footprint former Vice President Al Gore attacked President Donald Trump accusing him of “tearing down America’s standing in the world” by withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. Only in the eyes of a deceitful globalist can withdrawing from an anti-American agreement be considered destructive. Gore actually said with a straight face on NBC’s Today Show, “The climate crisis is by far the most serious challenge we face.” Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is in fact a very “Convenient Lie.”

The second article, The Riddle of Climate Change, exposes the marketing of the convenient political lie:

More doomsday fear mongering is featured in a Breitbart article discussing David Wallace-Wells’ new book The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming that predicts there will be 100 million climate refugees by 2050. SERIOUSLY? Wallace-Wells defends his cataclysmic predictions saying that he worked from the worst warming scenario presented by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A stunning Forbes article published 2.5.13 titled, In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their “Science” quotes Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, who admits, ‘None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.’

The same Forbes article quotes former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev who “emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance Marxist objectives saying, ‘The threat of environmental crisis will be the international key to unlock the New World Order.'” Gorbachev was referring, of course, to the globalist New World Order of an internationalized world community administered under the auspices of the United Nations.

My third article, The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change II – Debunking the Bunk, reviews the material and explains the efficacy of the lie of manmade climate change:

The climate changes, but “manmade” climate change is the deliberately misleading narrative that human behavior is causing cataclysmic changes to the Earth’s climate. The Climategate scandal exposed the fraudulent “research” that supported its politically motivated claims and exposed the hoax.

The United Nations IPCC goals are unapologetically stated in United Nations Agenda 2030 – the manifesto for imposing the new world order of one world government. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals reaffirm the United Nations globalist stance that planet Earth and its ecosystems are “our common home and that ‘Mother Earth’ is a common expression in a number of countries and regions.” This is all Orwellian doublespeak to rationalize imposition of a New World Order of one world government under the auspices of the corrupt United Nations.

This article includes testimony by Greenpeace apostate Patrick Moore exposing the lie of “settled science.” He explains how environmental science has been completely co-opted by political science. There is not a shred of credible evidence that manmade climate change exists – but no matter. The truth never stops a determined huckster. Moore explains:

“When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that’s a completely ridiculous and false number. But most of the scientists — put it in quotes, scientists — who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money, they are not being paid by General Electric or Dupont or 3M to do this research, where private companies expect to get something useful from their research that might produce a better product and make them a profit in the end because people want it — build a better mousetrap type of idea.

And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber — fake news — repeating it     over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children.”

Shaming is a powerful tool used and abused by humanitarian hucksters to promote their manmade climate change narrative, and to silence any opposition to their false claims of “settled” climate science.

The manmade climate change hucksters continue to perpetrate their monstrous hoax through fear and guilt. Fear is a powerful motivator for behavior change. If parents can be convinced that catastrophe will strike their children unless they change their own behavior, their guilt will motivate parents to change and the big lie of manmade climate change becomes generational.

American democracy is the single greatest existential threat to one-world government with President Donald Trump as America’s leader. The globalist elite are desperate to stop Trump because if Obama is exposed as a con man it leaves them without their primetime huckster to continue marching America toward anarchy and socialism with his “resistance” movement. The globalist elites who fund the leftist humanitarian hucksters are using them as useful idiots to facilitate climate alarmism and the great humanitarian hoax of climate change worldwide. It is a deliberate plan to create the overwhelming social chaos necessary to impose their own special brand of a New World Order.

Michael Bloomberg is a member of the globalist Trilateral Commission, the think tank founded by globalist David Rockefeller in 1973 to foster “cooperation” among nations. To fully understand the objective of a globalist one must understand the duplicitous language of a globalist. To a globalist, cooperation means cooperating in the implementation of an internationalized New World Order.

Michael Bloomberg is also a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, another globalist think tank dedicated to the New World Order.

David Rockefeller, former chairman of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations from 1970-1985 stated unapologetically in his Memoirs:

Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it – p.405

We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries – David Rockefeller to Trilateral Commission in 1991

Lord Bertrand Russell wrote a book titled The Impact of Science on Society in 1952 which unapologetically describes in chilling detail the intention of the few globalist elites in England and America, including the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, to impose one-world government as the answer to the Malthusian problem of the earth’s resources being unable to sustain population growth. There is no national sovereignty, no middle class, no upward mobility, and no individual freedoms. The globalist elites envision a feudal binary socio-political system of masters and slaves where they are the ruling elite served by an enslaved population – everyone else is eliminated. “World population needs to be decreased by 50%”– Henry Kissinger.

Michael Bloomberg is a clear and present danger to American sovereignty. His philosophical positions reflect the same condescending aristocratic attitudes of Lord Bertrand Russell, David Rockefeller, and Henry Kissinger. Michael Bloomberg is the climate candidate huckster who champions bringing one-world government to America disguised as altruism. Michael Bloomberg is the candidate of one-world government and the political aristocracy who believe they are superior and entitled to be the masters of the world’s population of slaves.

Michael Bloomberg, the 2020 climate candidate, is the personification of the humanitarian hoax of climate change and the man attempting to impose globalism’s New World Order. He is the consummate humanitarian huckster presenting himself as America’s advocate when in fact he is America’s existential enemy. If Michael Bloomberg becomes the 2020 Democrat candidate, the election will be a clash of the titans that will determine the future course and structure of life on Earth.

President Donald Trump representing the American flag of freedom and national sovereignty VS. Michael Bloomberg representing the globalist flag of one-world government and a return to the feudal totalitarian New World Order ruled by the globalist political elite.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: John Kerry Recruited Celebrities for His Climate Change Coalition. Guess Who Decided to Join Him.