Recent Energy and Environmental News

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

FYI, the new buzzword is community “resilience.” Like its sibling “sustainability” this is the Left creating a Trojan Horse that is intended to fool trusting, well-intended, and unaware citizens. Hopefully that will not be any of our readers.

Gov Matt Bevin recently gave an exceptional talk about electrical energy realities. He was Southern States Energy Board chairmen, and was giving the keynote speech at their annual meeting. It is one of the BEST talks I’ve ever heard from a politician about the importance of affordable, reliable electrical energy. Pass it on!

Since there is such a diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into eight (8) categories.

My vote for the most outstanding articles this cycle: It Costs $532,000± to Decommission A Single Wind TurbineNY County Health Board Eyes Wind Turbine RegulationsClimate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded PaganismHow I Changed my Mind… about Global Warming, and The False Prophets of Climate Change

Energy Economics

It Costs $532,000± to Decommission A Single Wind Turbine
In a “Reversal” Wind Power Industry Wants More U.S. Tax Credits
Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt: Let’s Not Commit Economic Suicide

Wind Turbine Health Matters

NY County Health Board Eyes Wind Turbine Regulations
A new tool in China’s kit of repression
Why Everything is Getting Louder
Community ailments circle back to turbines

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems

Socialism Is the Greatest Threat to the Environment
Why Wind Turbines Threaten Endangered Species With Extinction
Wind energy’s big disposal problem
Unfurling The Waste Problem Caused By Wind Energy

Nuclear Energy

Video: Nuclear Energy is Green
GEN IV Nuclear Energy is Clean, Efficient and Plentiful — Why the Worry?
Nuclear Power Is The Only Realistic Option
Net-Zero CO2 Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Plant Every Day

Energy Misc

Video: Kentucky Governor’s Keynote Speech on Low Cost Energy
Weathermen Wild As Wind Turbines Interference Wrecks Their Radar Signals
NC Energy Company Finds Solar Power Actually Increases Pollution
Short video: Renewable Portfolio Standard Scam (Part 2)
Video: Hansen & Shellenberger: Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough?

Global Warming (AGW)

Climate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded Paganism
President Trump, religious liberty, and international climate policy
Chief UN Climate Scientist Calls the Climate Narrative “Religious Extremism
How I Changed my Mind… about Global Warming
The IPCC’s Seldom Mentioned ‘Uncertainties’
IPCC Lead Author’s Research Uncertain About UN’s Climate Goal
Top climate scientist breaks ranks with ‘consensus’
‘There is no climate emergency,’ hundreds of scientists, engineers tell U.N.
Dozens of Failed Climate Predictions Stretch 80 Years Back
Some Recommended Sources for Objective Info on Climate Change
Marxists join climate strike: for system change, not climate change!

Impressionable Youths and Global Warming Propaganda

The False Prophets of Climate Change
Greta Thunberg and the Cult of Adolescence
The Global Warming Cult is Polluting Adult and Children’s minds
Drama Over Science? Greta’s Climate Speech and Appeal to Emotion
Short satire video: Green activist Greta Thunberg & Thomas Cook

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.)

What the Trump Impeachment Inquiry is Really About
Yes, the Deep State Really Does Exist
An Open Letter to Heartland
Short video: Why I Don’t Want and Don’t Deserve Reparations
The Progressive Agenda to Dumb Down America’s Children
The 50 most miserable cities in America
With a $230 million deficit, UN may run out of money by end of month
Archive: The importance of stupidity in scientific research

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 computer… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this 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 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our 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.

A New Dark Age: California’s Blackouts Are Self-Inflicted

California, the richest state in the nation—and one that’s often portrayed as the progressive harbinger of the future for the rest of the country—has been hit with its latest Third World-style disaster.

On top of high poverty rates, skyrocketing homelessness, rising crime, and the return of medieval-sounding diseases, the state—specifically, the San Francisco Bay Area—has been hit with a mass blackout.

About 1 million people in one of the most densely populated parts of the country have had their power shut off by the utility company, Pacific Gas and Electric.

The local utility, PG&E, initiated the blackout in an effort to limit the potential for mass wildfires, which ravaged the state in 2018 and bankrupted the company. Exposed power lines and infrastructure make the likelihood of sparking fires much greater in places where there is ample dry fuel (more on that later). Still, the fires are back this year.

The blackout, which has hit cities throughout Northern California, is causing chaos: businesses have to shut down, people can’t go to work, and in some blacked-out areas, curfews have been put in place to prevent crime.

It’s a mess.

Much of the blame for the blackout has been hurled at the utility, with some even turning to vandalizing PG&E offices and shooting at its trucks.

Though it’s easy to criticize PG&E, which hardly looks good in this whole mess, there is a lot of blame to go around—and no, it doesn’t have anything to do with “climate change.”

Poor land management has been a major contributing factor to the uptick in massive wildfires in the West and around the country. California is particularly susceptible.

Fires need heat, and they need fuel. At certain times of the year in California, the state is hot as dry winds blow in from Nevada, a combustible environment for fire. That’s hardly a new situation in the Golden State.

Unfortunately, there’s now far more fuel in our forests that has built up over decades because of a change in forest management strategy.

Former California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who now lives in Texas, has done a great job of highlighting this issue and explaining how the blackout crisis was largely caused by politicians.

Renewable energy has been prioritized over reliable infrastructure, DeVore recently wrote in The Federalist, while there has been an uptick of vulnerable power lines to connect distant wind farms to urban centers.

PG&E shifted its priority to the overpriced renewables at the behest of politicians, The Wall Street Journal explained in an article aptly titled “California’s Dark Ages.”

For years, the utility skimped on safety upgrades and repairs while pumping billions into green energy and electric-car subsidies to please its overlords in Sacramento. Credit Suisse has estimated that long-term contracts with developers of renewables cost the utility $2.2 billion annually more than current market power rates.

Now, in large parts of California, if you want to keep the lights on during the blackouts, you better have a flashlight or a gas lamp. Twenty-first century green dreams have led to 19th-century realities.

The Dark Ages indeed.

Worse than the misguided green energy push and poor infrastructure, of course, has been the shifting forest management strategy—mostly the result of misguided environmentalist ideology—that turned large swaths of the state into a tinderbox.

“With a decline in the harvest came a decline in the allied efforts to clear brush, build and maintain access roads and firebreaks,” DeVore wrote in The Federalist. “This led inexorably to a decades’ long build-up in the fuel load. Federal funds set aside for increasingly unpopular forest-management efforts were instead shifted to fire-suppression expenses.”

One failure led to another as poor forest management has necessitated vastly increased budgets for putting out the fires, which will undoubtedly continue to be a threat.

Further, DeVore noted, these fires pose more danger to people than ever before as middle-class Californians flee the state’s expensive urban areas to the more affordable, but also more at-risk parts of the state.

So, the current blackouts are ultimately the result of short-term reality and long-term dysfunctional governance.

California is a wealthy state with vast natural advantages and near-limitless potential for growth. It’s why so many Americans have moved there over the past century.

Despite those attributes, California’s future success looks, well, a whole lot darker due to political dysfunction and the inability to address the growing problems facing the state.

Let us all hope that America’s future is a lot brighter than California’s.


Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. He is also the author of the soon-to-be released book, “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.” Twitter: .


What Do Rolling Blackouts And Sky-High Gas Prices Mean For Gov Newsom’s Job As Governor?

Pump Price Over $4 a Gallon Gives Californians Gas Pains

The Evilness of Modern China

RELATED VIDEO: Sea Watch 3 Captain shows what her real agenda is

A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in 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.

The Human as Guest?

Robert Royal: At the Synod, humans are termed “guests” on earth. In fact, we are God’s creatures, meant to be here as much as any created thing.

Synods almost always move within established boundaries and the subjects they take on, the very language they use, are largely predictable. But a new term popped up at the Amazon Synod in the last few days that may be significant. Various sources say that the synod participants have been talking about changing our mentality from thinking of ourselves as the lords and masters of nature to our (allegedly) true position – as “guests” in the world.

As with much else that happens in discussions of ecology, this has its positive and negative sides. The positive side, a very positive side, is that it repudiates a centuries-old view that corrupted the Scientific Revolution at the very start. Rene Descartes spoke of making ourselves “masters and possessors of nature.” Francis Bacon went even further advising we “put nature on the rack for the relief of man’s estate.”

Now, needless to say, these assertions are naked brutality, not a Christian view. The false belief that the Bible – and not the early stages of the Enlightenment – sanctioned such callous supremacy has for more than a half-century now led a significant segment of environmentalists to think Christianity is responsible for environmental degradation, and should therefore be repudiated.

A Biblical view of nature begins at the beginning, with Genesis, where we are told “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (1:28)

The Hebrew word for “dominion,” the Bible scholars say, is pretty strong, the kind of rule a king – a good king – has over his realm. But it’s worth reminding ourselves that, prior to the advent and spread of modern technologies, nature was not always a loving mother to our race, but a stern foe. To this day, some people seem to think it’s unnatural when there are floods, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, bizarre weather patterns. The truth is those things have been part of conditions on the earth since long before we ever came on the scene.


So the dominion of which the Bible speaks maybe be strong, but it is the strength of the steward who will make the desert bloom, cultivate the land, care for the animals, as he or she must do if we are to live on earth at all.

I have no idea where this notion of “guest” – the Italians have been saying ospite – came from. It seems to aim at humility and deference towards nature, which would be fine in and of itself. But the fact is that we are not guests here; we’re not like someone staying in a hotel or private home at the forbearance of the owners. We are meant to be here – we Christians and Jews believe, on the basis of divine revelation – and therefore we have an essential role to play.

I have said here before: the Amazon synod is not wrong to raise questions about the human treatment of nature because nature is not the purely materialistic thing (matter and energy interchanges) that the technological/scientific worldview presents to us. It’s useful at times to look at nature that way in order to achieve various goods. But that kind of science, which is not all of science by any means, cannot say anything about what’s central to human life: free will, intelligence, purpose – and finally, love.

So when synod participants talk about shifting from a technocratic paradigm to an ecological one, they’re actually harking back to a true Biblical perspective.

That’s if – and it’s a large if – we do not think of ourselves as some sort of encrustation on the land, as the more radical environmentalists seem to believe. Unfortunately the Vatican has largely drawn on the most radical environmental figures – not exclusively, but a lot – in developing ideas about our relationship with the Creation. It’s often turned to population controllers who advocate contraception and abortion, and – so far as anyone knows – has not much sought to help develop currents of thought and practice that do not regard us as a guest in the world – if not a pest.

It pains me to say this but some of our best intentioned Catholics seem to be so weighed down by abstract kinds of guilt (not the guilt that once existed over personal sins) that they only see Christian culture and the Western civilization to which it helped give rise as toxic, toxic all the way down. Poisoned by “dominion” in the Bible,  poisoned by colonialism, racism, sexism, slavery, genocide – all terrible things to be sure. But it is because of our Christian roots that we know that many things that have happened in Western culture, as in other cultures, are not exactly sterling examples of virtue and benevolence.

It would only compound those errors if we were now to regard ourselves as a mere “guest” on this planet. God has not told us that such is our lot in the world. Rather, it’s our responsibility to be his stewards, as I argued here the other day, until the true king comes again.

It will be worth watching if this talk of being guests continues to rise in prominence over the next week because, under the guise of humility, it tends toward yet another ideological distortion of human life on this planet.

We are not guests, we are creatures, God’s creatures, as much meant to be here as the rivers, the rainforests, the mountains, and the seas. More than they are, in fact. It’s a challenging prospect, but we should not shrink from, but embrace it.


Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century, published by Ignatius Press. The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, is now available in paperback from Encounter Books.


Cardinal Sarah: Ideological push in Amazon synod an ‘insult to God’

Key Synod Father: Pan-Amazon Synod ‘Maybe a Step to’ Women Catholic Priests

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Idiotic Environmental Predictions

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a new paper, “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions.” Keep in mind that many of the grossly wrong environmentalist predictions were made by respected scientists and government officials. My question for you is: If you were around at the time, how many government restrictions and taxes would you have urged to avoid the predicted calamity?

As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969) Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich warned:

“The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”

In 2000, David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016.

In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness:

Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. … By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Mark J. Perry, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus, cites 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970.

This time it’s not about weather. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. Kenneth Watt said, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate … that there won’t be any more crude oil.”

There were grossly wild predictions well before the first Earth Day, too. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior predicted that American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous energy claims, in 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey said that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that as of Jan. 1, 2017, there were about 2,459 trillion cubic feet of dry natural gas in the United States. That’s enough to last us for nearly a century. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas worldwide.

Today’s wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear’s. The major difference is today’s Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free.



Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Hollywood Actress Arrested After Climate Change Protest

RELATED VIDEO: Communist revolutionaries faking climate concern in Germany

A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in 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.

VIDEO: AOC Townhall “We got to start eating babies!”

During a townhall meeting hosted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a woman stood up and said that in order to save the planet, “We got to start eating babies! We don’t have enough time! … We have to get rid of the babies! … We need to eat the babies!”

Note that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez does not denounce the “eating babies” comments.


In a September email the 98 member Democratic Congressional Progressive Caucus (which includes the four members of The Squad) sent out an email titled, “Read what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal just said.” Here is the content of the email:

Scientists estimate that we only have 12 YEARS until the effects of climate change become IRREVERSIBLE. We have to act, now!

That’s why Progressive Caucus members like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal are speaking out:

We must pass bold initiatives, like a Green New Deal, if we want to stop climate change in its tracks.


If you think killing unborn children and selling their body parts is bad, the latest woke on the liberal left is cannibalism.

Breitbart reported in a September 6, 2019 article titled “Swedish Scientist Proposes Cannibalism to Fight Climate Change” reported:

Swedish behavioural scientist Magnus Söderlund has suggested that eating other people after they die could be a means of combatting climate change.

The scientist mentioned the possibility of cannibalism during a broadcast on Swedish television channel TV4 this week about a fair in Stockholm regarding “food of the future”.

Söderlund is set to hold seminars at the event, entitled “Gastro Summit — about the future of food” where he intends to discuss the possibility of eating people in the name of cutting down greenhouse emissions.

Read more.

But this idea of eating human flesh in order to save the planet is not new with progressives. In this video from the Charlie Rose Show on PBS on April 1, 2008 Ted Turner said that Global warming can lead to cannibalism.

Shawn Hannity in an article titled “GREEN NEW MEAL: Scientist Says ‘Consuming Human Flesh’ May Be Needed to Fight Climate Change” reports:

A European scientist speaking at a summit in Sweden last week suggested a controversial new trend to combat climate change: consuming human flesh as an alternative to animal products.

“Stockholm School of Economics professor and researcher Magnus Soderlund reportedly said he believes eating human meat, derived from dead bodies, might be able to help save the human race if only a world society were to ‘awaken the idea,’” reports the New York Post.

“At a summit for food of the future (the climate-ravaged future) called Gastro Summit, in Stockholm on Sept. 3 to 4, a professor held a PowerPoint presentation asserting that we must ‘awaken the idea’ of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combating the effects of climate change,” adds the Epoch Times.


The opposite of peace is not war. The opposite of peace is fear. If you believe the progressive bunk on climate change then you are in fear, as is the woman at Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s townhall meeting. Fear that the planet earth will die and take you along with it.

Of course this has been a big lie propagated by the progressives to take control of all means of production, especially fossil fuels.

There are three absolute truths about the climate:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes follow natural cycles (i.e. summer, fall, winter, spring)
  3. There is nothing mankind can do to alter these natural cycles.

Eating our dead or babies will not save the planet. What will save the planet is exposing this big lie for what it is – a United Nations effort to impose a one world government. This, as it always has, will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of human being, born and unborn.


What The ‘Eating Babies’ Troll Job Said About AOC Is Pretty Terrifying

Woman Snaps At AOC Over Climate: ‘Start Eating Babies!’ ‘We Only Have A Few Months Left!’

RELATED VIDEO: The Vortex — Climate Change.

VIDEO: A few Science Items on Climate and the Origins of the Global Warming Myth

Posted by Eeyore

Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?

Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998. If someone is tempted to argue that the reason for recent record cooling periods is that global temperatures are getting more volatile, it’s not true. The volatility of monthly global average temperatures since 2000 is only two-thirds what it was from 1880 to 1999.

Why Even Liberals Should Be “Climate Change Skeptics”

Given the poor track record of drastic government solutions adopted in an atmosphere of fear, a healthy skepticism toward demands related to climate change should not only be tolerated but encouraged.

When you’re several decades older than Greta Thunberg, her impassioned warning of impending doom hits you differently than it may college students or early twenty somethings. In a word, it sounded “familiar.”

I’m not just talking about the climate change movement, nor exclusively about the left side of the political spectrum. I’ve been hearing about impending doom that can only be averted by massive increases in the size and scope of government my whole life, from both the right and the left.

The earliest example I remember came from the right. During the 1980s, the airwaves were flooded with reports on the military superiority of the Soviet Union. I don’t mean their nuclear weapons capabilities, which were and remain a valid cause for concern, as are those of every nuclear-armed government. No, the American public was saturated with reports of the Soviet Union’s superiority in waging conventional war, with planes, tanks, ground troops, etc.

The only solution, said the Reagan administration, was massive increases in military spending, which not only doubled the size of the federal government overall during Reagan’s two terms but started a trend of massive military spending that continues to this day. The conventional wisdom of the right says it was this spending that caused the Soviet Union to collapse because they tried to keep up and couldn’t. It wasn’t. The Soviet Union collapsed because of its communist economic system, which former KGB agent Vladimir Putin admitted in 2009 when he said,

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

The truth is, the Soviets were never a military threat, outside their nukes, which Reagan’s spending did nothing to deter. Poor countries generally don’t win conventional wars against much richer ones. Knowing that now, would you like to have those trillions in unnecessary military spending back?

The 1980s also saw a massive increase in the so-called “War on Drugs.” Capitalizing on the tragic death of basketball player Len Bias, drug warriors succeeded in convincing the American public that only draconian drug laws and sentencing guidelines could save their children from certain death due to an imminent, nationwide epidemic of drug addiction. The legislation pushed through on the heels of this fear-mongering resulted in the mass incarceration of generations of disproportionately black and brown people, many for as little as possessing too much marijuana, which is now legal in more than half of US states.

Knowing what you know today, would you like to have those millions of destroyed lives and families back?

In 2003, with the American public still shell shocked from the 9/11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration embarked upon a fear campaign similar to the Reagan administration’s Soviet scare featuring an even less plausible boogeyman: Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a ruthless dictator and a generally bad guy, but he was never a threat to US national security. The Bush administration evoked images of massive chemical weapons attacks and even “a mushroom cloud” in a major US city. It was all baloney.

Knowing what you know today, would you like to have the Iraq War back?

So, what does all this have to do with climate change? Environmentalists are using the same tactics, only for different ends. Right-wingers often revere the military and law enforcement. For all their talk about “small government,” no increase in either would be too much for many of them.

They’ve generally got what they’ve wanted in those areas by employing a thus far foolproof tactic that goes something like this: Oh my God! I’ve discovered a dire threat to all our lives and civilization as we know it. And believe it or not, the only solution is for you to give me everything I’ve ever wanted politically.

Shouldn’t any thinking person be suspicious of this? Would it not have benefitted Americans, left, right or otherwise, to have been more skeptical of claims like this before the War on Drugs or the Iraq War?

I’m not trying to convince liberals there is nothing to the anthropogenic climate change theory. But I am calling attention to the fact that the very same tactic that gave us the Iraq War, the largest prison population in the history of the world, and an out-of-control national debt due largely to unnecessary military spending is now being used to achieve a political result to address climate change.

Let’s not forget that before the fall of the Soviet Union and China’s dramatic turn away from communism and towards a market economy, the hard left’s chief argument against free markets had nothing to do with the environment. For most of the 20th century, they claimed that full-on communism or socialism was a better economic system. It was only when its failure in so many places became impossible to deny that the focus shifted to the environment. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) didn’t form until 1992, the year after the Soviet Union disappeared and just after China’s market reforms got underway.

Coincidence? Maybe, but shouldn’t it at least raise an eyebrow? How can anyone be blamed for skepticism when the very same people who wanted a centrally planned economy based on its economic merits suddenly discover it’s the only way to “save the planet”? Shouldn’t that give pause to even a true believer in climate change?

This is before even asking the question of whether giving the government these sweeping new powers (not to mention trillions more of our dollars) would actually solve the stated problem. Past experience should make us skeptical of this, too. Did the War on Drugs result in fewer drugs on the street? Did the Iraq War result in less terrorism? Believing the government is suddenly going to be wildly successful based purely on its doing the bidding of the other political tribe seems more like religious faith than reason.

One thing Greta Thunberg’s speech is honest about, at least indirectly, is that adopting the drastic environmental measures called for by the hard left will make us poorer. She derisively asks how any of us can even talk about “economic growth.” That’s easy for Thunberg and other First-Worlders to say, given what this will cost them vs. what it will cost truly poor people, of which there are very few in the United States or Sweden.

The truth is eliminating fossil fuels at the rate the hard left suggests could cost billions of poor people their lives, not merely their hamburgers. Given that grim reality and the poor track record of drastic government solutions adopted in an atmosphere of fear, a healthy skepticism toward the hard left’s claims and demands related to climate change should not only be tolerated but encouraged.


Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit


Where Will Climate Change Solutions Be Found?

Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

The religion of climate change & the new doomsday scenario

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

Recent Energy and Environmental News

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

Since there is such a diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into eight (8) categories, including one about Greta.

My vote for the most outstanding articles this cycle: Climate and the Money TrailWind turbine infrasound articles became too hot for the Sierra Club to handleRenewables May Make Us Feel Good, But Realistically They Just Don’t Work,       A Line-By-Line Response to Greta Thunberg’s UN SpeechThe climate crusade marches across America!.

Energy Economics

Climate and the Money Trail
Climate Change: the Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day
Germany On Economic Suicide Watch
US Wind Developers Rush to Secure Tax Credits

Wind Turbine Health Matters

Wind turbine infrasound articles became too hot for the Sierra Club to handle
Study: No real reduction in infrasound damage until 9+ miles from turbines
Short video: RN Testifies About Apparent Turbine Health Consequences
Video: Wind Turbine Illness Chautauqua County NY<

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems

Green Energy Policies (esp Wind Energy) That Kill Bats
Study: Bats dying due to wind farms
North American bird population has dropped by 3 billion (29%) since 1970

Nuclear Energy

A beginner’s guide to the debate over nuclear power and climate
U.S. nuclear plants to produce carbon-free hydrogen
Electricity in the realm of the Lion King
No Nukes is Bad News for Climate<

Energy Misc.

Renewables May Make Us Feel Good, But Realistically They Just Don’t Work
Short video: Renewable Portfolio Standard Scam (Part 1)
Congressional Testimony: Sources and Uses of Minerals for “Clean Energy”
Going green is nothing but a scam
Why 100% Renewable Energy Is Less Realistic Than a Unicorn
The Limits of “Clean” Energy
Expert discusses possible RADAR impacts from wind energy project

Greta & Propagandized Children

Video: Greta’s UN Speech
A Line-By-Line Response to Greta Thunberg’s UN Speech
Short video from an anti-Greta young girl
Short video: Thunberg is ‘not the messiah, she is an extremely anxious girl’
Short Video: A Letter to Greta Thunberg
If You Can’t Sell Your Hysteria To Adults, Try Kids
Meet Greta spiritual precursor: The 12-year-old who ‘silenced the world’
World’s Leaders Turn On Greta After She Sues France And Germany

Global Warming (AGW)

The climate crusade marches across America!
50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
A Climate Modeler Spills the Beans
How Climate Change Really Isn’t About the Climate
The Extinction of Reason
Scientists Write To UN: There Is No Climate Emergency
Understanding the climate movement: the impotence of science
Study: The Earth’s physical parameters, distributed in space and time
Climatologist: “IPCC Is To Deceive People’, Hockey Stick Graph A Fake
The UN’s Climate Agenda is So Extreme Its Own Analysts Can’t Defend It
Short video: ‘Facts don’t matter’ with global warming
Doug Casey and E.B. Tucker on the Climate Change Hoax
Climate activist hypocrisies exposed
The only solution to climate change is world socialism

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.)

Short video: Goodbye America
Video: President Trump’s full UN speech
It’s Time to Stand Up to the Left
The Washington Post‘s Effort to Divide America
If The Case For Trump’s Impeachment Is So Strong, Why Are Liberals Lying About It?

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 computer… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.
Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this 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 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.
Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our 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.

© All rights reserved.

The Tragedy of Greta Thunberg

Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg lives in the healthiest, wealthiest, safest, and most peaceful era humans have ever known. She is one of the luckiest people ever to have lived.

In a just world, Thunberg would be at the United Nations thanking capitalist countries for bequeathing her this remarkable inheritance. Instead, she, like millions of other indoctrinated kids her age, act as if they live in a uniquely broken world on the precipice of disaster. This is a tragedy.

“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” Thunberg lectured the world. And maybe she’s right. We’ve failed her by raising a generation of pagans who’ve filled the vacuum left by the absence of faith, not with rationality, but with a cultish worship of Mother Earth and the state. Although, to be fair, the Bible-thumping evangelical’s moral certitude is nothing but a rickety edifice compared to the moral conviction of a Greta Thunberg.

It’s not, of course, her fault. Adults have spent a year creating a 16-year-old because her soundbites comport with their belief system. It was “something about her raw honesty around a message of blunt-force fear [that] turned this girl from invisible to global,” says CNN in a news report about a child with a narrow, age-appropriate grasp of the world.

It should be noted that “blunt-force fear” is indeed the correct way to describe the concerted misinformation that Thunberg has likely been subjected to since nursery school.

There probably isn’t a public school in America that hasn’t plied the panic-stricken talk of environmental disaster in their auditoriums over and over again. New York City and other school systems offered millions of kids an excused absence so they could participate in political climate marches this week, as if it were a religious or patriotic holiday.

We’ve finally convinced a generation of Americans to be Malthusians. According to Scott Rasmussen’s polling, nearly 30% of voters now claim to believe that it’s “at least somewhat likely” that the earth will become uninhabitable and humanity will be wiped out over the next 10-15 years. Half of voters under 35 believe it is likely we are on the edge of extinction. Is there any wonder why our youngest generation has a foreboding sense of doom?

It’s the fault of ideologues who obsess over every weather event as if it were Armageddon, ignoring the massive moral upside of carbon-fueled modernity. It’s the fault of the politicians, too cowardly to tell voters that their utopian vision of a world run on solar panels and windmills is fairy tale.

It’s the fault of media that constantly ignores overwhelming evidence that, on balance, climate change isn’t undermining human flourishing. By nearly every quantifiable measure, in fact, we are better off because of fossil fuels. Though there is no way to measure the human spirit, I’m afraid.

Thunberg might do well to sail her stern gaze and billowing anger to India or China and wag her finger at the billions of people who no longer want to live in poverty and destitution. Because if climate change is irreversible in the next 10-12 years, as cultists claim, it can be blamed in large part on the historic growth we’ve seen in developing nations.

China’s emissions from aviation and maritime trade alone are twice that of the United States, and more than the entire emissions of most nations in the world. But, sure, let’s ban straws as an act of contrition.

Boomers, of course, have failed on plenty of fronts, but the idea that an entire generation of Americans should have chosen poverty over prosperity to placate the vacuous complaints of privileged future teenagers is absurd. No generation would do it. Until recently, no advanced nation has embraced Luddism. Although these days, Democrats who advocate for bans on fossil fuels and carbon-mitigating technologies such as fracking and nuclear energy are working on it.

Climate activists could learn something from Thunberg’s honesty, though. She argues that “money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth” have to come to an end. The emission cuts that environmentalists insist are needed to save the earth would mean economic devastation and the end of hundreds of years of economic growth. This is a tradeoff progressives pretend doesn’t exist.

And Thunberg’s dream for the future means technocratic regimes will have to displace capitalistic societies. We can see this future in the radical environmentalist plans of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, one supported by leading Democratic Party candidates. It’s authoritarianism. There is no other way to describe a regulatory regime that dictates exactly what Americans can consume, sell, drive, eat, and work on.

One imagines that most Americans, through their actions, will continue to reject these regressive ideas. One reason they should is so that Greta Thunberg’s generation won’t have to suffer needlessly.


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: .


Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

American Thinker: The Cynical Plot Behind Global Warming Hysteria

A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in 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.

The Humanitarian Hoax of Zero Population Growth (ZPG): Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The Humanitarian Hoax series has discussed the Humanitarian Hoax of Globalism,  The Humanitarian Hoax of Socialism,  The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate ChangeThe Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change IIThe Riddle of Climate Change, and the Humanitarian Hoax of the United Nations. Now it is time to examine the Humanitarian Hoax of Zero Population Growth and see how these hoaxes are all connected.

The humanitarian hoaxes are globalist cons designed to redistribute the world’s wealth and the world’s population to establish a new internationalized world order of one world government under the corrupt auspices of the United Nations. The 2020 American presidential election is a domestic political contest between Americanism and globalism that reflects the worldwide political contest between national sovereignty and globalism.

President Donald J. Trump stunned the world 9.24.19 with his brilliant speech to the 74th United Nations General Assembly. It was a calm, measured, powerful statement of purpose and resolve highlighting the 21st century conflict between the United States demand for national sovereignty under the Trump administration, and the United Nation’s increasing efforts to globalize the world. President Trump presented his proud, America-first leadership unapologetically and with equal respect for the national sovereignty, cultures, and religions of the nations of the world represented in the general assembly saying:

“In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people where it belongs. In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens, to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values. As president of the United States, I will always put America first. Just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first.”

President Trump reminded the world that the United Nations was founded as an international body respectful of national differences and dedicated to mutual cooperation among sovereign nations to achieve international peace. President Trump criticized and warned the United Nations against its efforts to internationalize the world and impose one world government with his stunning admonition:

“The future does not belong to the globalists, the future belongs to the sovereign and independent nations, who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.” So, what do the United Nations efforts to globalize the world have to do with the Zero Population Growth movement (ZPG) and Thomas Malthus?

Zero Population Growth (ZPG) is the condition of demographic balance where the population is stable and neither grows nor declines.

In the late 1960s ZPG was a powerful political movement in the United States and western Europe. ZPG marketed its message to an unsuspecting public as the altruistic humanitarian method for limiting the growing world population. ZPG was going to save the planet from the catastrophic Malthusian prophesy that population growth would outstrip agricultural production resulting in too many people and not enough food. Sound familiar? It should – it is the basis of the United Nations egregious Agenda 2030, its 17 Sustainability goals, and the Green New Deal. Let’s review.

English theologian and scholar Thomas Robert Malthus wrote his famous prediction in his 1798 book, “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” The Malthusian Theory is based on the assumption that population increases geometrically (2,4,8,16,32,64, etc.), but food supplies increase arithmetically (2,4,6,8,10,12).

The obvious flaws in the assumption are twofold. First, Malthus’s fatalistic prediction never materialized. Second, Malthus lived over two hundred years ago when agricultural practices were limited by 18th century technology. Malthus simply could not imagine a time of 21st century science and agricultural technology. So, why is the United Nations resurrecting the dire predictions of an 18th century Malthusian catastrophe with apocalyptic warnings of catastrophic manmade climate change? Let’s find out.

Fear is a powerful force used by the globalist community to effect seismic socio-political change. Young people worldwide are indoctrinated in the globalized educational initiative of the United Nations. They are terrified that the world is coming to an end and that they will surely drown or starve. Many indoctrinated millennials refuse to have children to protect their unborn from such catastrophic certainties. The problem, of course, is that their fears are manmade and designed to dupe them into becoming global citizens in a globalized world where accepting the radical leftist global environmental narrative will protect them and keep them safe.

The zero population growth movement of the late 60s succeeded in reducing the populations of Western countries. What is the globalist solution?? Massive uncontrolled immigration being marketed deceitfully as the replacement population that will bring economic stability and growth to the depleted workforce.

What is the reality?

President Trump provided the answer in his extraordinary speech to the 74th United Nations General Assembly:

“We have learned that over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries. For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political and economic reform and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and implement those reforms. For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are born overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media and government.”

So, the humanitarian hoax of zero population growth, the resurrected Malthusian prophesy, manmade climate change, open borders, uncontrolled immigration, and globalized education are all efforts of the United Nations globalist elite to internationalize the world and impose one world government.

All function to blur ethnic, cultural, religious, and racial boundaries. The result is sameness – one people, one religion, one flag, one language, one currency, one globalized culture all controlled by the globalist elite under the auspices of the United Nations and one world government.

President Trump understands that the globalist “new” world order is a return to the old feudal system where the very few enslave the many. President Trump rejects globalism and feudalism entirely and is deeply committed to upholding the United States Constitution that guarantees the self-rule of American citizens, the independence of America, and the sovereignty of the nations of the world.

Globalism is socialism on a massive international scale where the assets of producing countries are confiscated and given to non-producing countries. President Trump is profoundly opposed to such an arrangement, and has renegotiated unfair trade deals that penalize the United States and confiscate America’s wealth.

Manmade climate change is based on fraudulent science that was exposed in the staggering 2009 Climategate scandal, yet the United Nations continues to promote its false narrative with the Paris Accord and apocalyptic warnings that the world will end in 12 years. The manmade climate change hysteria is the globalized political effort of the United Nations to unite the world’s population in fear.

The environmental lobby that promoted ZPG has moved on to manmade climate hysteria in its global effort to con the world’s population into accepting globalism as deliverance from the apocalyptic climate predictions. The problem, of course, is that globalism is the 21st century name for the feudal structure of centralized internationalized one world government that deprives individual nations of their national sovereignty.

The 2020 presidential election is a pivotal election in our nation’s history. A vote for President Trump is a vote for national sovereignty, freedom, the Constitution, and individual rights. A vote for any of the Democrat candidates is a vote for socialism, globalism, and a return to feudalism.

America-first President Donald J. Trump told the world at the 74th United Nations General Assembly: America will never be a socialist nation – NOT ON MY WATCH!!


Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

The religion of climate change & the new doomsday scenario

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

VIDEOS: Who is behind Greta Thunberg and is she being used?

A 16-year old girl named Greta Thunberg has become the face of the environmental movement at the United Nations. Some see her as a hero speaking out about a world about to end. Others have called her a pawn and question why should we listen to a 16-year old when there are thousands of scientists who know more about the climate than Greta will ever know.

The answer: This is a battle between science and emotion.

Science is unemotional, measured and at times boring. Greta, on the other had, is the embodiment of visceral emotion.

What we are presenting here are three videos on climate change. The first deals with who is behind Greta. The second is a discussion about Greta being abused to push the end of times scenario. The third video is about Kenny Stein who has a different view on climate change and how Stein is treated on an American college campus. Stein believes politicians cannot legislate weather, storms, and the climate; knows how fossil fuels save lives in Africa and America; rejects renewable energy fantasies; and understands how science informs economic and political trade-offs.

Please watch all these videos to understand why Greta and why now.

First, Who is behind climate saint, Greta Thunberg?

Second, Who Stole Greta’s Childhood?

Next Greta Thunberg: The Progressive Use and Abuse of Teen Climate Activist-Actor

Finally, Protesters shut down climate event featuring Kenny Stein, Director of Policy and Federal Affairs for the American Energy Alliance, at Georgetown University. The event was hosted by GU College Republicans.


Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

Greta’s “Green” coming to America was via petrochemicals worthy of a royal

Tucker: Greta Thunberg Is ‘A Kind Of Human Shield’ Politicians Use To ‘Demand Power’

Bernie Sanders Says ‘We Need Young People Leading Our Climate Justice Movement’

Al Gore Tells CNN Trump Is ‘The Face Of Global Climate Denial’

Fox News Apologizes After Panelist Calls Greta Thunberg A ‘Mentally Ill Swedish Child’

Democrat On AOC Fracking Claim: ‘We Do Ourselves No Favors When We Ignore Science’

© All rights reserved.

How many cars are there on Mars?

The title of this relatively short essay may seem odd at first, but read on and all will be revealed.

When President elect, Barack Obama, chose members of his new administration back in 2008, he selected physicist Steven Chu as energy secretary and Carol Browner to lead a White House council on energy and climate. Ms. Browner had headed the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration. Mr. Chu was director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a leading advocate of reducing greenhouse gases.

Carol Browner was described as a “neon-green radical” in an early article by Michelle Malkin titled, “The Trouble with Obama’s Energy Czar.” With both Chu and Browner at Obama’s energy helm, the United States was destined to be in a world of trouble, and that too became clear when Obama later uttered the dread words: “I have come to fundamentally transform America.”

Obama’s notorious Cap in Trade policy thankfully died in the Republican controlled Congress. His baleful eight long year term of “fundamentally transforming America” finally ended but, if President Trump loses the general election in 2020 and the Left come to power, a similar and perilous version of a Cap in Trade policy is almost certain to rise from its erstwhile deathbed. It will inevitably saddle the middle class with higher taxes and cause painful job losses to Americans. The Democrats, ever anxious to redistribute America’s wealth to the developing nations, will adopt loony tunes domestic policies. Just listen to the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, et al.

It was no coincidence that Hillary Clinton, President Obama’s Secretary of State, was calling for the U.S. to donate $100 billion of U.S. taxpayer’s money through the United Nations to developing countries. This while the United States was reeling from growing trillion dollar deficits, courtesy of the Obama regime’s dire economic policies.

A great deal of the present lunacy began when Al Gore, ushered in his revelation that the world is in peril from man-made Global Warming, now renamed man-made Climate Change. He took his theory and created a veritable new secular religion, replete with its own priesthood and acolytes in abundance. It is now venerated by multitudes of adoring and unquestioning faithful who cleave to his secular version of Holy Writ, known as ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’

Like so many other beliefs, which labor under original and fundamental error, its believers arrogantly ridicule and treat all doubters as heretics not worthy of consideration. So far there has not been an actual auto da fé (a burning of perceived heretics) but, like the inquisitors who meted them out in the not too distant past, the faith of climate change may yet exact cruel and unusual punishment upon all who refuse to accept its doctrine as infallible. But it has now morphed into pure insanity with the likes of she who I call Occasional Cortex telling us that our present lifestyle guarantees the end of planet Earth in twelve short years.

Paul Johnson, a British historian who never failed to pierce the veil of deception cloaking so much of our understanding of human foibles, once remarked to a friend who had become a recent convert to the belief in man-made global warming or man-made climate change that, in fact, August, 2008 in England had been remarkably cold and miserable with “… torrential rain, a hailstorm or two, cold, bitter winds and mists.”

His friend agreed that, “… yes, the weather was unprecedented and that England has never had such an August before.” But then, true to all new and fanatical converts, his friend opined with righteous and unassailable conviction that it was “man-made global warming, of course.”

For the believer, the knee jerk reply to questions as to why there is too much sun, or too little sun, or drought, or floods, or freezing cold, or hurricanes and tornadoes is that it is all because of, yes you guessed it, man-made climate change. So there you have it; a ready-made and unshakable dogma that explains away the malevolent cause of weather patterns and natural disasters: man-made Climate Change.

Now untold thousands of children are indoctrinated in public schools to become puerile mouthpieces for the so-called man made climate change cult. They are used and abused by their teachers into marching in the streets while shouting slogans. But they know not what they do. Have we not seen throughout history similar mass exploitations of children as occurred among the Hitler youth and the horrifyingly and tragic thirteenth century children’s crusade?

In that papal driven nightmare, fervently believing boys and girls were urged to march across Europe on their way to the Holy Land to convert Muslims. Along the way, thousands perished at the hands of bandits or were enslaved while others starved to death or contracted deadly diseases.

So now we have a pernicious dogma and the faux environmentalists are the priests and bishops of man-made climate change and what is fast becoming a new secular religion – one allied with that other present day secular religion of liberalism. They vociferously intervene in man’s affairs and brook no disagreement with their creed. They impose decrees, which force governments to implement all manner of policies that further the propagation of the new faith but beggar the economy.

But the climate change doctrine contains little scientific fact yet demands much political action and abject compliance with its rules.

The environmentalists are not swayed any more than the medieval priesthoods were willing to accept that their rigid belief in a flat world was wrong or that the earth went around the sun and not the other way round.

Windmills now dot the landscape. They may not be as picturesque as the old European windmills and time will tell whether we will be tilting at them with equal frustration as Don Quixote did in his time. Meanwhile millions of our feathered friends die each year as they fly into the revolving blades of these windmills of death.

Paul Johnson suggested that these wind turbines are a grotesquely expensive and inefficient form of energy and added that, “… the new windmills are hideous things, ruining the landscape.” But don’t tell that to the environmental cadres as they promulgate their man-made climate change message and proselytize all who flock to their new faith.

There is an immense peril lurking beneath the words of those faithful worshipers of the new religion. They target the United States and coerce its gullible politicians and the more than favorably inclined leftists who are revealing an increasingly warped face of the Democrat Party. They repeat, ad nauseum, that these are extreme times that require extreme measures.

America must be driven to accept disabling restraints on its economy, they proclaim. First they sermonized, in the seventies, that it was Global Cooling and that a new Ice Age was upon us. Now it is man-made Global Warming, quickly and expediently changed to man-made Climate Change.

If they succeed and come to power in 2020 the United States, the world’s only superpower, will be economically, politically and militarily crippled and no longer able to defend human freedoms around the globe. Our allies will be left vulnerable as the true and growing threat to the peoples of the earth – not bogus man made climate change – but the real and existential threat of resurgent Islamic jihad linked with resurgent Communism (the Red-Green alliance) will emerge stronger and more vicious as America falters.

The fanatics who espouse man-made climate change and global warming should consider the research carried out several years ago by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at the Russian Academy of Sciences at the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St Petersburg and director of the Russian segment of the International Space Station.

Several years ago Abdussamatov said that global warming is equally apparent upon the planet Mars as it is upon Earth. The reason was because of “…a long-term increase in solar irradiance, which is heating both Earth and Mars.” In other words it is the activity of the Sun.

Abdussamatov believed then that changes in the sun’s heat output account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it is dwarfed by the increase in solar irradiance,”

Abdussamatov’s work, however, was not well received by other climate scientists. Perhaps those scientists, who are now the bishops of the new religion and, like their medieval predecessors were unwilling to accept ideas or proofs that contradicted their rigidly held dogma, are growing more violent and vindictive towards the skeptics.

Even though some 6,000 eminent scientists around the world have provided contradictory evidence towards the notion of man-made global warming or climate change, the followers of the prophet Gore will have none of it. Perhaps that is why they included the term, climate change, to quickly obfuscate the matter.

The very idea that Mars, just like Earth, warms and cools because of the natural activity of the sun is hardly revelatory or revolutionary. But it makes nonsense of the current and fashionable belief that humanity, because of its reliance upon industry and the internal combustion engine , produces a disastrous effect upon Earth’s climate.

Many environmentalists hate the automobile. They prefer bike paths to new roads and work tirelessly to reduce carbon emissions as if they are exorcists driving out demons. Suddenly C02, which we all breathe out and which, if drastically reduced, leads to the death of oxygen giving plant life, now is treated as almost a poisonous gas.

Simply put, Sun’s radiation patterns are responsible for temperature change, not CO2 levels. Dr. Abdussamatov goes further and suggests that rather than the earth entering a potentially catastrophic global warming phase, he posits that we are in fact entering a new mini-ice age.

In the minds of so many environmentalists the car is one of the main culprits and its eventual disappearance as a gasoline driven machine will, they are convinced, help end man made global warming and save the planet. But banning fossil fuels, fracking, nuclear energy along with  cows are also on the list of those aspiring to lead the Democrat Party.

If America and much of the West submits to such nonsense it will surely descend rapidly into a not so brave new world. The dubious reliance on alternative forms of energy will inevitably reduce the world’s population through mass starvation. Not a very sanguine prospect!

The Earth was once much warmer than it is today. During the years between the 14th century and the middle of the 19th century a mini ice age occurred and it is no accident that present day ice covered Greenland was indeed a much warmer and greener land able to sustain an agricultural population. Hence its name: Greenland.

During the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods the climate was significantly warmer than today. In fact our present climate is markedly cooler and, as far as I know, there were no carbon emitting automobiles sharing the Earth with the dinosaurs.

Habibullo Abdussamatov pointed out that the sun is overwhelmingly responsible for global warming or global cooling, aka climate change, not only on Earth but on planet Mars. He had added that the polar caps on Mars are displaying a warming trend even though there is no Martian industry or carbon emitting cars on the red planet.

So if the polar caps on Mars as well as on Earth melt because of the sun and not by man-made contributions or cars, a legitimate question could be asked:

How many cars are there on Mars?

©  Victor Sharpe 2019

RELATED ARTICLE: U.S. ‘Youth Climate Strike’ Founder is Ilhan Omar’s 16-Year-Old Daughter

New Video: My Gift To Climate Alarmists

On September 21st, 2019 Tony Heller posted the below video with comment on Real Climate Science.

This is my most concise expose of the climate scam.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

VIDEO: What would a young woman who was a sane environmental activist sound like?

Posted by Eeyore

Direct link.

RELATED ARTICLE: Child Hostages Obey Their Climate Captors: Julie Kelly

The Environmental Costs of Renewable Energy Are Staggering

“If the world isn’t careful, renewable energy could become as destructive as fossil fuels,” warns a recent article from Foreign Policy.

“The Limits of Clean Energy” is the title of an article by Jason Hickel in Foreign Policy, with the sub-title “If the world isn’t careful, renewable energy could become as destructive as fossil fuels.” Here’s the opening:

The conversation about climate change has been blazing ahead in recent months. Propelled by the school climate strikes and social movements like Extinction Rebellion, a number of governments have declared a climate emergency, and progressive political parties are making plans—at last—for a rapid transition to clean energy under the banner of the Green New Deal.

This is a welcome shift, and we need more of it.

But a new problem is beginning to emerge that warrants our attention. Some proponents of the Green New Deal seem to believe that it will pave the way to a utopia of “green growth.” Once we trade dirty fossil fuels for clean energy, there’s no reason we can’t keep expanding the economy forever.

This narrative may seem reasonable enough at first glance, but there are good reasons to think twice about it. One of them has to do with clean energy itself. The phrase “clean energy” normally conjures up happy, innocent images of warm sunshine and fresh wind. But while sunshine and wind is obviously clean, the infrastructure we need to capture it is not. Far from it. The transition to renewables is going to require a dramatic increase in the extraction of metals and rare-earth minerals, with real ecological and social costs.

In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.

MP: As we learned from Thomas Sowell, “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” See video below.

This article was reprinted from the American Enterprise Institute.


Mark J. Perry

Mark J. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.


More Buckets of Icy Cold Energy Reality

Climate Change: The End Is Near (And It Can’t Come Fast Enough)

Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

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