Washington, D.C. Councilman Blames Jews for Bad Weather and Controlling the Climate

There are few remarks made by someone in a position of authority that could be more profoundly ignorant and stupid than the ones made by Washington, D.C. Council Member Trayon White Sr. about the Rothschilds [watch the below video made by Councilman White].

It is easy to dismiss such remarks as the eructations of a moron, but I’m very much afraid they are a sinister example of what has been going on within the Democratic Party and the black community with their enthusiastic embrace of hate-groups like BLM, ANTIFA and the bevy of beauties who organized the Women’s March.

The irony here, of course, is the strenuous and successful efforts of American Jewry to help pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prominent and senior Democrats such as Senator Al Gore Sr. and Senator Robert Byrd vigorously opposed.

It only took twenty years for Jesse Jackson to start describing New York City as “Hymietown” and another seven years after that for the inveterate race-hustler, Al Sharpton, to incite an anti-Semitic riot in Crown Heights. Twenty seven years after that we now have presidential hopefuls like Kirstin Gillibrand and Cory Booker distancing themselves from the traditional support of Democrats for Israel and we have Representative Keith Ellison and seven other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, a cesspool of anti-Semitism, refusing to denounce or distance themselves from Louis Farrakhan and his cult of Jew-haters and anti-white guttersnipes.

Americans everywhere, not just American Jews, have the right to expect much better and more helpful behavior from these self-styled leaders but one can detect a whiff of sulfur coming from the infusion of vast amounts of money not only from the new politburo of the Left championed by the ubiquitous and treacherous George Soros but also from Islamic states whose title deed, the Quran itself, demands the subjugation and death of Jews.

In the meantime, pandering but ambitious politicians like Mr. White just can’t resist jumping on board a passing bandwagon and getting cozy with all the other morally bankrupt passengers on the rickety but well-fueled contraption they anxiously hope to ride to power. Shame on the miserable lot of them.


By Tamar Lapin, New York Post, March 19, 2018

A DC lawmaker blamed a late-winter snowfall on a family of Jewish bankers — accusing them of controlling the climate and orchestrating natural disasters.

Council member Trayon White Sr. apologized for the comments he made in a since-deleted video on his official Facebook page posted Friday morning as snow fell over the capital.

“Man it just started snowing out of nowhere this morning, man. Y’all better pay attention to this climate control, man, this climate manipulation,” White can be heard saying in the video, the Washington Post reported.

“And D.C. keeps talking about, ‘We a resilient city,’” he continues. “And that’s a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man. Be careful.”

The Rothschilds are a wealthy business dynasty descended from Mayer Amschel Rothschild, an 18th-century Jewish banker who lived in Frankfurt, Germany.

Over the years, they’ve been the subject of wild anti-Semitic conspiracy theories accusing them and other Jewish people of secretly orchestrating world events to their advantage.

“This kind of anti-Semitism is unacceptable in any public official. This so diminishes what America is about and adds to the oppressive feeling going on in the country right now,” Rabbi Daniel Zemel of Temple Micah in northwest Washington told the paper.

Councilman Trayon White Sr. (D-Washington, D.C.)

On Sunday night, White posted a note on Twitter apologizing “to the Jewish community and anyone I have offended.”

“The Jewish community have been allies with me in my journey to help people. I did not intend to be Anti-Semitic, and I see I should not have said that after learning from my colleagues,” the note reads.

White — a Democrat who won the Ward 8 seat in November 2016 — also said he’d reached out to his “friends” at the organization Jews United for Justice.

“They are helping me to understand the history of comments made against Jews and I am committed to figuring out ways continue to be allies with them and others,” he wrote.

The organization acknowledged speaking with White, writing that they “look forward to working with him toward deeper understanding of anti-Semitism and toward our collective liberation.”

Fellow lawmaker Brianne Nadeau, who is Jewish, said she believes White’s apology is sincere.

“I believe he is being truthful when he says he didn’t realize what his statement implied,” she wrote in a statement on Facebook.

Anti-Semitic incidents have jumped 57 percent over the last year nationwide, the Anti-Defamation League reported.

They more than doubled in DC between 2015 and 2017, according to the Washington Post.

RELATED VIDEO: Mark Steyn on lawmaker’s Jewish weather ‘conspiracy’

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

VIDEO: Steven Pinker’s Un-Enlightened Writing on Climate and Energy

I am generally very excited about Steven Pinker’s new book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Unfortunately, the book’s treatment of climate and energy is deeply problematic.

A few nights ago I recorded a 20 minute analysis [BELOW] of the climate section of the book. You don’t need a copy of the book to follow along since the text of the book is in the video.

I hope you find my analysis useful. I think the principles involved apply to many smart people who get this issue wrong.

Bonus: At the end of the video I defend “the Koch Brothers” from Pinker’s smearing. I haven’t spoken much about them publicly so I was glad to get the opportunity.

Property Value Guarantee: What’s good for fossil fuels is good for wind turbines

Welcome to the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter.

We have long advocated that a Property Value Guarantee (PVG) be included in any local wind ordinance that is serious about protecting the rights of citizens. Not suprisingly, the wind industry is adamantly opposed to a PVG… We were alerted to the fact that Exxon is offering a PVG near one of their fossil fuel facilities!  What’s acceptable for fossil fuels should be good enough for wind turbines…

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

Global Warming – A Case Study in Groupthink
NOAA caught again manipulating climate change data
Peer-reviewed study finds that three key global temperature data sets are “not a valid representation of reality.”
Report: Alarmist Climate Change Rebuttal, an Overview
Alarmist Climate Researchers Abandon Scientific Method
So far 97 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Change
Alarmists throw in the towel on poor quality surface temperature data
Sustainable Development: Code for Giving Up Your Rights
Study: Online Lies Spread Faster than the Truth

Some of the more interesting Energy related articles in this issue are:

The High Cost of Wind and Solar
Proposed Colorado Legislation: Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines
Congress: Kremlin Used Green Propaganda to Undercut U.S. Energy
Green Ideology’s Failed Experiment
California Has Too Much Green Energy
Maine Places Moratorium on Wind Projects
Scott Pruitt: The Weaponization of the EPA Is Over
Why Wind and Solar are Not the Future
Electric grid a prime target in cyberwar
Military Concerns put New Mexico Wind Project in Doubt
Dozens of studies about the ecosystem impacts of offshore wind turbines
How Corrupt is Audubon?
When did knowing too much become so political?

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

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

Congressional Report: Who’s Really Subverting U.S. Energy Policies

Who is it that wants:

1) U.S. nuclear energy facilities to close down?
2) U.S. fossil fuel reserves to stay in the ground (onshore and offshore)?
3) The costs of fossil fuels to go up (e.g. with a carbon tax)?
4) A high percentage of the US electric grid to be based on unreliable sources?
5) The U.S. to waste trillions of dollars on unreliable electricity?
6) To have our national security weakened by wind energy interference with our military?

If you answered: “the Sierra Club and their allies,” you’d be right. However the correct answer is also our communist opponents: Russia and China.

Consider the fact that when it comes to energy policy, there is an almost identical agenda between these two groups.

U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) on March 1st, 2018 released a staff report uncovering Russia’s extensive efforts to influence U.S. energy markets through divisive and inflammatory posts on social media platforms. The report details Russia’s motives in interfering with U.S. energy markets and influencing domestic energy policy and its manipulation of Americans via social media propaganda. The report includes examples of Russian-propagated social media posts.

Chairman Smith: 

“This report reveals that Russian agents created and spread propaganda on U.S. social media platforms in an obvious attempt to influence the U.S. energy market. Russia benefits from stirring up controversy about U.S. energy production. U.S. energy exports to European countries are increasing, which means they will have less reason to rely upon Russia for their energy needs. This, in turn, will reduce Russia’s influence on Europe to Russia’s detriment and Europe’s benefit. That’s why Russian agents attempted to manipulate Americans’ opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change. The American people deserve to know if what they see on social media is the creation of a foreign power seeking to undermine our domestic energy policy.”

The report’s key findings:

  • Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 9,097 Russian posts or tweets regarding U.S. energy policy or a current energy event on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
  • Between 2015 and 2017, there were an estimated 4,334 IRA accounts across Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
  • According to information provided by Twitter, more than four percent of all IRA tweets were related to energy or environmental issues, a significant portion of content when compared to the eight percent of IRA tweets that were related to the election in the U.S.
  • Russia exploited American social media as part of its concerted effort to disrupt U.S. energy markets and influence domestic energy policy.
  • The IRA targeted pipelines, fossil fuels, climate change and other divisive issues to influence public policy in the U.S.

The report can be found here.


On October 31, 2017, Chairman Smith sent letters to Twitter and Facebook to continue its probe into Russian attempts to influence U.S. energy markets via social media platforms. The letters cited additional evidence that Russian agents engaged in anti-U.S. energy activities on the platforms, including Facebook-owned Instagram, and reiterated Chairman Smith’s September request for information from the companies.

On September 26, 2017, Chairman Smith requested documents and information from Twitter and Facebook related to Russian entities purchasing anti-U.S. energy advertisements on social media platforms operated by the companies, including Facebook-owned Instagram.

On July 7, 2017, Chairman Smith and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin requesting that the Treasury Department investigate allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. energy market through covertly funding radical environmental groups opposed to fossil fuels.

115th Congress

RELATED ARTICLE: How Russia Tried to Block U.S. Energy Production

‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ now available!

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change by Regnery Books is already climbing to Number 1 in a key category on the Amazon rankings! It has reached #1 Best Seller in Environmental Science books as of February 28, 2018.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, By Marc Morano

The book has been endorsed by Nobel Prize Winning scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever. (see below) The new book also comes out just in time to greet the upcoming UN IPCC climate report already making the media rounds: See: Leaked UN IPCC Draft Report calls for ‘a radical transformation of society’ – Predicts 1.5°C Warming By 2043

This book is the ultimate reference guide to climate change and no parent should be without a copy as their kids under climate education at school from elementary through college!

(The new book is also available at:  Amazon UK EBAY;

BUY NOW: https://www.amazon.com/Deplorables-Guide-Global-Warming-Guides/dp/1621576760 

Limbaugh praised Climate Depot’s Morano in 2009: “Morano’s probably single-handedly, in a civilian sense, the guy (other than me, of course) doing a better job of ringing the bells alarming people of what’s going on here.” – November 20, 2009

Limbaugh on Morano in February 2018: Rush Limbaugh Touts Climate Depot: Run by Morano who ‘used to be — when I had the TV show — Our Man in Washington – Warmist ‘arguments blown to smithereens’ on Climate Depot

Read the book’s forward by Weather Channel Founder John Coleman & read critical praise  of Morano’s new book here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/25/a-must-read-the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-climate-change/

A sampling of praise and reviews for Marc Morano’s new book: 

“With his book “Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”, Marc Morano vies to be the Thomas Paine of the movement to save the world from the tyranny of climate catastrophists. He exposes the seemingly infinite number of absurd claims, and the almost unbounded hypocrisy and venality of the proponents of this clearly inhuman and scientifically implausible attempt to control mankind by controlling and, more importantly, restricting access to energy. This book is an unrelenting polemic of the best kind.”

— Emeritus MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen

“I have never met Marc Morano, the author of this very interesting book, but I know him well from his excellent blog Climate Depot, which I read regularly. In the book he exposes the climate myths that even scientific organizations like the Physical Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science push. 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. We are now forced to use corn-based ethanol in our gas, subsidized windmills, and solar cells for energy; meanwhile, maybe a billion people worldwide starve and have no access to electricity. You and I breathe out at least thirty tons of CO2 in a normal life span, but neverthelessthe Environmental Protection Agency decided to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health. Marc Morano discusses the reasons and history of all these strange theories in his excellent book The Politically Incorrect Guide ® to Climate Change. Please read it, you will be amazed!”
—Dr. IVAR GIAEVER, Nobel Laureate in physics

“Marc Morano’s remarkable book The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change documents, in their own words, how many honest scientists still insist that hypotheses not confirmed by observation should be rejected. It exposes the pernicious myth that 97 percent of scientists agree that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are an existential threat, one that mandates the surrender of human freedom and wellbeing to an ‘enlightened’ climate elite. The book documents that many very distinguished scientists do not agree. In fact, more carbon dioxide is already benefitting the world through increased yields for agriculture and forestry, and from shrinking deserts. The hated ‘deniers’ are right. There is no emergency. When later generations of historians analyze the climate hysteria of our time, this book will be one of their most valuable references.” 
— Dr. WILL HAPPER, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, emeritus, Princeton University
“The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change is a welcome scientific and rational antidote to the liberal news media, the UN, and Al Gore’s incessant chattering about climate doom. This book exposes the hypocrisy of Learjet limousine liberals who fly in their own private jets and own multiple homes while preaching to the world about downsizing and energy rationing. Every parent in America should be armed with this book to fight the brainwashing of their kids from kindergarten through college. Marc’s book is the ultimate A-Z reference guide that debunks man-made climate change claims using scientific studies and prominent scientists. The Politically Incorrect Guide
® to Climate Change is the book the UN and Al Gore do not want you to read. The climate scare ends with this book.”
— SEAN HANNITY, host of Hannity on Fox News and of the nationally syndicated radio program The Sean Hannity Show

“This book covers the history of climate, from the global cooling ‘coming ice age’ scare of the 70s to the ‘we have just a few years left to save the planet’ that characterizes the current global warming scare. Written in a light reading style, virtually every page is meticulously referenced with sources for the points he makes. Love him or hate him, Morano is very effective in conveying the history and the climate flim-flammery under the guise of science that has been going on the last few decades, mostly thanks to huge government funding of climate science. It reads like a postmortem verification of President Eisenhower’s farewell address, which warned of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ but also said, ‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.’”

— ANTHONY WATTS, publisher of WattsUpWithThat, the world’s most viewed climate-themed website

“This book reveals that ‘global warming’ is not and has never been about the ‘science.’ The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change
reveals the agenda behind the lavishly funded and government-sponsored climate change establishment. Morano unmasks the United Nations’ goals of ‘global governance,’ redistribution of wealth, and global carbon taxes. This book arms every citizen with a comprehensive dossier on just how science, economics, and politics have been distorted and corrupted in the name of saving the planet. Contrary to Al Gore’s claims, UN treaties and EPA regulations cannot control the weather or the oceans. A must read.”
—MARK LEVIN, author of Men in Black, Liberty and Tyranny, and Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism

Foreword by John Coleman in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change

Don’t worry about “climate change,” says Marc Morano—there is no significant manmade global warming.

Are you kidding me? We all know that the icecaps are melting, the oceans are about to flood our cities, and more and more superstorms are happening. And the experts are certain that mankind’s use of fossil fuels is causing it all. We have all the facts; right?

The truth is that there is a debate about climate change but it has been very one-sided. With the U.S. government, all the scientific organizations, Al Gore, the Science Guy, Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the United Nations all behind the bad news that our use of fossil fuels is destroying the climate of Earth, anyone on the other side of the debate finds themselves behind the eight ball. Peeking out from behind the eight ball is Marc Morano. In this great book he begins his comprehensive review of the debate about global warming by chatting about the history of climate scares in centuries past—and goes on to decisively debunk the current climate scare. By the time he’s done, you will realize you’ve been hoaxed. Climate change has become a scam.

As the founder of the Weather Channel and a six-decade veteran TV news weatherman, I know a great deal about this topic. We meteorologists are well aware of how limited our ability is to predict the weather. Our predictions become dramatically less reliable as they extend out into the future. When we try to predict just a few weeks into the future our predictions become increasingly inaccurate. Yet the “climate change” establishment that now dominates the UN bureaucracy and our own government science establishment claim that they can predict the temperature of the Earth decades into the future. Their global warming scare is not driven by science; it is now being driven by politics.

So today anybody who defies the prevailing “climate change” scare puts his career and his reputation into extreme danger. That is where we find Marc. He is living life behind the eight ball. He has been there for decades. But whatever you may hear from his enemies in the climate change establishment, he is no crazy denier or shill for Big Oil. The explanation is simple. He is so certain of his data that he is quite comfy there behind the eight ball. When you really study the issue, you realize that Marc Morano is absolutely right. And it turns out he is not alone there behind the eight ball. He has developed relationships with hundreds of brilliant scientists and other experts who are willing to testify, along with Marc, that in fact there is no significant man-made global warming.

This book is exactly what parents need to counter the indoctrination our children are now being subjected to. Starting at a very young age and continuing through their teenage years, American school children are being constantly bombarded with climate change propaganda. This is science gone bad. It has become political. And climate science has been hijacked by the extreme fringe of the environmental movement. The truth is that while climate is naturally changing—as it always has—no crisis is occurring and there is no reason to fear any in the future. This book uses over twelve hundred footnotes to bolster its compelling, scientific, and logical demonstration that Al Gore and the United Nations are dead wrong on climate fears. And maybe even more important, this book uses the climate change establishment’s own words to refute their silly claims.

Read this book and Marc will become your hero. Give it to your friends to read. Maybe in the end there will be enough of us who no longer believe the climate change hoax that he and those of us who know he is right can get out from behind the eight ball and enjoy life. Read on, my friend, read on.

Image result for rush limbaugh marc morano

Marc Morano & Rush Limbaugh in 1992 on the set of “Rush Limbaugh, The Television Show”

Amazon verified customer reviews:

“A masterpiece! Couldn’t put it down. They can’t predict next week’s weather but the Hollywood-elites are telling us what the weather will be in ten, fifty or one hundred years? Read this book so you’re armed with facts, figures and real science to fight the pseudo-phony-scientists.” Tony Meyer – February 27, 2018

“Unfortunatel, many Americans have become brain-washed by the media and the media’s deliberate lies. This superb study will inform you. Study and reread this masterpiece carefully. It’s worth its weight in gold.” – Clarence Beeks – February 27, 2018

Book is Available on Amazon here.

The Dark Side of Green

CFACT barnstormed CPAC, The Conservative Political Action Conference, this weekend with a series of activities that culminated in a light saber duel between “Green Energy” Darth Vader and the “Reliable Energy” Jedi!

“We thought this would get the point across to the crowd pretty easily: That so-called ‘green’ energy that needs subsidies is the bad guy and reliable energy that comes from fossil fuels and nuclear are the good guys,” said Adam Houser. Adam is the director of CFACT’s nationwide network of college chapters.

CPAC has been an important annual gathering of conservatives and libertarians for over 45 years.  This year both President Trump and Vice President Pence were there.

“CFACT’s light saber duel was meant to strike a deeper discussion of what type of energy is right for America going forward.”  Adam reports at CFACT Campus.  “As dozens of students crowded around the duel, and The Opposition, a late-night political satire show on Comedy Central, filmed the fake altercation, it was clear the stunt achieved its intended goal. Students then flocked to CFACT’s booth, where they could take the Energy Challenge to charge their phone and learn more about energy. Vanity Fair,NowThis, and Teen Vogue all stopped at CFACT’s booth to ask questions about energy and take pictures.

‘We gave students the option to charge their phone from a typical outlet, which is powered by fossil fuels, or they could try to go the ‘renewable’ route by blowing on the mini wind turbine or turning the hand crank,’ explained Graham Beduze, CFACT’s Associate Director of Collegians. ‘The vast majority chose conventional energy, although it was hilarious to see some students furiously turning the crank or getting winded trying to generate enough force to charge their phones by blowing on the turbine.'”


Marc Morano, who runs CFACT’s Climate Depot news and information service has a new book out, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Climate Change which launches today.  He gave a series of radio interviews.  You can hear Marc at WMAL Radio: Mornings on the Mall with MARY WALTER AND VINCE COGLIANESE, KVI Radio – John Carlson & Kirby Wilbur Show and The Schilling Show – Rob Schilling.

CPAC presents an opportunity for CFACT to brief some of the nation’s most effective political activists and send them into the field armed with the facts about energy, the environment and other issues.

CFACT’s team did an outstanding job.  We’re proud of them.

RELATES ARTICLE: Doomsday Climate Scenarios Are a Joke – Wall Street Journal

VIDEO: The Weaponization of the EPA Is Over: An Exclusive Interview With Scott Pruitt

In his first year as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt has already transformed the agency in many ways. He spoke exclusively to The Daily Signal before addressing attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual Reagan Dinner. An edited transcript of the interview is below.

Rob Bluey: You gave a speech at CPAC last year where you were just at the beginning of your tenure at the Environmental Protection Agency, and you outlined some of the things that you wanted to do. Here we are a year later, you’ve repealed, taken back, 22 regulations at a savings at $1 billion, a significant contribution to the U.S. economy, as President Donald Trump talked about in his speech. What does that mean?

Scott Pruitt: Busy year. And it was great to be at CPAC about two weeks after having been sworn in last year. And I talked last year about the future ain’t what it used to be, that Yogi Berra quote that I cited about the change that was gonna take place at the agency and I think we’ve been about that change the last year. Focusing on rule of law, restoring process and order, making sure that we engage in cooperative federalism as we engage in regulation.

But the key to me is that weaponization of the agency that took place in the Obama administration, where the agency was used to pick winners and losers. Those days are over.

You know, to be in Pennsylvania as I was early in my term, shortly after the CPAC speech last year, and to spend time with miners in Pennsylvania and be able to share with them underground. I was a thousand feet underground and 3 miles in. First time that an administrator in history had done that, and I talked to those long wall miners in Pennsylvania, and delivered the message from the president that the war on coal is over. That was a tremendous message for them, emotion that I saw on their faces.

Can you imagine, in the first instance, an agency of the federal government, a department of the U.S. government, declaring war on a sector of your economy? Where is that in the statute? Where does that authority exist? It doesn’t. And so to restore process and restore commitment to doing things the right way, I think we’ve seen tremendous success this past year.

Bluey: President Trump cited a number of examples that have come out of EPA in his speech to the CPAC attendees, and one of them was coal, another one was the Paris climate treaty. Talk about those two issues and your work with the president in terms of why you decided to take those actions in conjunction with him?

Pruitt: The president’s decision to exit the Paris accord—tremendously courageous. When you look at that decision, it put America first, which is what the president said in the Rose Garden in June.

What was decided in Paris under the past administration was not about carbon reduction. It was about penalties to our own economy because China and India, under that accord, didn’t have to take any steps to reduce CO2 until the year 2030. So, if it’s really about CO2 reduction, why do you let that happen?

“That weaponization of the agency that took place in the Obama administration—where the agency was used to pick winners and losers—those days are over.”

When you look at who’s led the world in CO2 reduction, it’s us. From the year 2000 to 2014, we reduced our CO2 footprint almost 20 percent through innovation and technology. So, we have nothing to be apologetic about as a country, and yet, the past administration went to Paris, hat in hand, and said, “Penalize our economy”, which is what happened with the Clean Power Plan.

The president saying no to that and putting America first was the tremendously courageous and right thing to do. I’m very excited about that decision. I know he talked about that in his speech and it was a wonderful decision he made, and I think great for the American people.

Overall, this regulatory reform agenda—this regulatory certainty that we’re about—is achieving good things for the environment, but it’s also achieving, as you say, good things for our economy. We can do both. And I think that’s what’s key.

President Donald Trump listens to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt after announcing his decision that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Newscom)

Bluey: President Trump certainly cited deregulation as just as significant, I believe he said, as the tax cuts. We’ve seen some of the benefits for many American businesses, and certainly American workers as a result of that.

Pruitt: When you think about an EPA—armed, weaponized, if you will—like a rule like WOTUS, the Waters of the United States rule, that would take a puddle and turn into a lake. To take land use decisions away from farmers and ranchers and landowners across this country, and people think it was just farming and ranching. It was the building of subdivisions. It was really all land use decisions.

I was in Utah last year meeting with some folks there that were building a subdivision, and there was an Army Corps of Engineers representative that was standing outside the subdivision with me, and he pointed to an ephemeral drainage ditch and he said, “Scott, that’s a water of the United States.” And I said, “Well, it’s not gonna be anymore.”

That’s exactly the kind of attitude that drove the past administration. It was all about power. It wasn’t about outcomes necessarily. It was about power and picking winners and losers, and we’re getting that corrected.

Bluey: That’s one thing I want to talk to you about because right now your agency is going across the country. You’re having hearings on the Clean Power Plan. You’re trying to get input from Americans, and not just Americans in Washington, D.C., and the Beltway, but places like Wyoming and Missouri and West Virginia. Why is that important to get out and hear from Americans about how government affects their lives?

Pruitt: Couple things: One, we’ve been to 30-plus states. And as we’ve met with stakeholders, farmers and ranchers, and those in the utility sector and the energy sector, landowners, representatives from the state’s governors, and DEQs from across the country, I think what we didn’t recognize over the last several years with the past administration is that those folks are partners. They care about outcomes.

“We shouldn’t start from the premise that those folks are adversaries or don’t care about clean air or clean water. We should start from the premise that they do, and work with them to achieve good outcomes.”

Think about those farmers and those ranchers. They’re our first conservationists. They’re our first environmentalists. I think of the young man, David, in Florida that I meant about a month ago, 12 years old. I was speaking to a group of individuals in Florida. David was there with his dad and his granddad was there. Now, think about what their greatest asset is? Their land. And they’re teaching David how to cultivate and harvest and care for that land and act as a steward.

That’s the message we’re sending across the country. We shouldn’t start from the premise that those folks are adversaries or don’t care about clean air or clean water. We should start from the premise that they do, and work with them to achieve good outcomes. That’s the difference in how we approach it versus the past administration.

Bluey: That leads to my next question. When we last spoke in October, we talked about what true environmentalism really means, and I’d like you to share again how you’re approaching that.

Pruitt: It’s a very important question because I think when you look at what is true environmentalism, the past administration said prohibition.

Though we have natural gas and oil and coal and all these natural resources that we’re blessed with as a country, they approached it by saying, “Put up fences. Do not touch.” And that’s just simply wrong-headed in my view.

What we should be about is stewardship. Recognizing that God has blessed us with those resources, that we have an obligation to use them responsibly and environmentally stewardship focused with respect to future generations, and we can do that.

This notion that we cannot be about jobs and stewardship of the environment is just simply not right. We’ve always done that well as a country. We haven’t had to choose. The past administration had to choose. Jobs or environmental protection? We’re saying environmental stewardship and jobs in the economy. We can do both together.

Bluey: One of the things I know you’ve been focused on is making the EPA, as an agency, run more efficiently. And you talked to me before about how you brought in a staff that is really committed to doing that. How has that progressed?

Pruitt: It’s exciting. Exciting. I mean permitting is one of those areas that I think is a great representation of that, a great measurement better put.

When you have a permitting processes that take 10, 12, 15 years, that’s not permitting. That’s obstruction. That isn’t an answer. That’s just simply a delay tactic in my view.

We are going through a process right now that, by the end of this year, every decision we make on a permit at the agency will be done within six months, up or down. Now, states do it all the time. States have processes in place where they’re making decisions between six months and a year, and we don’t.

“When you have a permitting processes that take 10, 12, 15 years, that’s not permitting. That’s obstruction.”

We’re getting accountability across the country in regions and in headquarters, and it’s gonna be done by the end of the year.

That’s something that is very exciting to me, but when you think about the core mission of our agency, we’ve done something else that’s very important. We’re setting goals.

We’re saying, “Where do we wanna be air attainment?” Those air quality standards that we have, where do we need to be five years from now? What about Superfund sites? What about water infrastructure? How do we avoid a Flint, Michigan, and a Gold King, Colorado? How do we take the backlog of chemicals? How do we address the state of limitation plans that states have submitted to improve air quality, and work through that backlog?

Let’s set objective measurements and measure them every single day, and challenge everyone to meet those goals. And it’s exciting. And people are really, I think, getting vested and invested in it.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt watches an underground conveyor belt system carrying coal to the surface during a tour of the Harvey Mine in Sycamore, Pennsylvania. Pruitt was visiting the area as part of his Back-to-Basics Agenda promoting coal as a source of energy. (Photo: Eric Vance/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Bluey: Last fall, you took action on sue and settle. You decided to end that practice. What has that meant in the months since you’ve taken that action?

Pruitt: Well, Rob, you get this, but how damaging was that to rulemaking when the sue and settle practice—a third-party group comes in and sues the agency, goes into a courtroom somewhere in the country, agrees to a substantive rule in the course of that settlement, puts it into consent decree, and then goes all over the country and says, “This is what you have to do across the country.”

Now, that’s abusive. That’s not how the process should work. You should not have a sue and settle process to bypass rulemaking. So, I ended it.

I sent a memo out to the entire agency that said gone are the days of us going into a backroom at a courtroom, and make a decision with one party that affects the entire country.

We’re going to do rulemaking the right way. We’re going to publish our rules. We’re going to take comment on those rules. We’re going to respond to those comments. We’re going to finalize the rules. That’s what Congress has required of us. That’s what we’re going to do. It’s going to make a substantial difference.

“This notion that we cannot be about jobs and stewardship of the environment is just simply not right. … We can do both together.”

One other area that we’ve addressed that I think is equally important is this area of our advisory committees. These scientists that serve on advisory committees that help us do rulemaking because, as you know, when we make a decision, we don’t just snap our finger. We have to build a record. There’s scientific inquiry. There’s evaluation, data, methodology. All of those things take place with water, air, whatever the rulemaking is.

As that record is built, you have advisory committees, you have scientists that advise me as the administrator and the agency as a whole on the efficacy, the merits of that rule. Well, those scientists, we have many scientists that serve on those advisory committees that were also getting grants from the agency that were supposed to be given as independent counsel. In fact, we had several scientists receive almost $77 million over the last three years.

I said to those individuals, “Look, you can receive the grant, but you can’t serve on the advisory committee. Or you can serve on the advisory committee but not receive the grant. Choose this day what you’re going to do.”

We got accountability there to ensure the independence of the scientific basis by which we were doing rulemaking. That’s the process changes we’re engaged in that I think lead to good results at the end, and it’s what the American people deserve.

Bluey: Follow up to that last point you made. I know that when you announced that change, obviously there was a big uproar in the media and among those people who didn’t like the fact that you were trying to make this change. What have the results been in the months that followed?

Pruitt: Common sense is not too common, and so, I think when we make those kind of commonsense changes it’s disruptive to the status quo, but frankly, the status quo needs to be disrupted in these areas.

“Common sense is not too common, and so, I think when we make those kind of commonsense changes it’s disruptive to the status quo, but frankly, the status quo needs to be disrupted in these areas.”

We’re getting good accountability, good transparent outcomes. The other thing that’s just amazing to me is that the agency historically, as it’s done rulemaking, it contracts studies to third parties. It doesn’t do the science itself in some instances, it goes to a third party and says, “You do the science for us, give us the findings.” But then when the findings come back to the agency, they don’t provide the methodology, nor do they provide the data. And so there’s no transparency in that process. We’re going to get accountability there as well.

These matters, at the end of the day, I think are what we should be focused upon. As we do our work, do it with a commitment to transparency and objectivity, making sure that we have a record that is solid, and in making informed decisions about the rules that we’re passing so that the American people have a voice, and that we know how it’s going to impact positively the environment, but also the cost-benefit aspect.

Bluey: Speaking at the Reagan Dinner at CPAC is a real honor. There have been many who’ve come before you and had this opportunity to address the audience. What message do you want to leave the CPAC attendees this year?

Pruitt: This first year as I’ve served, and as the president has served this country, he’s a person of results.

You think about the State of the Union. His message that night was powerful. I think it was very powerful. But it was powerful because he said look what we’ve accomplished this past year. Look what we promised, look what we’ve done, look at the impact it’s having on the economy. And look what’s going to happen as we go into 2018.

I love how the president leads with a commitment to getting results. And I think the American people, as I serve in this capacity, we’ve got to focus on what. Key objectives that we want to achieve for the environment. Air, land, water, removing solid waste and hazardous wastes.

“Look what we promised, look what we’ve done, look at the impact it’s having on the economy.”

What are our objectives? Let’s focus on those to address all those very good things for the environment. But let’s also recognize that we have to have an attitude that says we can be about natural resource management and environmental stewardship, that we don’t have to choose. That’s one of the greatest challenges we have as a country. We need to get that question right and that answer right because we have so much opportunity.

It’s an exciting time to be serving. There’s wonderful things happening. And this country, I’m telling you, the growth that we’re seeing, it’s only the beginning. As we get together next year, which I pray we do, we’re going to celebrate another year of progress.

You talk about those 22 actions of $1 billion [at the EPA], $8 billion as a total for the administration. That’s really quite amazing. We’re going to see that continue through courageous leadership, and focus on getting results.


Portrait of Rob Bluey

Rob Bluey

Rob Bluey is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.

RELATED ARTICLE: Podcast: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Explains How Agency Has Changed Under Trump

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is prior to addressing CPAC attendees, Scott Pruitt speaking exclusively to The Daily Signal about his first year as EPA administrator. (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Newscom)

Go Green With Gasoline If You’re Going to Consume That Sandwich

A new study shows that if you aren’t ready to go vegan to save the world, then you should quit riding your bike and take a car.

An article in the Journal of Insufferable Busybodies (official title: Sustainable Production and Consumption) calculates the carbon footprint for a variety of sandwiches. These carbon footprints include carbon dioxide emissions from things such as farming, transportation, and refrigeration.

In the article, researchers at the University of Manchester offer helpful tips on Earth-friendly sandwich making. Among them: avoid using lettuce, tomatoes, cheese, and meat.

If you’re like me, though, every sandwich you’ve eaten since middle school includes at least two of those ingredients.

However, don’t despair, you still can alter your behavior to reduce your carbon footprint. In particular, make sure you don’t ride a bike when you could drive a car.

How’s that? Well, the people at Phys.org thought the sandwich-climate topic was important enough to get access to the full text of the original article.

They pass on this particularly interesting tidbit: A bacon, sausage, and egg sandwich (the whole Hampton Inn breakfast buffet in one tidy package) has a carbon footprint “equivalent to CO2 emissions from driving a car for 12 miles.”

Driving a car uses energy that comes from gasoline. Riding a bike uses energy that comes from the bicyclist’s food. Both sources of energy have carbon footprints.

We are told carbon dioxide emissions from the life-cycle process of producing a sandwich is equal to that of driving a car 12 miles. The question, then, is how far will the calories in that sandwich take you on a bike?

It isn’t clear that anybody in the U.S. has the courage to sell the cardiologist’s delight described above, which means the total caloric content of the sandwich doesn’t show up on the first page of a Google search. Fortunately, my calorie-counting app (no evidence of use since 2015, hmm … ) can do the job:

English muffin                  150 calories
2 slices of bacon                  87
2.5 ounces pork sausage  250
egg                                          72
Total                                  559 calories

According to this calculator, a 180-pound bicycle rider going 15 mph for 51 minutes will travel 11.9 miles, but expend 729 calories.  So, this bacon, sausage, and egg sandwich doesn’t have enough food energy to power the cyclist for the full 12 miles.

The bicyclist would need to eat 1.3 sandwiches to go 12 miles. That is, the carbon dioxide footprint of riding a sandwich-fueled bike would be 30 percent higher than driving a car.

Since it takes more energy to move bigger people, the imperative to drive instead of ride is even greater for those who shop in the Big & Tall section.

A 222-pound blogger, for instance, would burn 899 calories for the same time and distance, requiring 60 percent more sandwich and, therefore, 60 percent more carbon dioxide from riding a bike than driving a car.

Of course, smaller people need less energy to propel themselves on a bike. The break-even weight for the ride-or-drive decision is around 140 pounds. Going more slowly helps, too.

If carbon dioxide-induced climate change is the existential threat some claim, and if people are still going to eat sandwiches that might include sausage, bacon, egg, tomato, lettuce, meat, or cheese, perhaps we need a prohibition against bike riding. Just sayin’.


Portrait of David Kreutzer

David Kreutzer is the senior research fellow in labor markets and trade at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: More than 300 Climate skeptics ask Trump to withdraw from UN agency

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Ingram Publishing/Newscom.

Humans face a far greater threat from one another, rather than from climate change.

Welcome to the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter.

A superior observation I recently heard: “Humans face a far greater threat from one another, rather than from climate change.”

The corruption going on in our education system is simply stunningly bad.Nothing we do today regarding energy or environmental matters will make any difference if this is not fixed shortly. Please carefully read these important articles (here and here) by two different professors, at two different US colleges.
On a closely related matter, please consider The Decline and Fall of the Media and Will Journalism Destroy Science?  We live in troubled times, where survival depends on getting educated (see prior paragraph), paying close attention,and then defending our rights.
Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Apocalypse Not
Crucial Climate Verdict, Naked Conflict-of-Interest
Roy Spencer on the Unsettled Science of Climate Change: A Primer
Peer Review: the Publication Game and “Natural Selection of Bad Science”
Short video: Can Computer Models Predict Climate Change?
Short video: EPA’s Scott Pruitt re Climate Change, etc.
Science or silence? My Battle to Question Doomsayers
Survey: US Christians Less Susceptible to Climate Alarmism
Report: Sea Level Rise Acceleration (or Not)
Overheated claims on temperature records

Some of the more interesting Energy related articles in this issue are:

End of federal wind industry handouts is long overdue
Wind projects are disrupting our way of life
Research into mountain wind projects: major risk to visitor economy
Wind project under criminal investigation for bat and eagle deaths
Minnesota: Company helps protect real farms from wind projects
Oklahoma: America’s No. 2 wind producer, sours on the industry
Nebraska: A proposal to remove wind power’s ‘renewable’ designation
Maine: A proposed law amending wind energy regulation
Evaluating a Wind Energy Agreement: A Brief Review
Putting fossil fuel “pollution” into perspective
Environmental Illusion and a Public Swindle
The Legal Shakedown Of US Energy Industry Is Flagrant Abuse Of Courts
Solar giants getting stronger as opponents struggle to fight back

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

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

UN-American & Incompetent

It didn’t take long at the UN’s “World Urban Forum,” currently underway in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for those assembled to voice their displeasure with American freedom.

“We’re not sure what happened to North America [audience laughter] but we’re trying to make sustainable development great again,” said a panel of European Union mayors and city planners.

Debbie Bacigalupi is leading CFACT’s team in Malaysia (thanks CFACT supporters!) and we’d like to say she’s shocked, but at this point she’s seen it all too often before.

“You choosing where and how to live for yourself is not quite to their liking here at the World Urban Forum,” Debbie said.  “They envision us shivering in towering, dimly lit, concrete cubes in a government-sponsored building project, not too different from those the Soviets left strewn about Eastern Europe.  They’re confident we can squeak by on a trickle of expensive ‘Green’ electricity.  They envision themselves living a trifle larger,” she added.

Prince Charles sent a special video message to the UN Ministers, delegates, city planners, bureaucrats and “stakeholders” declaring in Orwellian fashion, “Now is the time to implement the New Urban Agenda.”  Do you think the Prince of Wales will join us in the scaled-down, carbon-neutral, bureaucratically prescribed dwelling-units he now champions?  Charles appears willing to espouse any pious, left-wing cause in order to score points with the British media and ease the damage his reputation suffered by dumping the world’s most popular princess.  He’d love to obtain the title “queen” (which he promised to abandon) for his second wife.

“Sustainable development” has become perhaps the world’s most dangerous term.  It sounds nice, yet defies clear description.  What it means at a UN forum like that in Malaysia is giving the Left whatever it wants.  History has taught us that heavy-handed control is the most unsustainable way to govern.  For a recent lesson just ask Venezuela.

American “farmers have gotten away with murder” sniffed Professor Eugenia Birch of the University of Pennsylvania in an interview with Debbie Bacigalupi.  Birch is in Kuala Lumpur advocating an immediate resumption of the Obama-era push to bury farmers under an avalanche of over-regulation, particularly when it comes to so-called “clean water rules.”  Fortunately for Professor Birch, our farmers will keep her fed.

Our would-be UN urban masters are convinced they are smarter than us.  They’d like us to concede the point already, and do as we’re told.  They’re so “all-knowing,” in fact, that they paid to place a loose insert into Kuala Lumpur’s local The Star newspaper.  “Unfortunately, only half of the message was delivered as the bottom half of the ad was left empty with the words ‘add montage pictures of KL, Penang, Melaka, Putrajaya, Cyberjaya, Medan Pasar and KLCC.'”

If the 20th Century taught us anything it is that freedom is just and efficient.  Central government planning is not.  People need to know what the UN is planning before the future becomes half empty lives for the lot of us.

P.S.  Thank you to everyone who gave so generously to make CFACT’s mission to the UN Forum in Kuala Lumpur a reality.  Our team has a great deal more work to do.  If you’ve not yet made your gift, can we count on you to chip in today?  CFACT is effective, but only due to the support of our friends.  Fortunately, you are the best.

Trump Is Repealing Obama’s Harmful Water Rule. Why Efforts to Stop Him Are Misguided.

In 2015, the Obama administration finalized its infamous “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule—also known as the Clean Water Rule—that sought to regulate almost every type of water imaginable under the Clean Water Act.

To its credit, the Trump administration is taking action to get rid of this rule by withdrawing it and then issuing a new definition of what waters are covered under the Clean Water Rule.

This process, though, will require significant litigation as lawsuits pile up in an effort to block the administration from protecting the environment in a manner that also respects property rights, federalism, and the rule of law.

In fact, the litigation is already getting underway.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers just finalized a rule that would delay the applicability date of the WOTUS rule by two years. This action helps give the agencies time to work through the regulatory process without rushing, and ensures that during this time, the WOTUS rule won’t go into effect.

The agencies explained:

Given uncertainty about litigation in multiple district courts over the 2015 rule, this action provides certainty and consistency to the regulated community and the public, and minimizes confusion as the agencies reconsider the definition of the ‘waters of the United States’ that should be covered under the Clean Water Act.

This commonsense delay, though, apparently didn’t please New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. He recently announced that he was going to sue the administration for this new rule to delay the Obama administration WOTUS rule.

He explained, “The Trump administration’s suspension of these vital protections [the WOTUS Rule] is reckless and illegal.”

He also stated, “Make no mistake: Abandoning the Clean Water Rule will mean pollution, flooding, and harm to fish and wildlife in New York and across the country—undermining decades of work to protect and enhance our water resources.”

He makes it sound as if the WOTUS rule is the only thing protecting us from Armageddon. But in fact it is new policy and hasn’t even gone into effect—so how does it have anything to do with decades of environmental protection? It isn’t as though nixing the WOTUS rule means there will be no environmental protections.

It’s hard to see how a federal power grab that would regulate what most people would consider dry land is so critical to water, or why making it more difficult for farmers to engage in normal farming practices is going to be good for New York and the country.

Is the regulation of man-made ditches a must? Is it really a must for the agencies to regulate waters that can’t even be seen by the naked eye? Should the federal government act as a de facto local zoning board and intrude on traditional state and local power? Do we need to trample on property rights to protect the environment?

These are all effects of the WOTUS rule.

Maybe Schneiderman and others who want to block the administration from getting rid of one of the most egregious federal rules in recent memory think these are all good impacts. Most people, though, likely think otherwise.

There is an underlying assumption held by many of those who welcome such federal overreach: the federal government must regulate almost every water because there is no other alternative. They choose to ignore the fact that even the Clean Water Act expressly recognizes that states are supposed to play a leading role in addressing water pollution.

They see regulation as the only solution to any alleged water problems, not other government alternatives and especially not private means of protecting the environment. Respect for property rights, the rule of law, and federalism apparently are not important.

What should be important to them and certainly to most people is a clean environment. An overboard and vague rule though that seeks to regulate almost every water and ignores states is harmful to the environment, and this is precisely how to describe the WOTUS rule.

By developing a new rule that recognizes the need to work with states to address water issues, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers will be helping the environment, not hurting it. A clear and objective rule, unlike the mess that is the WOTUS rule, helps both the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers with enforcement and makes consistent compliance by regulated entities far more likely.

The Trump administration appears to recognize the importance for such a new rule. It is unfortunate that some will use lawsuits to make it more difficult for them to achieve this critical objective.

Ultimately, Congress needs to clarify in the Clean Water Act exactly what waters are considered to be “waters of the United States,” because even if the Trump administration comes up with the greatest rule in history, a future administration could easily undo that excellent work.

In the interim, though, Congress needs to step in and eliminate unnecessary obstacles for the administration as it seeks to move forward with a new rule.


Portrait of Daren Bakst

Daren Bakst studies and writes about agriculture subsidies, property rights, environmental policy, food labeling and related issues as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow in agricultural policy. Read his research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


VIDEO: Can Climate Models Predict Climate Change?

Predicting climate temperatures isn’t science – it’s science fiction. Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer explains.


Let’s talk about climate models.

Specifically, let’s talk about the climate models that attempt to predict the future temperature of the planet. But before we do, it’s important that you know a little about me.

I’m a physicist.  I taught at Columbia University and then at Princeton for five decades.

I have published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers. I have coauthored several books, including one of the first on how carbon dioxide emissions—CO2—affects the climate.

I served as the director of the Office of Energy Research at the US Department of Energy.  And before that, I invented the “sodium guide star,” which is still used on most big astronomical telescopes to measure and correct for atmospheric turbulence—that is, for the unpredictable movement of air and water. This turbulence blurs the images of stars and other space objects.

One more thing: I care deeply about the environment. We live on a beautiful planet. I want to keep it that way. I’ve spent a lot of time working to do just that.

In short, I know a lot about the earth’s atmosphere and climate.  I also know a lot about long-term predictive climate models.

And I know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past.  They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future.

There’s a common-sense reason for this.

Aside from the human brain, the climate is the most complex thing on the planet. The number of factors that influence climate—the sun, the earth’s orbital properties, oceans, clouds, and, yes, industrial man—is huge and enormously variable.

Let me try to narrow this down. For the purposes of illustration, let’s just focus our attention on water.

The earth is essentially a water planet. A major aspect of climate involves the complicated interaction between two very turbulent fluids: the atmosphere, which holds large amounts of water (think rain and snow), and the oceans, which cover fully 70% of the earth’s surface.

We can’t predict what effect the atmosphere is going to have on future temperatures because we can’t predict cloud formations.

And the convection of heat, oxygen, salt and other quantities that pass through the oceans, not to mention weather cycles like El Niño in the tropical Pacific, make predicting ocean temperatures an equally difficult business. We can’t predict either side of the atmosphere/ocean equation.

But we can say this with certainty: Water—in all its phases—has huge effects on atmospheric heating and cooling. Compared to water—H20, carbon dioxide—CO2—is a minor contributor to the warming of the earth.

It’s devilishly difficult to predict what a fluid will do. Trying to figure out what two fluids will do in interaction with each other on a planetary scale over long periods of time is close to impossible.

Anyone who followed the forecast of Hurricane Irma’s path in the late summer of 2017 should understand this. First, the models predicted a direct hit on Miami and the east coast of Florida. Then, defying these predictions, the hurricane suddenly veered to the west coast of Florida. In other words, even with massive amounts of real-time data, the models still could not accurately predict Irma’s path two days in advance.

Does any rational person believe that computer models can precisely predict temperatures decades from now?

The answer is, they can’t. That’s why, over the last 30 years, one climate prediction after another –- based on computer models -– has been wrong.

They’re wrong because even the most powerful computers can’t solve all the equations needed to accurately describe climate.

Instead of admitting this, some climate scientists replace the highly complex equations that describe the real-world climate with highly simplified ones—their computer models.

Discarding the unmanageable details, modelers “tune” their simplified equations with lots of adjustable inputs—numbers that can be changed to produce whatever result the modelers want.

So, if they want to show that the earth’s temperature at the end of the century will be two degrees centigrade higher than it is now, they put in the numbers that produce that result.

That’s not science. That’s science fiction.

I’m Will Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University, for Prager University.

Download a PDF of this Transcript

Once Pot Friendly North California County Bans Marijuana

Last week, Calaveras County’s new Board of Supervisors banned all marijuana cultivation within its boundaries. This rural county the size of Rhode Island has a population of 44,000. Financially challenged, it needed the money the previous Board thought legalizing cultivation would bring.

That Board legalized marijuana cultivation for medical use in 2016 after a devastating fire destroyed more than 500 homes the year before. Owners sold their burned-out property to cash-laden pot growers desperate for farmland in anticipation that Proposition 64 would pass and vastly increase demand for a legal product.

Motivated by being able to tax legal growers, officials expected to receive some 250 growing applications. They got three times that. By last week, about 200 had been approved. About the same number were rejected, and the rest were being processed. Another 1,000 illegal grow sites had flooded the county as well. Last year, authorities cut down some 30,000 plants from just 40 such sites.

Last October, Supervisor Dennis Mills released a hair-raising report, Cultivating Disaster, on the unparalleled damage so many growers have done to the county’s environment. The report is an assessment by local, state, and federal agencies, academic institutions, and journalists’ accounts of the environmental devastation cultivation has brought to the county. Below is a picture from the report showing abandoned containers of fertilizers and other chemicals used at just one site.

Suddenly the $10 million in taxes and fees the county took in from licensed growers last year paled in comparison to the estimated $1.2 billion cost to clean up the environmental mess in Calaveras County.

The backlash was so intense that this month citizens removed four of the five members of the Board of Supervisors who legalized cultivation and replaced them with candidates who had vowed to ban it if elected.

Read ABC News story here. Read/view background report from San Francisco CBS-TV here. Read Committee to Ban Commercial Cultivation in Calaveras County report here. Read Cultivating Disaster: The Effect of Cannabis Cultivation on the Environment of Calaveras here.

Cigarettes and Pot Linked to Teen Psychosis

A new study published in JAMA Psychiatry finds that teenagers who use cigarettes and marijuana have elevated risks for experiencing psychotic episodes.

Researchers studied 3,328 teens living in the Bristol area of the UK. The teens answered questions about their cigarette and marijuana use at six different times between the ages of 14 and 19.

Compared to nonusers, the researchers found that teens who smoked only cigarettes at an early age had a 4.3 percent higher probability of having a psychotic experience by age 18. Teens who used only cannabis at an early age had a lower probability (3.2 percent) for psychosis but a much higher one (11.9 percent) if they started using the drug later.

Next, researchers looked at other factors in the adolescents’ lives such as bullying, alcohol use, social class, family history of schizophrenia, and others. These factors greatly weakened the association between cigarette use and the risk for psychotic episodes, but did not influence the relationship between marijuana and psychosis.

Read CNN account here. Read full text of JAMA Psychiatry study here.

Did My Brother’s Teen Pot Use Lead to His Schizophrenia?

This is a heart-breaking account of what families go through when a member becomes addicted and is unable to see that he or she needs help to enter recovery.

It appears on the website of Moms Strong, a group of mothers who have lost children to addiction or have struggled through its escalation to many drugs that almost always began with marijuana.

The author of this account and her brother wrote a book, pictured above, about their experience.

Read this account on the Moms Strong website here.

From Gummy Bears to Open Doors, Inspections Identify Problems at Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) has conducted 327 inspections of the state’s medical marijuana dispensaries since the first one opened in 2015.

MassLive.com obtained copies of all the deficiency reports and plans for corrections those inspections generated.

This article details some of the reports and presents all those received in table format. The state has 19 medical marijuana dispensaries which DPH says have been responsive to their findings. “As always, DPH’s priority continues to be that patients have safe and reliable access to medical marijuana across the Commonwealth.”

See next story for a different viewpoint.

Read MassLive.com story here.

Contaminated Flower May Be Getting Patients and Employees Sick

A former employee at New England Treatment Access (NETA), a registered medical marijuana dispensary in Massachusetts, quit her job there and filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) claiming she was regularly exposed to mold in marijuana flowers sold there.

She also alleges that the dispensary soaks plant material in hydrogen peroxide to remove the mold the dispensary denies is present in its product. OSHA responded to her claim with a telephone interview, she says. When NETA denied their plants contained mold and presented outside testing evidence they were mold-free, the case was dropped.

No other NETA employees were interviewed, but many say they dealt with mold in plants they trim. One says his supervisor told him to soak moldy plants in hydrogen peroxide on NETA pot to remove the mold. Some employees say they have gone home from work with rashes. There is no ventilation in the workrooms and no one is advised to wear a mask to protect them from breathing in mold.

Last June, the former employee wrote a letter to DPH:

Two months after beginning to consume NETA products, I began to experience the following symptoms: headaches, sore throat and multiple respiratory illnesses. Once the marijuana concentrates (shatter, wax) were released in 2016, I began consuming them. My symptoms progressed to bloating in my abdomen, nausea, cramps in my GI tract and difficulty sleeping.

Neurological symptoms such as neuropathy (numbness in the toes and ball of my foot) and tetany (spasms) in my calves greatly increased in escalating pain intensity and frequency starting November 2016, and I also began to experience fasciculations (twitching) in my calves when seated in the beginning of 2017.

The article does not say whether she has received a reply.

Read DigBoston.com story here.

Germany Becomes the New Poster Child for Climate Change Hypocrisy

Climate hypocrisy is nothing new.

Celebrities cruise around the world in their private jets, eating filet mignon while telling you to pack a salad and bike to work to reduce your carbon footprint.

So, color me not at all surprised that Germany, a vocal critic of the U.S.’ decision to exit the Paris climate accord, is preparing to abandon its 2020 climate targets.

Strong economic growth is a critical reason why Germany is very likely to miss its target.

Germany has an aggressive plan to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020. Last November, a leaked document from the country’s Environmental Ministry projected the country would miss the mark by 8 percent without additional action.

In other words, even with generous subsidies for renewable power, the Germans would have to implement some form of economy-restricting policy to curtail emissions. So much for the “go green and grow the economy” mantra.

The Environmental Ministry said the failure would be “a disaster for Germany’s international reputation as a climate leader.” One would think a stronger economy would be cause for celebration, not demonization.

Germany’s abandoned 2020 targets are the latest domino to fall in what is failed international climate policy. Many proponents of action argue that even though the Paris climate accord is nonbinding, with no repercussions when a country fails to comply with its nationally determined contributions, the agreement was an important first step.

The parties that have entered into the Paris accord sure have a funny way of showing they’re committed to it.

Despite bashing the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris accord, all of the industrialized countries are not on schedule to meet their respective targets. Germany is not alone in the European Union.

An article published last summer on Nature.com argues that the EU “faces a big gap between words and actions.”

Even if the United States and the rest of the developed world meet their intended targets, it wouldn’t make any meaningful impact on global temperatures. Carbon dioxide reductions from the developing world, many of whose people are still living without dependable power, are necessary to move the climate needle.

However, developing nations set targets so lax that they likely won’t change any behaviors. Paris proponents can brag all they want about China taking the lead in solar power, but turn a blind eye to the massive amounts of new coal power generation moving forward in China, India, and the rest of the developing—and, in some cases, developed—world.

The Financial Times recently reported, “Between January 2014 and September 2017, international banks channeled $630 [billion] to the top 120 companies planning to build new coal plants around the world, according to research by campaign groups, including the Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, and Friends of the Earth.”

And yet, those who want stringent climate mitigation say the Paris targets are only approximately one-third of what is needed to allegedly keep global warming in check.

Paying attention to what you perceive as positive action on climate (e.g., Paris, subsidizing renewables) while ignoring the realities of new coal build, retiring nuclear power plants, and global economic growth around the world is a curious strategy.

“Do as I say, but don’t pay attention to what I actually do” is the trademark of climate change policy. The Trump administration took a different approach and told it like it is: Paris is a costly, meaningless non-solution.

The reason countries such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have entered into the accord is not an indication of global commitment to act on climate. It is an indication of how toothless and meaningless the agreement is.

The rest of the world can act high and mighty on climate, but when the rubber meets the road for action, it’s a different story.


Portrait of Nicolas Loris

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


Al Gore Blames the ‘Climate Crisis’ for Cold Weather. But Actually, it’s Just January.

Remember when global warming meant the planet was supposed to, well, warm up? Temperatures would rise, and all manner of ecological calamity would ensue?

Me too. So it was surprising to find myself shivering, like other Americans, through several days of arctic chill and extreme cold, only to hear Al Gore blame it on global warming.

He didn’t use the w-word, though. “It’s bitter cold in parts of the U.S., but climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis,” Gore tweeted on Jan. 4.

See, it’s a “climate crisis” now. But it’s hard to blame him for trying some rebranding. After all, prediction after prediction has come to naught.

But no matter: Like other Doomsday prophets, Gore just acts like the last missed deadline didn’t happen and comes up with a new one.

Which is why it’s important to remind ourselves of what Gore has said in the past.

Consider, for example, how he said global warming would cause the north polar ice cap to be completely free of ice within five years. When did he say that? Nine years ago.

News flash: The Arctic still has ice. Indeed, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, “ice growth during November 2017 averaged 30,900 square miles per day.” Oops.

So how about the evidence for the latest cold snap?

Gore’s source, Michael Mann, says the ultra-chilly temps we’ve been enduring are “precisely the sort of extreme winter weather we expect because of climate change.” As the planet warms, he says, we’ll see more cold snaps and “bomb cyclones.”

Seems counter-intuitive, but Mann suggests this is because warming is “causing the jet stream to meander in a particular pattern” that leads to these cold spells.

I use the word “suggests,” however, because this is simply a theory—one that other scientists are not sold on. (Gore and the rest of the climate-crisis crowd often act like their ideas are universally accepted—that the scientific community is in complete agreement with them. But there is more room for doubt and disagreement than they care to admit.)

Just ask Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

“Winter storms are a manifestation of winter, not climate change,” he recently told the Daily Caller. “The Arctic is greatly affected by climate change, and it has a feedback effect—but not in winter.”

Even if Gore and Mann are correct about the link between global warming and cold snaps, the record works against them there, too.

“The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past 50 years, not increased,” University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass says. “That alone shows that such claims are baseless.”

The term “bomb cyclone” is new to most of us, but it’s been around for a while. Climatologist Judith Curry recently told the Caller that it was coined almost 40 years ago by Fred Sanders of MIT, who spent a lot of time studying such storms.

Moreover, there are about 50 or 60 bomb cyclones every year, but most of them occur too far out to sea for us to notice.

Gore and his fellow travelers may have trouble admitting that they could be wrong. But their never-look-back crusade isn’t helping scientific research.

“It is very disappointing that members of my profession are making such obviously bogus claims,” Cliff Mass said. “It hurts the science, it hurts the credibility of climate scientists, and weakens our ability to be taken seriously by society.”

That’s what happens, though, when we bend facts to fit theories—and not the other way around. And remember, Al, as the old song goes, “Baby, it’s cold outside.”

Originally published by the Washington Times.


Portrait of Ed Feulner

Edwin J. Feulner’s 36 years of leadership as president of The Heritage Foundation transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: NYC Mayor De Blasio Sues Oil Companies for Global Warming – The Week After NYC Records All-Time Record Cold

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


EDITORS NOTE: Photo: Pedro Fiuza/SIPA/Newscom.