World’s largest ice sheet growing

The West Antarctic ice sheet, the biggest mass of ice in the world, has been growing since the end of the nineteenth century.

Marc Morano featured a post about a fascinating Chinese study from Dr. Patrick Michaels at the website of CFACT’s friend and ally the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The forthcoming study by six Chinese authors is scheduled to appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.  The study concludes that Antarctic ice exhibited a “significant negative trend” during the nineteenth century, then a “significant positive trend” throughout the 20th.

This doesn’t help the narrative for those seeking to spread climate alarm one bit.

Here’s the latest example:  Artist Thomas Starr of Northeastern University has been placing fake historical markers in New England towns.  “Gazebo relocated due to recurring flooding caused by sea level rise, March, 2058,” reads a plaque on a gazebo in Durham, New Hampshire. He calls it the Seacoast Remembrance Project.  Starr’s plaques have been garnering the laudatory media write-ups we’re sure you’d expect.

Hey Durham Town Council, want to sell us the land your lovely seaside gazebo’s on at a generous discount?  We’ll take the problem off your hands.  It is doomed after all.

That sea level has been slowly rising at only 1 to 3 mm per year since before the industrial revolution, with no sign of meaningful acceleration, does not make it into the articles.  Hysterical sea level claims are not based on reality.  Dangerously rising seas exist only in the virtual world of climate computer simulations.

Those ever-faulty computer models project extreme Antarctic ice melt.  That it has not actually occurred does not seem to matter.  They even stoop to attributing extra high tides caused by natural lunar cycles, combined with ground level subsidence, to sea level rise.

Pity the tide gauges don’t show it.  Sorry Miami, your occasionally wet streets were not caused by electrical generation, air travel, bovine flatulence, or even SUVs.

Dr. Michaels speculates that the media will have no appetite for a study showing Antarctic ice gaining.  What do you think?

We’ll do him one better.  If they do cover it, they’ll try and spin it as justifying global warming alarm!

We factored the situation into our own computer models.  They project shamelessly disseminated climate propaganda.

Let’s see whose projections pan out.

Polar bear expert purged

Global warming campaigners have done an effective job at convincing the media and much of the world that polar bears are dying out.

It’s not true. 

In fact, thanks to a hunting ban, polar bears are a major conservation success story.  Their population ballooned from around 5,000 in the 1960s to (depending on whose estimate) from 22,000 to over 30,000 today.  Today the North is loaded with fat, happy, fecund bears (sorry seals).

It appears that telling the truth about polar bears made Dr. Susan Crockford, a respected, published Canadian zoologist, the victim of an ideological purge.  First she was removed from the University of Victoria’s speakers bureau, and then not renewed to her position as an adjunct professor.

“The loss of adjunct status,” Crockford wrote, “will primarily prevent me from continuing scientific research on speciation and domestication mechanisms in evolution: without an academic affiliation I will be unable to secure research funds or academic collaborations.”

But this woman of science is fearless.

“What a lack of academic affiliation has not done, and cannot do,” Crockford continued, “is stop me from investigating and commenting on the failures and inconsistencies of science that I see in published polar bear research papers and reflected in public statements made by polar bear specialists.  I am still a former adjunct professor and I will not be silenced.”

Free speech is anathema to the Left.

They don’t fear false or misleading information, that’s their stock in trade.  They fear the facts that prove them wrong.  They are prepared to wreak great harm on any who dare utter them.  They know they can’t silence Susan Crockford, but know also that harming her creates an atmosphere of fear that most others lack the courage to confront.

Warming campaigners are actively hunting scalps.  Take a look at this shocking anonymous admission from one of them that CFACT’s friend Russell Cook found, on of all places, CFACT’s own comment forum!

“You will be pleased to know that in the past two years I successfully had two deniers fired (forced resignations) from their university positions.  One was a prolific WUWT contributor.  I discovered a nice twist to the freedom of speech tale.  You can say almost anything except yell fire in a crowded room and are free to make a fool of oneself but can’t invoke one’s pedigree to do so i.e. you can state your doctorate or disciplines, but not your college, professional body memberships and imply they agree.  So that’s how I’ve been knocking them off by going to their employer, professional registration, professional memberships or their alma mater.  I have three scalps lined up now — infant stage But they will collapse like dominoes.”

Think of the malice and lack of respect and concern for others these people exhibit!  Academic freedom and the ability of all of us to participate in public discussion is truly under assault.

What would happen if our nasty commenter’s methods were applied equally to everyone?  How often do you read misleading and outright false pronouncements from climate campaigners in the press?  Do they not cite their academic and professional affiliations in their bios?

Donna Laframboise covered Dr. Crockford’s situation at Financial Post:

“Jeffrey Foss, a former chair of UVic’s philosophy department, says Crockford has been punished for speaking her own mind about matters of fact, which means she has been denied academic freedom and free speech. ‘I’m beginning to lose faith and hope in the university system,’ he says.”

Dr. Crockford said:

“It appears certain to me that the Anthropology Department bowed to pressure from the administration, who themselves bowed to pressure from outside the university community, in an attempt to stifle my legitimate scientific criticisms of polar bear conservation issues. This kind of bullying has been happening far too often at universities, even in Canada.”

The idea that climate pressure groups cannot demand unprecedented control over our economies, freedoms and personal lives, and obtain this without open public debate is monstrous.

Governments, universities, professional associations, the media and all institutions must be made aware of the dirty, destructive trick being played in the name of global warming.

We must insist on unfettered scientific discussion and the right of researchers like Dr. Susan Crockford, and each and every one of us, to speak without fear.

The Guardian goes Orwellian on Climate

The U.K. Guardian newspaper has for months been working to change the words we use to discuss climate and environmental issues.  They just published their glossary.

Prominent on the list is The Guardian’s formal adoption of the pejorative term “denier” and the elimination of the word “skeptic” to describe people attempting to correct the record on climate.  In the pages of The Guardian, if you have the temerity to point out that sea level has risen a scant 1 to 3 mm per year since before the industrial revolution, that measurements reveal climate computer models run too hot, that a weather event is historically normal, that intermittent wind and solar are inefficient, or that polar bears are thriving up north, you deserve to be lumped in with “holocaust deniers.”

Deniers?  Talk about speech as hate!

Guardian Editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, said:

We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue. These are the guidelines provided to our journalists and editors to be used in the production of all environment coverage across the Guardian’s website and paper:

1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
4.) “greenhouse gas emissions” is preferred to “carbon emissions” or “carbon dioxide emissions”
5.) Use “wildlife”, not “biodiversity”
6.) Use “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks”

Didn’t climate campaigners just get done insisting we all substitute “climate change” in place of “global warming” to divert attention from all those inconvenient satellites and thermometers recording less warming than they were supposed to?

Paul Chadwick, The Guardian’s readers’ editor, wrote in June:

I support Viner’s direction of travel. She is harnessing the power of language usage to focus minds on an urgent global issue. One challenge for the Guardian and the Observer will be to weigh, in specific journalistic contexts, two sometimes competing aspects of terminology used in public debates: language as description, and language as exhortation.

CFACT analyst Peter Murphy posted a warning about media complicity in attempts to stifle the global warming debate at CFACT.org:

This is dangerous, and it goes beyond climate issues. It’s bad enough for global warming activists and groups to attempt to silence opposition. A more problematic trend is when it comes from the media itself.

Murphy shared some prominent examples:

  • Chuck Todd, host of the NBC program Meet the Press announced last January he will never have as a guest anyone who questions or challenges global warming.
  • The Los Angeles Times and the magazine Popular Science announced they would no longer publish opposing opinions to global warming orthodoxy.
  • During CNN’s “Town Hall” on climate change with Democratic presidential hopefuls last August, moderators walked in lockstep with the doomsday scenario espoused by the candidates without critical examination.
  • Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., advocated that climate “deniers” be jailed for exercising their free speech rights if they oppose his extreme view of climate change.

George Orwell wrote powerfully about the alteration of language to enforce orthodoxy and censor thought in his masterpiece 1984.  He postulated a language called “Newspeak” that was designed to weed all that troublesome questioning of authority out of the English language.  The novels appendix explains that:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc (English Socialism), but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.

We again remind Chuck Todd, the Guardian and the rest, that Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, not an instruction manual.

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

CLIMATE CHANGE: Everywhere warming twice as fast as everywhere else! [Video]

Posted by Eeyore

H/T PePo

RELATED ARTICLE: Using Children to Stir Up Climate Change Hysteria: It’s Child Abuse by Socialist Politicians and Teachers [Videos]

Fonda Wants to ‘Halt’ Governments That Don’t Fight Climate Change

Actress, activist, and Vietnam War traitor Jane Fonda said on CNN Monday that governments that don’t fight climate change should be brought to “a halt.”

“This is a collective crisis that required collective action, so I decided to use my celebrity to try to raise the sense of urgency, and I moved to Washington and I’m going to get arrested every Friday,” said Fonda.

“We have 11 years left to try to turn this fossil fuel disaster around so that we don’t completely pass the tipping point and it becomes untenable to govern, untenable to have a stable economy, or any kind of human rights or anything. There’s just going to be one disaster on top of another. But we do have time. We have time and it’s going to require people in every country all around the world to organize and mobilize and, if necessary, bring governments to a halt if we can’t make them do the right thing,” she added.

To confront the worst government climate offenders, Fonda should begin with Communist China, but leftists find that targeting America is safer and more satisfying.


Jane Fonda

In an October 2017 interview, HARDTalk host Stephen Sackur asked Fonda if she was ultimately proud of her country, to which she immediately answered “No.” Fonda then explained what she _was _proud of: “I’m proud of the resistance. I’m proud of the people who are turning out in unprecedented numbers and continue over and over and over again to protest what [President Donald] Trump is doing. I’m very proud of that core.” Sackur then raised the issue of the recent actions of National Football League players who had chosen to kneel during the playing of the national anthem before their games, as a symbol of protest against America’s racial injustice. When Sakur asked Fonda how she herself would act in a similar circumstance, she replied: “I would take a knee. I would take two knees. I’d get on all fours if necessary to get attention. And Trump is manipulating it to make it to have something to do with the military. It has nothing to do with patriotism, it has nothing to do with the military, it has to do with racism that is so alive and well in the United States.”

To learn more, click on the profile link here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

“Water is the new oil.” JEA selling our water to Water Barons? Don’t laugh. It’s happening.

by Billie Tucker Volpe

I recently had a chance to speak with City Council Member Randy DeFoor. She was not happy with JEA fast-tracking a potential sale — and she was most disturbed by the potential sale of our water. And I could not agree with her more.

As a consultant to the board of JEA about 10 years ago, I had the opportunity to meet with each Executive Team Member and Board Member monthly. During one of my meetings with the head of the water division, he told me that the biggest issue JEA would face in the future would be … WATER! I’ll never forget that meeting because I am fully aware that water is THE one thing we all need to survive. You don’t mess around with our water.

After my conversation with Ms. DeFoor, I did some deep research and went back into my notes from those days at JEA. What I discovered was indeed scary. Scary because if we don’t pay attention — and especially the City Council Members — we may all be paying our bills to a Water Baron or a big bank somewhere in the world. Or even to China!

The information and facts are here for all to read for themselves. We hope each City Council Member will pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to the water sale at JEA.

Water is not to be gambled away because of political eyes seeing dollar signs. This is serious business friends and it needs your attention. Don’t take your EYE off this one.

Read this in-depth, fact-filled research paper about the sale of water across the world. Be informed. Contact your council member and tell them to read this too. You can reach them here.

Our water is the new oil for Water Barons. It’s also your “oil” so let’s not give it away without a fight!

RELATED ARTICLE: The New “Water Barons”: Wall Street Mega-Banks are Buying up the World’s Water

EDITORS NOTE: This Eye on Jacksonville column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

4 Ways All Electric Vehicles Are Doing More Harm To Mankind Than Good

While reading the October, 2019 issue of the California headquartered Motor Trend magazine I came across a letter to the editor from a “63-year old baby boomer” who wrote:

I’m a liberal greeny who knows that the planet has to be saved. Humans have caused climate change, but too many humans don’t want to recognize that fact. Especially human politicians.

The editor Ed responded with:

A lot of great points, Tom. There’s no doubt that fossil fuel powerplants hurt when it comes to emissions, but depending where you live, the impact could be minimal.

What does this 63-year old greeny get wrong?

Electric Vehicles (EVs) Depend on Government Subsidies

In a Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) column titled Electric Cars vs. Gas Cars: Is the Conventional Wisdom Wrong? Bill Wirtz wrote:

When Denmark got rid of its tax credits for electric vehicles, Tesla’s sales dropped by 94 percent. In Hong Kong, the company saw a decline of 95 percent as the city got rid of comparable tax advantages for those buying electric cars.

If you are a taxpayer and don’t drive an EV then your helping to pay for someone else’s all electric car or truck.

EVs Don’t Contribute to Gas Taxes

The gas taxes in the United State are used to build and maintain local roads and bridges, and the federal and state highway systems.

Julian Spector and Julia Pyper in the July 5, 2017 Green Tech Media column 17 States Now Charge Fees for Electric Vehicles reported:

Several states have passed or enacted new fees this year, bringing the total to 17.* Recent additions include West VirginiaMichiganMinnesotaIndianaOklahomaTennessee and California, which is home to leading EV maker Tesla and a suite of policies designed to incentivize electric-car adoption. South Carolina enacted a biennial fee for electric cars.

The following nine states passed or implemented EV fees in previous years: Georgia, Washington, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina and Virginia (see chart below). According to the Sierra Club, other states have introduced legislation this year that would require EV owners to pay a separate fee, including Kansas, New Hampshire and Montana.

Read more.

EVs Cause Harm to Mankind

In Electric Cars vs. Gas Cars: Is the Conventional Wisdom Wrong? Bill Wirtz wrote:

Electric vehicle batteries need a multitude of resources to be manufactured. In the case of cobalt, the World Economic Forum has called out the extraction conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where 20 percent of the world’s cobalt comes from. Miners as young as seven years are suffering from chronic lung disease from exposure to cobalt dust. [Emphasis added]

EVs Strain Existing Electrical Grids

FEE’s Bill Wirtz wrote:

[O]ver 95 percent of Norway’s electricity comes from hydropower, of which 90 percent is publicly owned. That does not come without its downsides. As electricity consumption increases in Norway, the sector is unable to keep up. Last year, lack of rainfall and low wind speed exploded Norwegian electricity prices to the level of Germany (which is still in the process of phasing out nuclear energy). Norway then resorted to coal power, and as fossil fuel power imports exceeded energy export, Norway has actually seen an increase in CO2 emissions[Emphasis added]

Zero Hedge’s Tyler Durden in the column $35 Billion: UK Faces Huge Loss From Electric Vehicle Adoption noted:

If Great Britain keeps its commitment to switch over its vehicles to electric by 2050, the government will see a whopping loss of 28 billion pounds ($35 billion) paid by motorists driving traditional gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

Read more.

FEE’s Bill Wirtz concludes, “As much as consumers might care about CO2 emissions, they are even more price-sensitive. Even those consumers who aren’t will eventually be swayed when they find out their car brand is costing them comparably excruciating amounts in fuel.”

America depends on cheap, reliable and dependable sources of energy. Be it electricity or fuel for your automobile. California, the state with the most EVs, is experiencing electrical black outs.

Mankind advances via new technologies. Key to technology is reliable energy. Without reliable energy we go back to the dark ages, like in Northern California.

Conclusion

The climate changes on Mars as it does on plant earth, but there are no cars on the red planet.

The bottom line is:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes follow natural cycles.
  3. Mankind cannot change these natural cycles.

Mankind was given dominion over the earth and all of its natural resources. Not using these natural resources, either voluntarily or by government mandate, harms humans. Using these natural resources wisely advances human flourishing.

Man can’t control the weather let alone the climate. Our 63-year old liberal greeny needs to face the facts. Going green isn’t helping mankind.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Electric Cars Aren’t Nearly as Green as People Think

It’s Time to Kill the Generous ElectricVehicle Subsidies

Zero Emission Vehicles Can Increase Air Pollution

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, WiseEnergy.org. 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 WiseEnergy.org 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.

COMMENTARY BY

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: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

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!
GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


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.

COLUMN BY

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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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: info@frinstitute.org. 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.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

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!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


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.

Watch:

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.

Cannibalism

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.

Conclusion

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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). 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.

COLUMN BY

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 www.tommullen.net.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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, WiseEnergy.org. 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 WiseEnergy.org 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.