Coca-Cola & IBM Join Dozens of Companies to Demand Northern Ireland Legalize Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

In the 3.5 years since the U.S. Supreme Court legally redefined marriage, religious liberty has plummeted across America. We are simultaneously seeing a major “transgender” push for men to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms, no matter what the harm is to women and girls.

None of this matters to dozens of international corporations which are urging Northern Ireland to join the rest of the Western World in ignoring the reality of marriage — which is between one man and one woman.

Via Amnesty International (h/t to LifeSiteNews):

“We, the undersigned write to express our support for the extension of civil marriage in Northern Ireland. As employers we encourage and welcome diversity and inclusion in our workforce and recognise the rights of our lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender employees to be themselves and to live and work, free from discrimination, prejudice or exclusion.

We could hammer dozens of companies for signing Amnesty International’s misguided document, but we’ll focus on two: Coca-Cola and IBM. Both are companies which have jumped on the left-wing bandwagon on all of the issues which 2ndVote ranks. They are especially bad on marriage and religious liberty.

Coca-Cola has donated to the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD. It is a corporate partner of GLAAD, received the top score in Human Rights Campaign’s “Corporate Equality Index,” and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to redefine marriage. It has since jumped further down the left-wing bandwagon by backing legislation and coalitions which would completely undermine religious liberty for tens of millions of Americans.

IBM has similarly left American values behind in its capitulation to liberal ideologies. It backs the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, is a GLAAD corporate partner, opposes religious liberty as part of business coalitions, and like Coca-Cola has structured its company so as to receive a maximum score of 100 Human Rights Campaign’s Index.

One would expect corporate leaders to recognize that same-sex “marriage” leads to a host of social ills. It denies children their right to opposite-sex parents. It encourages harmful sexual relations. It forces governments to crack down on those who rightly support only real marriage, and leads to problems such as female survivors of rape being told they must accept men in private changing and restroom facilities.

Instead, they are doubling down on bad policies by putting pressure on Northern Ireland to ditch common-sense laws. We urge 2ndVote shoppers to let Coca-Cola and IBM know that we won’t stand for them using our money for their left-wing agenda.

Send Coca-Cola an Email!      Contact IBM!

Help us continue creating content like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Shutterstock.

ABSURD: Media Blames Trump for Hurricane Florence and Rick Scott for Red Tide [Video]

The legacy media was quick to criticize two Republicans for things that they have absolutely no control of, e.g. the weather and algae blooms. There are two recent examples of Republican politician blamed for natural occurrences, which have been taking place for millennia.

In a Huffington Post column titled “Red Tide and Blue-Green Algae Could Block Rick Scott’s Path To The Senate” S.V. Date wrote:

Like millions of Floridians whose livelihoods are directly and indirectly tied to the state’s water quality, Conley is watching his income dry up just as the man he and many others believe is responsible for the environmental calamity is seeking a new political office: Gov. Rick Scott, who hopes to become Sen. Rick Scott.

Will the algae disaster be enough to stop Scott, who won both his terms as governor with but the slimmest of margins?

Read more.

Red tides were documented in the southern Gulf of Mexico as far back as the 1700s and along Florida’s Gulf coast in the 1840s. According the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

While harmful algal blooms (HABs) may occur anywhere along the nation’s coast (especially during the summer), red tide events caused by blooms of the harmful algae Karenia brevis are particularly common in coastal regions of Florida and Texas.

According to Live Science, “Since June 1 [2018], about 25 billion gallons of algae-laden water were discharged from the lake [Okeechobee]. On June 20, Gov. Rick Scott issued an executive order to curtail the flow of harmful water and prevent the blooms from spreading.”

Dan Bongino did a video about the media blaming President Donald Trump for hurricane Florence. Bongino writes, “The media and the left is interested only in a pre-emptive outrage campaign, blaming Donald Trump for a storm he has no control over, and a federal government that is obviously going to be limited in what it can do in a state.”

Scientists and meteorologists have been studying natural occurrences such as red tide and hurricanes for centuries. No man, no matter how powerful can control nature.

This is another column which contests the uncontested absurdities.


Did you know that President Trump is responsible for Hurricane Florence?

Anne Hathaway denounces white privilege in award speech

The Cannabis Conundrum: Steering Policy and Medicine with Insufficient Data

The current issue of the International Review of Psychiatry issues a call for marijuana regulatory science.

An editorial introducing the issue notes that marijuana’s use as a medicine began with compassion for people with terminal or debilitating conditions for which no standard treatment existed but has expanded into multiple conditions which are neither life-threatening nor debilitating for which effective treatments exist. This expansion has given rise to a “large-scale, for-profit industry fraught with public health concerns.”

“Quality control issues abound in this industry as there are no established standards for cultivating, processing, testing, or labeling cannabis products. There is also concern over advertisements and product labeling that include misleading or unsubstantiated health claims, as these products have not been vetted by traditional drug development methods. The speed in which cannabis policies are changing is rapid, and the fact that these are happening as a direct result of legislation or by voter referendum is reckless given the absence of consensus standards and, in many cases, appropriate regulatory oversight,” writes researcher Ryan Vandrey of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

He notes that the US food and Drug Administration (FDA) was recently granted regulatory oversight of nicotine and tobacco products. This has generated an abundance of policy research resulting in regulations that will likely have a positive impact on public health. He writes there is a critical parallel need for marijuana regulatory research.

“Novel products and cannabis delivery devices are rolling onto the shelves of dispensaries at a rapid rate, product development appears to be geared towards high potency/high dose products, and it is all being carefully marketed to increase consumption,” he says.

In addition, Dr. Vandrey says more research is needed to evaluate the risks and benefits for both medicinal and non-medicinal (recreational) marijuana use.

“Currently there is inadequate data for a confident determination of risk/benefit of cannabis use as a potential therapeutic in psychiatry, yet it is being recommended to individuals for use in the treatment of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, opioid use disorder, dementia, and psychotic disorders,” he writes.

Although there is a lack of data, he says, there are numerous cases where people have been helped by marijuana and some of its cannabinoids. This should be used to motivate the development of “reliably formulated cannabinoid medications,” he concludes.

Read International Review of Psychiatry article here.

Lack of communication about marijuana for medical use between doctors and their patients

Researchers surveyed 242 patients and their primary care physicians in three family medicine practices in Denver, Colorado. Patients’ and doctors’ surveys were linked by numbers rather than names. The surveys were distributed in the doctors’ offices for patients to fill out anonymously. Only primary care physicians whose patients completed a survey filled out the doctor’s survey.

  • 22 percent of patients reported marijuana use in the past six months.
  • Of those, 61 percent said they used marijuana for medical purposes.
  • None obtained their state medical marijuana card from their primary care physicians.
  • Primary care physicians were aware their patients used marijuana only 53 percent of the time.
  • Primary care physicians identified conditions they believed could be adversely affected by marijuana use in 31 percent of their patients.

Read the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine article here.

Jimmy Buffett brand to develop cannabis products with Surterra

Margaritaville’s Jimmy Buffett, whose fans are known as Parrotheads, has licensed his band’s name—Coral Reefer—to Surterra Holdings, which will produce a line of marijuana products for medical use under the band’s brand name.

Surterra is a $100 million, five-year-old company based in Atlanta that has done no business in Georgia except to contribute to Georgia politicians. Surterra’s former president holds a seat on a legislative study commission to decide whether to legalize marijuana cultivation in Georgia. The commission’s report is due to the full legislature in time for the 2019 legislative session.

The Wall Street Journal reports the venture will produce Coral Reefer products in the form of vape pens, gel caps, edibles, and lotions. Beau Wrigley, the chewing gum scion who sold the family business a few years ago to establish a family investment firm, raised $65 million for Surterra and became its chairman last month. He said at the time that while Surterra is focused on products for medical use, it plans to compete in the recreational market as well.

Read the SunSentinel story here.

When two studies contradict each other, how do scientists decide which one is true?

People who want marijuana to be legalized for medical and/or recreational use often point to studies that re-enforce their viewpoint. People who don’t want pot legalized often do the same, pointing to studies that are diametrically opposed. How can there be so many studies that contradict each other?

We asked Michael Kuhar, PhD, Candler Professor of Neuropharmacology at Emory University and author of The Addicted Brain, how scientists determine which studies are valid and which are not. Here are his answers:

There are a number of ways scientists evaluate conflicting results.

1. The scientist will evaluate the two conflicting studies on her own, looking closely at both.

  • She might look at the patient population. Are they different? If yes, it might be that both studies are correct for the patient population involved.
  • He might ask which study has more patients because a larger group of patients tends to produce more reliable results.
  • She might compare the methodology, experimental design, and statistical analysis. Does one study look more rigorous than the other?
  • A scientist might look at the authors of the two studies and ask which one has more experience in the field.
  • While the above approach might reveal the best study, even a close review of the papers might not reveal which is more reliable.

2. If the scientist is unsure or is unable to critically evaluate both studies on his own, he might go to another scientist who is expert in that area and who knows more about it. Opinions of other highly trained people are important.

3. She is likely to look for other published studies in the area because confirmation and support for either study is important. The scientist wants to see if someone else has gotten similar results to those of one of the contrary studies. It is possible that, in the face of conflicting studies, everyone may have to wait until additional studies are carried out to see which result is the correct one. Confirmation is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Scientists are trained to deal with such conflicts. Scientists do not expect a perfect world, and they often look for the preponderance or greatest evidence for a result. Every study may not produce exactly the same result, but the overall bulk of the data (from several studies) will support one view or another. Overall, this is referred to as evidence-based thinking.

FDA cracks down on Juul and e-cigarette retailers

As noted in the first article of today’s The Marijuana Report, the FDA now has jurisdiction over nicotine and tobacco regulation. FDA declared that some 2 million teenagers are using e-cigarettes and vaping products like the popular Juul, pictured above, and are becoming “hooked” on nicotine. The issue has reached epidemic proportions.

Today, FDA announced that it is giving Juul, RJR Vapor Company’s Vuse, Altria Group’s MarkTen, Imperial Grand’s blu and Logic 60 days to prove they can keep their products away from minors. If they fail, FDA may remove the flavored products from the market.

FDA also sent warning letters to 1,100 retailers, including 7-Eleven stores, Walgreens, Circle K convenience shops, and Shell gas stations. It has issued another 131 fines for selling e-cigarettes to minors.

Read the New York Times story here.

Breaking: Marijuana legalization in Colorado not so great after all

The 2018 Rocky Mountain HIDTA report released this morning shows marijuana legalization is having a negative impact in many areas:

  • Marijuana-related traffic deaths have increased 151 percent compared to all Colorado traffic deaths, which have increased 35 percent.
  • Past-month marijuana use among Coloradans age 12 and older is 85 percent higher than the national average.
  • Marijuana-related ER visits have increased 52 percent since Colorado legalized pot.
  • Hospitalizations related to marijuana jumped 148 percent.
  • Violent crime increased 18.6 percent; property crime increased 8.3 percent.
  • 65 percent of local jurisdictions throughout the state have banned both medical and recreational marijuana.

Read full report here.

The ‘Global Climate Action Summit’s’ Destructive Decarbonization Tsunami

Batten down the hatches! A tsunami of global warming and “clean energy” propaganda is approaching! San Francisco is hosting the September 12-14 Global Climate Action Summit, a massive event at which “international and local leaders from states, regions, cities, businesses, investors and civil society … will be joined by national government leaders, scientists, students, nonprofits and others … [to share] what they have achieved to date and commit to doing more to usher in the era of decarbonization.”

Decarbonization means phasing out the fossil fuels that now provide over 80% of all the energy we use – in favor of wind, solar and other supposedly clean energy sources. In his video promoting the Summit, Governor Jerry Brown said, “It’s up to you and it’s up to me, and tens of millions of other people to get it together to roll back the forces of carbonization and join together to combat the existential threat of climate change.” The Summit home page even claims “decarbonization of the global economy is in sight.”

That is ridiculous. The world has been using more coal, oil and natural gas over the past decade, not less, because they are the best energy sources available. The supposedly clean, green renewable energy sources and their long transmission lines are far too expensive and unreliable for widespread use. They also have major pollution issues of their own, though the worst impacts occur in countries with weak environmental controls. They require vast amounts of fossil fuel energy and raw materials to manufacture. They impact millions of acres for mining, waste disposal, wind and solar facilities, and transmission lines.

At the recent America First Energy Conference, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry noted that just generating enough electricity to power the Houston metropolitan area would require over 21,000 square miles (13.4 million acres) of corn fields, if the fuel source was corn ethanol. “Think about that footprint!” Landry exclaimed. To produce the same amount of electricity from wind power would take almost 900 square miles of wind turbines or 150 square miles of solar panels, he added (and millions of batteries).

Wind turbines already kill millions of raptors, other birds and bats, many of them rare, threatened or endangered. Imagine the impacts from all the turbines needed to generate all the world’s electricity. And climate change is almost entirely a natural phenomenon, over which humans have essentially no control.

To support the decarbonization ruse, Summit speakers will employ simple but effective language tricks. We’re already getting a taste. For example, the Summit’s Press Room proclaimed on August 23, “19 Global Cities Commit to Make New Buildings ‘Net-Zero Carbon’ by 2030.”

The World Green Building Council says the objective of net-zero carbon building is to “achieve net zero carbon emissions annually in operation.” But of course, that just means that most of the emissions merely have to be created somewhere else, as discussed above.

The WGBC says this is being done to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, “the start of the most important race in our existence – the race to curb global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, so that global temperature rise remains below 2 degrees Celsius and, ideally, below 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

But that rise began with the modern industrial revolution and end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 – which means we now have less than a degree to spare before climate chaos allegedly sets in. That too is ridiculous. Moreover, humans cannot control climate as if we had a global thermostat, and we are not really talking about controlling “carbon” anyway.

Al Gore started that deception with his 2006 pseudo-documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which claimed “carbon emissions” were going to destroy our planet. Gore helped popularize the term “carbon footprint,” while always hiding the enormity of his own footprint – and hiding the fact that the “dangerous pollutant” is actually carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas that people and animals exhale and plants use to grow. The more CO2 in the air, the better and faster plants grow.  It’s a natural, happy, mutually beneficial process.

So, in an unfortunately all too successful attempt to scare people, Gore and his cohorts began using “carbon” as a synonym for carbon dioxide, knowing it would conjure up visions of soot, lamp black and coal dust. Aside from the fact that CO2 contains a single molecule of carbon, it has about as much in common with elemental carbon as lightning does with lightning bugs.

Robert Gould, MD, president of the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, further illustrates how distorted the climate debate terminology has become. Gould says “the decarbonization of our planet is imperative for human survival.” In reality, a decarbonized Earth would be a dead world, a world devoid of all life, including ours.

Many people have unwittingly accepted the “carbon” sleight-of-hand, without realizing they are being manipulated toward negative thoughts about plant food. It is possibly the best example of subliminal brainwashing ever.

Fears that CO2 increases can deleteriously impact temperatures should also be scuttled. Carbon dioxide can absorb only a narrow wave length of the radiation (heat) returning to the atmosphere from Earth, which initially absorbs it from the Sun. That wavelength is 15 microns or millionths of a meter – and the atmosphere’s current 410 parts per million of CO2 has already absorbed essentially all of the heat’s wavelength the Earth has to give. That means any further additions of CO2 can have no measurable impact on the Earth’s greenhouse effect and temperature.

Journalist H. L. Mencken accurately summed up the real goal of these deceptions. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary,” he observed. Global warming is the best hobgoblin the radical environmentalists have concocted so far.

Misuse of the word carbon is no laughing matter, however. This unsubstantiated fear is depriving the less fortunate among us of sorely needed, inexpensive energy, by eliminating life-giving fossil fuels and the miracle molecule of life, CO2. In the process, society is subjected to further government control, reduced individual freedom, greater socialism, less free enterprise capitalism – and lower living standards for everyone except wealthy, privileged ruling elites.

If you don’t think such nefarious word games can have such an impact, just remember how the term “Y2K” struck fear in many hearts and minds, by conjuring up endless turmoil that awaited us on New Year’s Eve 1999. Most of us woke up laughing at how we had been conned into worrying for months and years – when in reality turning to the new millennium simply required changing two digits on each computer that controlled planes, trains and electric grids.

The havoc never happened, and billions of dollars were wasted – just as is happening with climate chaos.

Some might say we are merely arguing semantics. If by “semantics” they mean “the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning,” they’d be right. In fact, linguistic and logic deception will be a major weapon wielded by Global Climate Action Summit speakers next week. Indeed, University of Florida linguist M. J. Hardman tells us, “language is inseparable from humanity and follows us in all our works. Language is the instrument with which we form thought and feeling, mood, aspiration, will and act[ion], the instrument by whose means we influence and are influenced.”

So as the Summit wears on, note how often you hear the word “carbon” – as in “carbon emissions,” “carbon footprint,” “carbon trading” and “decarbonization” – when the real topic is carbon dioxide, the plant-fertilizing “gas of life.” Reword the sentences using carbon dioxide, and ponder how they are trying to deceive you, scare you about manmade climate cataclysms, convince you to eliminate 80% of the energy you use, and let them control your life and living standards – while they get rich and powerful.

These word games are not like the difference between saying a flower is “pretty” or “beautiful.” They are intentional distortions used to drive their anti-fossil fuel agenda. We must call them on it every time.

About the Author: Tom Harris

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition.

About the Author: Dr. Jay Lehr

Dr. Jay Lehr is The Heartland Institute’s Science Director. At AFEC, he moderated the conference panel “Why CO2 emissions are not creating a climate crisis.”

Facebook Flags, Censors NPR Report on Inflated Government School Shooting Statistics

Earlier this week, NPR reported on the high number of school shootings alleged by the U.S. Department of Education. The 240 school shootings detailed in the department’s report on the 2015-2016 school year was significantly higher than other estimates. So NPR, with the assistance of the non-profit group Child Trends, began doing what good journalists do: they collected data.

Over a period of several months, they contacted every school. What NPR found was startling.

“[More] than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened,” NPR reported.

A colleague of mine, Sean Malone, shared NPR’s article—which carried the headline ”The School Shootings That Weren’t”—with a few thousand Facebook friends and followers on Tuesday.

It was flagged as spam and removed.

Facebook’s crackdown on fake news and “hate speech” has been well chronicled.

There are many reasons to be wary of such censorship: Who decides what’s true? Who decides what’s fake? Who decides what’s hateful?

What’s most troubling about this case is that it strongly suggests that Facebook is censoring information that conflicts with particular political narratives. This is dangerous.

Social media tech giants have claimed in court the right to censor users for any reason—even “on the basis of religion, or gender, or sexual preference, or physical disability, or mental disability.” During an April court hearing, attorneys for Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey assured California Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn the power would be used judiciously.

Recent events suggest otherwise.

Silicon Valley’s clumsy and partisan censorship practically invites intervention from Washington, D.C. This would be the worst case scenario.

Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone earlier this month, warned about where the slippery slope of social media censorship would take us.

[P]oliticians are more interested in using than [in] curtailing the power of these companies. The platforms, for their part, will cave rather than be regulated. The endgame here couldn’t be clearer. This is how authoritarian marriages begin, and people should be very worried.

The solution isn’t for lawmakers and Silicon Valley whiz kids to decide what speech is appropriate. The solution is for Facebook and Twitter to return to being open platforms faithful to their original visions.

(Editor’s Update: As of Friday afternoon, the NPR article was back in Sean Malone’s Facebook feed.)


The Media Lies About the Number of School Shootings in America

“One of the most heinous lies that the legacy press loves to perpetuate – the number of school shootings that have taken place in America. It’s so easy to debunk, but none of them bother to.” —Dana Loesch

EDITORS NOTE: Judicial Watch reported the following.

Most School Shootings in Federal Report Just Didn’t Happen

This is one for the annals of fake news. A federal agency is blundering around with erroneous but inflammatory data on a major topic of national contention, it gets called out by a government-supported news outlet … and it does nothing about it. Our Corruption Chronicles blog peeks into the window of this fun house.

In an amusing story, a government-funded media outlet notorious for its liberal slant found that the overwhelming majority of school shootings listed in a federal report never occurred. The embarrassing blunder involves Department of Education (DOE) figures stating that schools around the U.S. reported an alarming 235 shootings in one year.

National Public Radio (NPR) launched an investigation and actually contacted every one of the schools included in the DOE data, which was gathered by its Office for Civil Rights. The figures focus on the 2015-2016 school year and reveal that “nearly 240 schools…reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.”

Three months later, after every school was contacted by NPR, the stats changed drastically. More than two-thirds of the reported gun incidents never happened, according to the news outlet. “We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports,” the article states. “In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn’t confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn’t meet the government’s parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn’t respond to our inquiries.” A program director at the nonprofit research organization that assisted NPR in analyzing the bogus government data is quoted in the piece saying: “When we’re talking about such an important and rare event, [this] amount of data error could be very meaningful.”

Even though the DOE is the agency responsible for disseminating the erroneous information, in typical government fashion, it shrugged it off as no big deal. When asked for comment by reporters, the agency said it relies on school districts to provide accurate information. Evidently, the federal agency doesn’t bother checking data before publishing it as fact. In the meantime, the DOE has no plans to correct the errors. The article points out that the confusion comes at a time when the need for clear data on school violence has never been more pressing. Dozens of school safety measures have been enacted nationwide on the heels of high-profile school shootings in Texas and Florida and public districts are allocating large sums to boost campus security. “Our reporting highlights just how difficult it can be to track school-related shootings and how researchers, educators and policymakers are hindered by a lack of data on gun violence,” the NPR piece reads.

This is hardly an isolated incident of government inefficiency, but the seriousness of the matter should inspire the feds to provide the public—and policy makers—with accurate information. Instead, the DOE, a typical bloated agency with a $59 billion budget, passed the buck to the so-called civil rights data collection division which apparently plays fast and loose with facts. In the report with the skewed stats, schools were asked: “Has there been at least one incident at your school that involved a shooting (regardless of whether anyone was hurt)?” The DOE should have known better than to blindly publish the information. All it had to do was check out the easily available figures provided by a reputable group that maintains a reliable gun safety database. For the same school year that the DOE listed 235 shootings, the group had only 29. “There is little overlap between this list and the government’s, with only seven schools appearing on both,” the NPR story says.

Good Riddance to Obama’s Energy Mistake

In 2015, President Obama’s EPA released the final version of a rule they called the “Clean Power Plan.”

The “CPP” was a wrong-headed mistake, guaranteed to make American power more expensive while not meaningfully cleaning anything.

EPA is now working to rectify Obama’s CPP and has unveiled a replacement called the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule.

In promulgating the CPP, EPA indulged in severe bureaucratic overreach when it went beyond the authority granted it under the Clean Air Act and issued its infamous “endangerment finding,” through which it labeled CO2, the essential gas you just exhaled, a “pollutant.”

A Manhattan Institute study found that EPA overestimated the benefits of Obama’s CPP and underestimated its costs.  In reality there is no meaningful benefit at all. The CPP would lower world temperature only 0.01 degrees Celsius by 2100 if EPA’s choice of climate modeling is accurate. Of course, such models never are!

Obama’s CPP was so egregious that no less than 27 states filed suit to block it, along with a host of others.  Even the generally reluctant Supreme Court weighed in and granted a nationwide “stay” blocking the CPP from taking effect!

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce posted seven ways they find the Affordable Clean Energy Rule to be better than Obama’s plan:

  • EPA doesn’t stray beyond the bounds of the Clean Air Act
  • States are truly in the driver’s seat
  • “Flexibility” isn’t just a tag line
  • New source review is addressed
  • Useful life considerations for coal plants are permitted
  • Emissions will continue to decline
  • Vastly improved regulatory process

The Chamber is correct that the Trump Administration’s new rule is a major improvement over Obama’s CPP. However, we believe EPA should go further and admit that its economy-wrecking CO2 “endangerment finding” was also in error, and then scrap that too!

The CPP recklessly limited America’s energy mix in ways certain to hurt consumers and industry.  CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen explains at The Hill:

Having diversified sources of power — natural gas, coal, nuclear, oil, hydroelectric and other renewables — has enabled the U.S. economy to avoid the perils of being overly dependent on one source of electricity. The CPP, by pushing utilities to shutter coal-fired power plants, seriously undermined that diversification and threatened the reliability of the grid.

EPA’s new approach empowers energy companies to use technology to solve America’s energy challenges. That’s the kind of challenge the American economy is geared to meet.

China now emits more CO2 than the U.S. and E.U. combined, while America has led the world in reducing emissions as a result of its shale energy revolution.  Over the last two years China claimed to be reducing emissions for climate policy.  That was a lie.  Chinese emissions peaked when its economy temporarily declined.  Satellite images revealed: that as soon as its economy picked back up, China went right back to building new coal plants.  Chinese coal use is set to increase four percent right away.

Restricting American coal, while China and India and others expand their use of it as quickly as their economies allow, is foolish — unless you think shifting even more manufacturing from the U.S. to Asia is a good thing.

EPA is doing the right thing by replacing Obama’s ill-conceived “Clean Power Plan” with a smarter “Affordable Clean Energy” rule.  While not perfect and improvements can still be made, it is clearly a step in the right direction.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fracking helped make the US the world’s oil king

THC Found in Breast Milk Six Days After Marijuana Use

Marijuana study raises concerns about THC in breast milk up to six days after use

A new study from researchers at the University of California, San Diego, finds THC is present in breast milk for up to six days after nursing mothers use marijuana. This is worrisome because THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, may harm the developing brain of newborns, potentially resulting in lifelong problems that otherwise would not occur.

The study involved 50 nursing mothers who were using pot and submitted breast milk samples to researchers. The researchers found that THC remained in breast milk for up to six days after marijuana use in 34 of 54 samples. Both THC and CBD were found in five samples.

The study also presents an overview of what is known about how marijuana affects unborn and newborn babies and why its findings are important.

“Given ethical concerns, there are no randomized controlled trials on the effect of marijuana use by pregnant and lactating women,” the researchers say. And the results of other kinds of studies must be viewed with caution given the presence of confounding factors. But enough about THC’s effect on the fetus and newborns is known from animal and epidemiological studies, they say, to counsel women against marijuana use during pregnancy and while breastfeeding.

A new American Academy of Pediatrics report encourages women not to use marijuana while pregnant or breastfeeding. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists gives similar advice.

Read USA Today story here. Read Pediatrics article here.

Inside the weird and wild crusade for clean pot

The marijuana industry is a vast, toxic, and largely unregulated market – can a corporate exec and a drug dealer make it any safer?

Reporters will do anything for a story. This one found herself barreling down a California freeway at 80 mph in a driving rain with a drug dealer named Ziggy at the wheel snorting cocaine.

Ziggy, pictured above, and his partner, described as a corporate executive, started a marijuana distribution business after California legalized the drug in 2016. Their goal? To ensure the pot they distributed to dispensaries was free of contaminants.

It didn’t end well. Today, the two business partners speak to each other through their lawyers. But their story of how contaminated California pot is turns out to be as hair-raising as the drive the reporter risked her life to get.

Figuring out what the rules should be to prevent impurities from contaminating pot is nearly impossible. There are no national standards like there are for food crops. “And unfortunately, pretty much all of the marijuana in the United States is drenched in harmful chemicals,” she writes. “But let’s just say that if you like pot, you have absolutely exposed yourself to chemicals that can damage your central nervous system, mess with your hormones and give you cancer. There are toxicants in our vape pens, in our fancy prepackaged edibles and in the soil and water near many marijuana farms.”

This story will interest anyone concerned about contaminated pot.

Read Rolling Stone article here.

Marijuana growers stare down costly, burgeoning regulations

Meanwhile, marijuana growers complain about tougher regulations states are enacting to protect individuals and the environment.

  • “Massachusetts put in place strict energy regulations earlier this year pertaining to cultivation lighting that growers ‘are figuring out how to comply with.’
  • “In Colorado, cultivators now face mandatory pesticide testing.
  • “In Oregon, growers must prove they have a legal source of water. Stricter water requirements are increasing in markets across the country.
  • “In Boulder, Colorado, marijuana facilities must report energy use and offset their consumption by installing a renewable-energy facility, participating in a verified solar garden or paying into a city fund.”

It’s difficult to take such complaints seriously when pot czars are investing millions of dollars in a marijuana industry predicted to make billions.

Read MJBizDaily story here.

When Are the NFL Players Going to Stand Up for True Social Change? [+Video]

As we approach a new season of pro football, the league and its players have yet again proven incapable of coming up with an effective response that addresses the issue of the players engaging in various levels of protests when the national anthem is played before the game.

In PR we often say that if you are explaining your actions, then you are losing the argument. The league and its players seem to be stuck on their “intent,” not on how their actions are being received by the viewing public.

They both “claim” their “intent” is to bring attention to the issue of social justice, though no one has defined what that means. So, President Donald Trump has adroitly defined the issue for them as anti-American and disrespectful to U.S. servicemen.

Whatever the league and player’s “intent” was, the public is saying that they don’t support their actions and this dichotomy is causing fans of the sport to turn away in large numbers.

Before I go any further, let me establish a simple fact that most people never bring into this conversation: NFL players are nothing more than employees. Yes, they are highly-paid, but nonetheless, they are employees.

The NFL players sign the back of the paycheck, not the front. Their employers have every right to tell them how they must behave at their place of employment: the football field.

When I worked in corporate America, I had to wear a suit and tie; this was non-negotiable. Yes, I had every right to go to my boss and tell him that requiring a Black man to wear a suit and tie was racist; and he had every right to fire me, if I didn’t follow his workplace rules.

Likewise, athletes have a right to kneel or stay in the locker room during the playing of our national anthem; but the owners have the right to take some type of disciplinary action, as well.

I often say, “Weak people take strong positions on weak issues.”

What does kneeling have to do with police brutality or other “social injustice,” the stated reasons these protests began? Their message has been drowned out by the by how most Americans have interpreted their actions as being anti-American and disrespectful to U.S. servicemen.

Again, it doesn’t matter what the players’ think or their what their intentions are, this is how their message is being received. The players and the league have let their emotions and egos get in the way of their objective.

I agree 100 percent with Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott when he says, “I never protest.”

Here’s what Prescott said when he was asked about the protest over police brutality in the NFL:

“I never protest during the anthem, and I don’t think that’s the time or the venue to do so. The game of football has always brought me such peace and I think it does the same for a lot of people—a lot of people playing the game, a lot of people watching the game, a lot of people who have any impact of the the game. So, when you bring such controversy to the stadium, to the field, to the game it takes away. It takes away from that, it takes away from the joy and the love that football brings a lot of people.”

Prescott continued:

“For me, I’m all about making a change and making a difference, and I think this whole kneeling and all of that was just about raising awareness and the fact that we’re still talking about social injustice years later, I think we’ve gotten to that point. I think we’ve proved, we know the social injustice, I’m up for taking the next step whatever the next step may be for action and not just kneeling. I’ve always believed standing up for what I believe in, and that’s what I’m going to continue to do.”

Prescott’s statement is one of the most concise, intelligent, and well-thought out positions I have seen on this issue; notwithstanding the sentiments of the likes of Stephen A. Smith.

I totally disagree with everything Smith has to say on this issue in regard to Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, and Prescott. Jones and Prescott are in agreement on not using the football field as a vehicle for the players’ protests.

There are 1,696 players in the NFL, if each player were to give $10,000 annually to a non-partisan political action committee (PAC), they would have $16,900,000 per year available for political contribution for candidates running for school board, city council, mayor, state representative, state senator, U.S. representative, U.S. senate, and U.S. president.

The average NFL player makes over $ 2 million per year, so $10,000 is nothing, if players truly want to make a difference in society.

They could use this money to support candidates who share their world view and thereby make laws that support their view of the world.

This would be a lot more substantive then simply kneeling and angering half the country.

Energy Conferees Shut Down Fuel Economy Mandates as Costly to Consumers

NEW ORLEANS—Sterling Burnett doesn’t always want to sit next to someone he doesn’t know on a train, plane, or bus.

But he’s willing to fight for the freedom of those same strangers when it comes time for them to purchase a motor vehicle.

“What I care about is … your freedom to choose the vehicle of your choice,” Burnett, an environmental policy expert for the Heartland Institute, said during a panel discussion at the free-market think tank’s America First Energy Conference that took a critical look at fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

“I don’t think government should be in the business of deciding the characteristics of the vehicle you drive,” Burnett said of the so-called Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. “That’s what CAFE standards do. Automobility is a form of freedom.”

Burnett, a senior fellow on environmental policy at the Heartland Institute, a nonprofit research and education organization based in Illinois, espoused the virtues of automotive freedom:

I take the train, I enjoy the train, and we all fly. And I take buses. But sometimes that’s not my alternative and quite frankly, I don’t always want to sit next to strangers. And maybe I want to listen to a particular kind of music or a news program, and I don’t want plugs in my ears.

When I used to commute to work, I enjoyed my time in the car because it was my time and it wasn’t dominated by work. Cars allow [you] to have the freedom to live outside of inner cities, and to visit distant relatives whenever you want. One hundred years ago, you couldn’t do this.

‘Victory for Consumer Choice’

Congress first enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards in 1975 in response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973 that limited gasoline supplies and drove up prices. The idea was to reduce American dependence on foreign oil.

The latest version of CAFE and emissions standards for light-duty vehicles is called SAFE, an acronym for Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.

The Trump administration has proposed a rule change that is a joint initiative of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The two agencies are seeking public comment on regulatory options, according to a press release, “including a preferred alternative that locks in [model year] 2020 standards through 2026, providing a much-needed time-out from further, costly increases.”

Nick Loris, an economist with The Heritage Foundation who focuses on energy, environmental, and regulatory issues, credits the Trump administration with moving forward with a proposal that he sees as beneficial to consumers.

“Without a doubt, the Trump administration’s recent proposal is a welcome victory for consumer choice, but also for people who are just concerned about the upfront costs of new cars and new trucks,” Loris said during the panel discussion at the Heartland Institute conference.

“It would be nice if Congress demonstrated similar fortitude and recognized that energy use mandates for vehicles, for dishwashers, and [for] clocks on microwaves are all unnecessary and repealed these standards, but I think that’s wishful thinking.”

Challenging California

The Trump administration’s preferred alternative “reflects a balance of safety, economics, technology, fuel conservation, and pollution reduction” and is expected to reduce road fatalities and injuries, the EPA and highway safety agency say in the press release.

The rule change begins a process to create a new, 50-state standard for fuel economy and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions for cars and light trucks with the model years 2021 through 2026.

The Obama administration permitted California to set its own auto emissions standards under a federal waiver, but the Trump administration could seek to eliminate the waiver as part of the change.

Twelve states concentrated in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest follow California’s lead with stricter emissions standards, as does the District of Columbia.

The Obama administration worked with state officials in California to set fuel efficiency standards, a key component of Barack Obama’s efforts as president to address climate change.

If the Trump administration proposal is implemented, California and the 12 other states would need to observe the new federal rules on emissions.

 ‘Relics of the Past’

Loris, the Heritage economist, described energy use mandates and CAFE standards as “relics of the past” and byproducts of “politically concocted problems” that put energy consumers at a disadvantage.

Loris said he sees a “systemic problem” in how politicians, pundits, and lobbyists view energy markets.

“The inability of the federal government and regulators to predict what’s going to happen in energy markets” often leads to counterproductive regulatory policies, he said.

For instance, Loris noted, predictions about the price of oil tend to be off the mark.

For a 2008 article, The Wall Street Journal asked “a wide range of economists, energy analysts, and other experts to predict what the price of oil would be at the end of year,” Loris recalled.

Their predictions ranged from a low of $70 per barrel to a high of $167.50. The actual price: $44.60.

Sam Kazman, a panelist who is a lawyer with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, discussed a legal victory he secured on behalf of the Washington-based free-market public policy organization.

A federal appeals court ruled that federal transportation officials illegally concealed how fuel-efficiency standards jeopardized public safety on the highways.

The court found that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration illegally tried “to paper over” the safety issue through a combination of “fudged analysis,” “statistical legerdemain,” “lame claims,” and “specious arguments.”

Keeping Costs Down

Kazman expressed disappointment that avowed consumer-safety champions such as former presidential candidate Ralph Nader didn’t support the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s position against the fuel-efficiency standards.

But to improve public safety through CAFE standards requires officials to “get rid of a government program, rather than expanding it,” he said.

With the proposed rule change, Trump administration officials say they anticipate consumers will experience reduced costs and improved safety.

“The current standards have been a factor in the rising cost of new automobiles to an average of $35,000 or more—out of reach for many American families,” the EPA’s release says, adding:

Indeed, compared to the preferred alternative in the proposal, keeping in place the standards finalized in 2012 would add $2,340 to the cost of owning a new car, and impose more than $500 billion in societal costs on the U.S. economy over the next 50 years.

Officials also point to a study earlier this year by the highway safety agency that found newer vehicles are safer than older vehicles now on the road, and their wider use would result in fewer fatalities and injuries.

“What the Trump administration has done is stunning,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said during another panel examining the administration’s progress on energy policy.

“They have kicked California out of setting the CAFE standard,” Ebell said. “They have done everything right, and it is great for consumer choice.”


Portrait of Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney

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

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of A woman pumping gas at a station in Falls Church, Virginia December 16, 2014. Photo by REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque.

VIDEO: Democrat Socialism, the global ‘overpopulation’ myth and Hollywood propaganda.

If you like films by Marvel you may have seen “Avengers: Infinity War.” It is Hollywood’s latest effort to promote a myth that has existed for decades.

The myth: The world is becoming overpopulated and something must be radically done to reduce the numbers of people, in order to save the world.

The theme of the film “Avengers: Infinity War” is the universe is becoming overpopulated and therefore half of the population must be eliminated in order to save the universe.

Watch this video analysis of “Avengers: Infinity War” by Foundation for Economic Education:

Former Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson said,

“The hungry world cannot be fed until and unless the growth of its resources and the growth of its population come into balance. Each man and woman – and each nation – must make decisions of conscience and policy in the face of this great problem.”

E.O. Wilson, American biologist, theorist, naturalist and author, wrote:

“The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a fragile theoretical construct.”

Kenneth Ewart Boulding, an English-born American economist, educator, peace activist, and interdisciplinary philosopher, wrote:

“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.”

How have so many politicians, intellectuals and scientists get this issue so very wrong?

Answer: Socialist ideology. Socialist regimes have historically been the largest mass murderers in human history.

In 1966 Planned Parenthood gave one of its first Margaret Sanger Awards to President Lyndon Baines Johnson, for “his vigorous and farsighted leadership in bringing the United States government to enunciate and implement an affirmative, effective population policy at home and abroad”

In an August 3, 2016 Washington Post column titled “Remembering the biggest mass murder in the history of the world” Ilya Somin wrote:

Who was the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world? Most people probably assume that the answer is Adolf Hitler, architect of the Holocaust. Others might guess Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who may indeed have managed to kill even more innocent people than Hitler did, many of them as part of a terror famine that likely took more lives than the Holocaust. But both Hitler and Stalin were outdone by Mao Zedong. From 1958 to 1962, his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people – easily making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded.

Historian Frank Dikötter, author of the important book Mao’s Great Famine recently published an article in History Today, summarizing what happened:

Mao thought that he could catapult his country past its competitors by herding villagers across the country into giant people’s communes. In pursuit of a utopian paradise, everything was collectivised. People had their work, homes, land, belongings and livelihoods taken from them. In collective canteens, food, distributed by the spoonful according to merit, became a weapon used to force people to follow the party’s every dictate. As incentives to work were removed, coercion and violence were used instead to compel famished farmers to perform labour on poorly planned irrigation projects while fields were neglected.

A catastrophe of gargantuan proportions ensued. Extrapolating from published population statistics, historians have speculated that tens of millions of people died of starvation. But the true dimensions of what happened are only now coming to light thanks to the meticulous reports the party itself compiled during the famine….

What comes out of this massive and detailed dossier is a tale of horror in which Mao emerges as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, responsible for the deaths of at least 45 million people between 1958 and 1962. It is not merely the extent of the catastrophe that dwarfs earlier estimates, but also the manner in which many people died: between two and three million victims were tortured to death or summarily killed, often for the slightest infraction. When a boy stole a handful of grain in a Hunan village, local boss Xiong Dechang forced his father to bury him alive. The father died of grief a few days later. The case of Wang Ziyou was reported to the central leadership: one of his ears was chopped off, his legs were tied with iron wire, a ten kilogram stone was dropped on his back and then he was branded with a sizzling tool – punishment for digging up a potato.

The rise of socialism in America will inevitably lead to mass murder in the name of population control.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Diego Piñeros Garcia/Flicker.

Environmental Activists Ignore The Strong Case For Offshore Oil Drilling

By David Mica

While environmental activists continue to push the same weak claims for opposing offshore energy exploration and production despite successful operations elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, there are 56,000 reasons why Florida should open its waters to exploration.

That’s the number of high-paying Florida jobs Florida could see by 2035 if it embraces its offshore opportunities. And the benefits don’t stop there. In addition to jobs, additional offshore oil and gas production could positively impact:

National security: Why depend on foreign, often hostile, sources of energy when we have the potential to secure our own resources here at home?

Exports: With abundant domestic energy resources, the U.S. can be the world’s energy leader, creating jobs at home and enhancing security for our allies abroad. Win-win.

Increased Safety: Offshore operations today are safer than ever before. Since 2010, more than 100 standards have been created or strengthened, including for improved safety and environmental management, well design, blowout prevention, and spill response.

Price at the pump: Every barrel of oil we produce domestically adds stability to the global oil supply, putting downward pressure on prices. As the third largest consumer of motor fuels in the U.S., Florida benefits from greater domestic energy production and has the potential to significantly contribute to it as well.

Environmental Protection: Florida has received more than $908 million in federal funding over the past five decades to conserve our precious natural and historic treasures. That funding comes from oil and natural gas revenues. We can safely produce energy and use the revenues for important environmental conservation throughout the state. Another win-win.

Hurricane disruptions: Everyone in Florida knows the potential damage hurricanes can have on daily life and livelihoods. Further diversification of the nationwide energy infrastructure network would help prevent disruptions to gasoline supply after storms.

Energy conservation: Greater use of natural gas for electricity generation has helped drive U.S. carbon emissions to 25-year lows. Florida is on the front lines of this exciting trend, generating more than 60 percent of its electricity from clean, affordable natural gas and demonstrating that energy production and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive.

Florida’s Tourism Economy: Decades of experience in the Gulf of Mexico confirm that energy development can safely coexist with fishing and tourism, as state officials with firsthand experience enthusiastically attest.

The facts support taking advantage of Florida’s offshore energy resources. Florida families and businesses already benefit from offshore energy exploration — from the sidelines. By getting in the game, we can grow our economy and be part of making the nation more energy secure.


David Mica is the Executive Director of the Florida American Petroleum Institute.


The Benefits of U.S. Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development in the Eastern Gulf

How Do You Tell If The Earth’s Climate System “Is Warming”?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act. The Revolutionary Act has no financial or other affiliation with API.

Welfare Spending Did Not Decrease Poverty, Capitalism Did

Last September, I shared some very encouraging data showing how extreme poverty dramatically has declined in the developing world.

And I noted that this progress happened during a time when the “Washington Consensus” was resulting in “neoliberal” policies (meaning “classical liberal“) in those nations (confirmed by data from Economic Freedom of the World).

In other words, pro-market policies were the recipe for poverty reduction, not foreign aid or big government.

Sadly, the Washington Consensus has been supplanted. Bureaucracies such as the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development are now pushing a statist agenda based on the bizarre theory that higher taxes and more spending somehow produce prosperity.

To add insult to injury, some people now want to rewrite history and argue that free markets don’t deserve credit for the poverty reduction that already has occurred.

Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, writing for Our World in Data, wants readers to conclude that redistribution programs deserve credit.

…the share of people living in extreme poverty around the world has fallen continuously over the last two centuries. …many often say that globalization in the form of “free-market capitalism” is the main force to be thanked for such remarkable historical achievement. …this focus on “free-market capitalism” alone is misguided. …Governments around the world have dramatically increased their potential to collect revenues in order to redistribute resources through social transfers… The reach of governments has grown substantially over the last century: the share of total output that governments control is much larger today than a century ago.

And for evidence, Mr. Ortiz-Ospina included this chart.

shared a version of this data back in June, asserting that the explosion of social welfare spending made this “the western world’s most depressing chart.”

So does Ortiz-Ospina have a compelling argument? Does poverty go down as welfare spending goes up?

Nope. Johan Norberg points out that there is a gaping flaw in this argument. An enormous, gigantic hole.

Wow. This isn’t just a flaw. It’s malpractice. It’s absurd to argue that welfare spending in developed nations somehow led to poverty reduction in developing countries.

I hope Mr. Ortiz-Ospina is just an inexperienced intern because if he really understands the data, one might be forced to conclude that he’s dishonest.

But let’s set that issue aside. Johan closes his video by explaining that poverty in rich nations declined before modern welfare states. I want to expand on that point.

Johan cited Martin Ravallion, so I tracked down his work. And here’s the chart he put together, which I’ve modified to show (outlined in red) that extreme poverty basically disappeared between 1820 and 1930.

And guess what?

That was the period when there was no welfare state. Not only is that apparent from Our World in Data, it’s also what we see in Vito Tanzi’s numbers.

Here’s Tanzi’s table, which I first shared five years ago. And I’ve circled in red the 1880-1930 data to underscore that there was virtually no redistribution during the years poverty was declining.

The bottom line is that poverty in the western world fell during the period of small government. Yet some people want to put the cart before the horse. They’re making the absurd argument that post-1950s welfare spending somehow reduced poverty before the 1930s.

That’s as absurd as Paul Krugman blaming a 2008 recession in Estonia on spending cuts that took place in 2009.

P.S. For those who want U.S.-specific data, it’s worth noting that dramatic reductions in American poverty all occurred before Washington launched the so-called “War on Poverty.”

Reprinted from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

Shhhhh!!! Global temperatures were warmer last summer, and summer before that

Summer is the season where temperatures have historically hovered around a comfortable 70 degrees most days while occasionally reaching a slightly warm 80 degrees. Perhaps the Deep South would rarely reach 85 degrees in during a historic heatwave before global warming. But now summers are hot – real hot. And global warming is to blame. At least that is the message conveyed by the establishment media, trying to reprogram impressionable readers and viewers into believing this summer marks the beginning of a global warming apocalypse.

Here are just a few of the recent headlines:

“Our climate plans are in pieces as killer summer shreds records,” screams an Aug. 5 CNN headline.

“Scorching Summer in Europe Signals Long-Term Climate Changes,” claims an Aug. 4 New York Times headline.

“Climate change is supercharging a hot and dangerous summer,” warns a July 26 Washington Post headline.

“Record-breaking heat and fires are worsened by climate change,” lectures a July 28 CBS News headline.

And then there is our personal favorite, “Global heat, fires and floods: How much did climate change fuel that hellish July?” asks the July 31 USA Today. (If you can’t guess what USA Today’s answer is, you need an extreme intervention.)

Science is the enemy of global warming alarmists. And objective scientific data is that enemy on steroids. Let’s take a look at what the scientific data reveal:


The above chart represents global temperatures as measured by NASA satellite instruments. Global temperatures were warmer last year (including last summer) and the year before that in comparison to 2018 and this summer. Each year there are regional differences that make some areas of the globe warmer than others.

It turns out that temperatures this summer happen to be regionally warmer among the population centers of North America and Europe. As a result, even as global temperatures are lower this year and lower this summer than the past two years and summers, the media can take advantage of regional variances to mislead people in America and Europe into believing summertime temperatures this year illustrate record-breaking, global warming-infused heat. And, of course, the media conveniently fail to mention that 2017 and 2016 summer temperatures in American population centers were relatively cool.

There are a couple more points about the above graph that deserve mentioning. The satellite data start in 1979, which was the end of a 30-year cooling period. As such, global temperatures would be expected to rebound from that cool period and grow warmer from 1979 through 2018. Also, the total warming during the past 40 years has been merely 0.5 degrees Celsius (approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit). That amount of warming is barely noticeable, if noticeable at all, without sensitive and precise scientific instruments taking the measurements.

When it comes to global warming, the establishment media love to hype. Summertime is a perfect time for that hype. But don’t believe the hype; believe the scientific data.

RELATED ARTICLE: California Wildfires Caused By Radical Environmentalists, Not Climate Change

Trump to California fuel standards: “You’re fired!”

Driven by Green ideology, the Obama Administration set unrealistic fuel standards (a.k.a. “CAFE” rules) for cars sold in America.

Yesterday, the Trump Administration announced it is putting a freeze on their implementation before any serious damage is done.

As recent as the Bush administration, the fuel efficiency standard was 27.5 miles per gallon. The Obama approach was set to jack up the CAFE mandate to a whopping 54.5 mpg by 2025. It was inspired by the eco-topian standards set in California and designed to force Americans to either buy electric cars or force them to drive unsafe, matchbox-sized gasoline powered ones.  Most Americans did not want to voluntarily buy either.

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler highlight exactly this point in an important editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

The 2012 standards were designed to encourage the development and sale of electric vehicles. Today electric vehicles are only about 1.5% of new vehicles sold. Some data conclude that nearly half of consumers who purchase an electric car do not buy another because of challenges with range and recharge times. Yet to meet the previous administration’s fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standards, manufacturers would have to produce vehicle lineups that are 30% electric or more over the next seven years—far more vehicles than buyers are likely to want.

Further, the effect of the last administration’s standards was to subsidize these expensive electric vehicles at the expense of affordable traditional cars and trucks. Our goal is to ensure that consumers have a variety of safe, fuel-efficient choices so they can decide for themselves which options suit them best. This includes electric vehicles, for those who want them.

The President, by putting a freeze on the Obama CAFE rule, is also ending California’s practice of using its large market power to dictate Green ideology to the rest of the nation from the Left Coast.

The framers crafted the U.S. Constitution to safeguard the rights of individuals and of the states.  At the same time they realized that there were some powers they could not entrust to the states.  The Commerce Clause was crafted specifically to prevent the states from taxing and obstructing the flow of goods across state lines.  They reserved regulation of interstate commerce to the federal government.  The federal government has since wildly expanded its Commerce Clause powers far beyond the framers intent.  California’s practice of setting national environmental policy from Sacramento in cahoots with a compliant EPA is just the sort of thing the Constitution was written specifically to prevent.

Crafting smarter fuel efficiency standards is a needed reform.

Standing up to California’s heavy-handed eco-bullying is courageous.

CFACT applauds both wise moves.