Cheating Commies and Guardian Syndrome by Max Borders

Why were the East Germans more likely to cheat?

In a recent Economist piece called “Lying Commies,” the authors report:

“Under capitalism”, ran the old Soviet-era joke, “man exploits man. Under communism it is just the opposite.” In fact new research suggests that the Soviet system inspired not just sarcasm but cheating too: in East Germany, at least, communism appears to have inculcated moral laxity.

Lars Hornuf of the University of Munich and Dan Ariely, Ximena García-Rada and Heather Mann of Duke University ran an experiment last year to test Germans’ willingness to lie for personal gain. Some 250 Berliners were randomly selected to take part in a game where they could win up to €6 ($8).

The findings?

After finishing the game, the players had to fill in a form that asked their age and the part of Germany where they had lived in different decades. The authors found that, on average, those who had East German roots cheated twice as much as those who had grown up in West Germany under capitalism. They also looked at how much time people had spent in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The longer the participants had been exposed to socialism, the greater the likelihood that they would claim improbable numbers of high rolls.

But the authors make no attempt to explain why this is so. As you can see, they write: “The study reveals nothing about the nature of the link between socialism and dishonesty.”

Might we find at least clues to an answer in the work of Jane Jacobs? Specifically, in Systems of Survival, she offers the following heuristic to show us how different people arrive at different types of moral frameworks depending on how the incentives systems are set up to benefit their survival. (I would add that these moral “syndromes” are also good psychological dispositions for shoring up hierarchies or transitioning to networks, respectively.)

                              Moral Precepts

     Guardian Syndrome      Commerce Syndrome
Shun trading

Exert prowess

Be obedient and disciplined

Adhere to tradition

Respect hierarchy

Be loyal

Take vengeance

Deceive for the sake of the task

Make rich use of leisure

Be ostentatious

Dispense largesse

Be exclusive

Show fortitude

Be fatalistic

Treasure honor

Shun force

Compete

Be efficient

Be open to inventiveness and novelty

Use initiative and enterprise

Come to voluntary agreements

Respect contracts

Dissent for the sake of the task

Be industrious

Be thrifty

Invest for productive purposes

Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens

Promote comfort and convenience

Be optimistic

Be honest

Notice anything about guardian syndrome that unpacks both the behavior of East German socialists, as well as those involved in politics and bureaucratic hierarchies in general?

MaxBordersVEsmlABOUT MAX BORDERS

Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also co-founder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

CLICHES OF PROGRESSIVISM #15 – We Are Destroying the Earth and Government Must Do Something by Sandy Ikeda

People often complain that mankind is destroying the earth: that insatiable consumption and relentless production have laid waste to irreplaceable swaths of our planet, and that these activities have to stop or someday it will all be gone.

Which raises the question: What does it means to “destroy” something?

When you burn a log, the log is destroyed, but heat, light, smoke, and ashes are created. It’s in that sense that physics tells us that matter is neither created nor destroyed.  Similarly, cutting down a forest destroys the forest, but in its place are houses and furniture and suburbs.

The real question is: Is it worth it?

What people usually mean when they say mankind is destroying the earth is that human action causes a change they don’t like. It sounds odd to say that my wife, by eating a piece of toast for breakfast, is “destroying” the toast. But if I wanted that toast for myself, I might well regard her action as destructive. It’s the same action, but the interpretation depends on purpose and context.

When a missile obliterates a building and kills the people in it, it may serve a political purpose, even though the friends and family of those killed and the owners of the building are harmed. The perpetrator’s gain is the victim’s loss. In the political realm, one person’s gain is necessarily another person’s loss. You rob Peter to pay Paul; you kill Jack to appease Jill. It’s a “zero-sum game.”

In the economic realm, however, a thing is destroyed to the extent that it loses its usefulness to somebody for doing something. Someone may want to bulldoze my lovely home just for fun. If she pays me enough I may let her do it and be glad she did. When not physically coerced, a trade won’t happen unless each side expects to gain. If it does happen, and if the people who traded are right, then all do in fact gain. Each is better off than before. The trade has created something: value. If they are wrong, they destroy value and suffer a loss, which gives them an incentive to avoid making mistakes.

In free markets, gains manifest themselves in profit, either monetary or psychic. (In the short run, of course, you can sustain a monetary loss if you think there’s a worthwhile non-monetary aspect to the trade that will preserve the profit.) Now, the free market is not perfect, despite what some economics professors say about the benefits of so-called “perfect competition.” People don’t have complete or perfect knowledge and so they make mistakes. They trade when they shouldn’t, or they don’t trade when they should. Fortunately, profits and losses serve as feedback to guide their decisions.

There’s another source of market imperfection. People may be capable of making good decisions but they don’t trade, or trade too much, because the property rights to the things they would like to trade aren’t well-defined or aren’t effectively enforced. In such cases their actions or in actions create costs they don’t bear or benefits they don’t receive. The result is that their decisions end up destroying value.

If I free-ride off the ocean—if, for example, I don’t pay for dumping garbage into it—then the ocean will become more polluted than it should be. If there is a cleaner, more efficient source of energy than fossil fuels, but no one can profitably use it because the State prevents anyone from doing so (for example by prohibitions or excessive taxation), then the value that would have been created will never appear.

Our aesthetic sense is part of what makes us human. If we wish to protect a lake or a valley from development because we think it beautiful, how do we do that?

To some extent it’s possible to do what the Nature Conservancy does and purchase the land that we want to protect. But that’s not always possible, especially when the land is controlled not by private persons but by the State, which makes special deals with crony capitalists in so-called public-private developments. In any case, even the free market is not perfect. Economic development and material well-being mean that some beautiful landscapes and irreplaceable resources will be changed in ways not everyone will approve of.

Remember, though, that economics teaches us that an action is always taken by someone for something. There are no disembodied costs, benefits, or values. In a world of scarcity, John believes saving rainforests is more important than saving the whales. Mary believes the opposite. If we are to get past disagreements on aesthetics—essentially differences of opinion—that can turn into violent conflict, we need to find some way to settle our differences peacefully, some way to transform them into value-creating interactions.

Imperfect though it may be, the free market has so far been the most effective method we know of for doing that.

Sandy Ikeda
Associate Professor of Economics
Purchase College, SUNY

Summary

  • Physics teaches us that matter is not really destroyed but rather transformed, so the ever-present question is, “Is it worth it?”
  • Market transactions transform resources, as well as ownership of them, and if enhanced value doesn’t result from those transactions, the resulting losses tend to minimize future mistakes.
  • For further information, see:

“Government Versus the Environment” by Russell Madden: http://tinyurl.com/ndc96h2

“The Problem of Environmental Protection” by Dwight R. Lee: http://tinyurl.com/nub9uet

“Economists and Scarcity” by Steven Horwitz: http://tinyurl.com/mztsuf4

“Remembering Julian Simon” by Paul Cleveland and Erin Hagert: http://tinyurl.com/ngchvyo

ABOUT SANDY IKEDA

Sandy Ikeda is an associate professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism. He will be speaking at the FEE summer seminars “People Aren’t Pawns” and “Are Markets Just?

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government.

Our society is inundated with half-truths and misconceptions about the economy in general and free enterprise in particular. The “Clichés of Progressivism” series is meant to equip students with the arguments necessary to inform debate and correct the record where bias and errors abound.

The antecedents to this collection are two classic FEE publications that YAF helped distribute in the past: Clichés of Politics, published in 1994, and the more influential Clichés of Socialism, which made its first appearance in 1962. Indeed, this new collection will contain a number of essays from those two earlier works, updated for the present day where necessary. Other entries first appeared in some version in FEE’s journal, The Freeman. Still others are brand new, never having appeared in print anywhere. They will be published weekly on the websites of both YAF and FEE: www.yaf.org and www.FEE.org until the series runs its course. A book will then be released in 2015 featuring the best of the essays, and will be widely distributed in schools and on college campuses.

See the index of the published chapters here.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

A Great Plan to Replace the EPA

For years now I have been saying that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be eliminated and its powers given to the fifty states, all of which,have their own departments of environmental protection. Until now, however, there has been no plan put forth to do so.

Dr. Jay Lehr has done just that and his plan no doubt will be sent to the members of Congress and the state governors. Titled “Replacing the Environmental Protection Agency” it should be read by everyone who, like Dr. Lehr, has concluded that the EPA was a good idea when it was introduced in 1971, but has since evolved into a rogue agency threatening the U.S. economy, attacking the fundamental concept of private property, and the lives of all Americans in countless and costly ways.

AA - Jay Lehr

Dr. Jay Lehr

Dr. Lehr is the Science Director and Senior Fellow of The Heartland Institute, for whom I am a policy adviser. He is a leading authority on groundwater hydrology and the author of more than 500 magazine and journal articles, and 30 books. He has testified before Congress on more than three dozen occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the federal government and with many foreign countries. The Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organizations supported by voluntary contributions.

Ironically, he was among the scientists who called for the creation of the EPA and served on many of the then-new agency’s advisory councils. Over the course of its first ten years, he helped write a significant number of legislative bills to create a safety net for the environment.

As he notes in his plan, “Beginning around 1981, liberal activist groups recognized EPA could be used to advance their political agenda by regulating virtually all human activities regardless of their impact on the environment. Politicians recognized they could win votes by posing as protectors of the public health and wildlife. Industries saw a way to use regulations to handicap competitors or help themselves to public subsidies. Since that time, not a single environmental law or regulation has passed that benefited either the environment or society.”

“The takeover of EPA and all of its activities by liberal activists was slow and methodical over the past 30 years. Today, EPA is all but a wholly owned subsidiary of liberal activist groups. Its rules account for about half of the nearly $2 trillion a year cost of complying with all national regulations in the U.S. President Barack Obama is using it to circumvent Congress to impose regulations on the energy sector that will cause prices to ‘skyrocket.’ It is a rogue agency.”

Dr. Lehr says that “Incremental reform of EPA is simply not an option.” He’s right.

“I have come to believe that the national EPA must be systematically dismantled and replaced by a Committee of the Whole of the 50 state environmental protection agencies. Those agencies in nearly all cases long ago took over primary responsibility for the implementation of environmental laws passed by Congress (or simply handed down by EPA as fiat rulings without congressional vote or oversight.”

Looking back over the years, Dr. Lehr notes that “The initial laws I helped write have become increasingly draconian, yet they have not benefited our environment or the health of our citizens. Instead they suppress our economy and the right of our citizens to make an honest living. It seems to me, and to others, that this is actually the intention of those in EPA and in Congress who want to see government power expanded without regard to whether it is needed to protect the environment or public health.”

Eliminating the EPA would provide a major savings by eliminating 80% of its budget. The remaining 20% could be used to run its research labs and administer the Committee of the Whole of the 50 state environmental agencies. “The Committee would determine which regulations are actually mandated in law by Congress and which were established by EPA without congressional approval.”

Dr. Lehr estimates the EPA’s federal budget would be reduced from $8.2 billion to $2 billion. Staffing would be reduced from more than 15,000 to 300 and that staff would serve in a new national EPA headquarters he recommends be “located centrally in Topeka, Kansas, to allow the closest contact with the individual states.” The staff would consist of six delegate-employees from each of the 50 states.”

“Most states,” says Dr. Lehr, “will enthusiastically embrace this plan, as their opposition to EPA’s ‘regulatory train wreck’ grows and since it gives them the autonomy and authority they were promised when EPA was first created and the funding to carry it out.”

The EPA was a good idea when it was created, the nation’s air and water needed to be cleaned, but they have been at this point. Since then, the utterly bogus “global warming”, now called “climate change”, has been used to justify a torrent of EPA regulations. The science the EPA cites as justification is equally tainted and often kept secret from the public.

“It’s time for the national EPA to go,” says Dr. Lehr and I most emphatically agree. “All that is missing is the political will.”

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLE: Fight Heats Up Over EPA Sabotage of Alaska Gold Mine

Planned Parenthood’s War on Women: Counselor Tells Teen to Let Her Boyfriend Beat Her

LifeNews.com reports:

Abortion activists claim pro-lifers are engaging in a “war on women:” by passing legislation to protect women and unborn children from abortion. But a new expose’ video catches a Planned Parenthood staffer engaging in her own war on women.

The pro-life group Live Action released the third installment today in its “SexEd” investigative series, showing a Planned Parenthood staffer in Portland, Oregon offering disturbing sex counseling to someone she thinks is a fifteen-year-old girl. The video clearly shows the counselor encouraging the young girl to allow herself to be victimized in violent sexual encounters with her partner.

The staffer tells the investigator that “it’s very common to experiment with different things,” including “being tied up” and “whipped” and “the baby thing, where they will put on diapers[.]”

Some girls like being “spanked,” “hit,” or “whipped,” said the counselor.

Watch the video interview with a Planned Parenthood counselor (WARING: This material is not suitable for children. Viewer discretion is advised):

Read more.

The Portland video is the third in a series. Previous SexEd installments showed Planned Parenthood locations in Indianapolis and Denver offering similarly disturbing advice to investigators posing as minor girls. Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, under whose jurisdiction the Denver facilities lie, is now being sued for sending a 13-year-old abuse victim back to her abuser after aborting her baby.

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled! Geologist Debunks NOAA Climate Report Point-By-Point

dr-don-easterbrook-mugGeologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books, including “Evidence Based Climate Science,” issued a point-by-point rebuttal to the new NOAA climate report and the media articles surrounding it.

Live Science: ‘Climate Records Shattered in 2013’ – By Becky Oskin, Senior Writer | LiveScience.com – July 18, 2014 – “The climate is changing more rapidly in today’s world than at any time in modern civilization,” said Thomas Karl, director of NOAA. (NOAA State Of The Climate In 2013: ‘Our Planet Is Becoming A Warmer Place’)

Climate Claim:

“The planet ranged well outside of normal levels in 2013, hitting new records for greenhouse gases.”

Dr. Easterbrook comment: 

“NOT TRUE–CO2 levels for the past 500 million years were consistently greater than 3,000 ppm. 400ppm is abnormally low.

[Climate Depot Related LinksCO2 at 400ppm: ‘Scientists note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 famine‘ and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000 ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels’ – And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded — without any human influence — 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm.]

Climate Claim:

“The levels of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii hit 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 2013. The worldwide average reached 395.3 ppm, a 2.8 ppm increase from 2012, NOAA reports. (Parts per million denotes the volume of a gas in the air; in this case, for every 1 million air molecules, 400 are carbon dioxide.)”

Dr. Easterbrook comment:

“The CO2 composition of the atmosphere changed by only 0.004% since the onset of recent global warming (1978-2000).”

Climate Claim:

“The major greenhouse gases all reached new record high values in 2013,” said Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist with ERT, Inc., and a NOAA contractor who helped write the report.

Dr. Easterbrook comment:

“So what? If you double nothing (0.004%), you still have nothing!”

Climate Claim:

“Rising sea levels. Sea level continued rising: Boosted by warm Pacific Ocean temperatures (which causes water to expand) and melting ice sheets, sea level rose 0.15 inches (3.8 millimeters), on par with the long-term trend of 0.13 inches (3.2 mm) per year over the past 20 years.”

Dr. Easterbrook:

“NOT TRUE–rates of sea level rise have declined slightly and are about 1.7 mmyr. Sea level has been rising at a relatively constant rate of only ~7 inches per century–that’s 3 1/2 inches in the next 50 years.

Related Links: New paper finds global sea level rise has decelerated 31% since 2002 along with the ‘pause’ of global warming – Published in Nature Climate Change

Latest NOAA mean sea level trend data through 2013 confirms lack of sea level rise acceleration

New paper finds sea level rise has decelerated 44% since 2004 to only 7 inches per century – Published in Global and Planetary Change

Global sea level rise from tide gauges (1.6 mm/year) is half of that claimed from satellites (3.2 mm/year). Which is right? – ‘There is no acceleration of the increase’ – [Climate Depot Note: According to tide gauges, Sea Level is rising LESS than the thickness of one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny (1.52 mm thick) a year. According to satellite info it is rising slightly more than two pennies a year (3.04 mm)]

New study finds sea levels rising only 7 in. per century – with no acceleration

Climate Claim:

“The climate is changing more rapidly in today’s world than at any time in modern civilization,”

Dr. Easterbrook comment:

NOT TRUE–Except for the Little Ice Age, all of the past 10,000 years has been 2.5 to 5.5 F warmer than today including much more intense periods of warming. It was warmer and climate changed more rapidly than in recent years during the Medieval Warm Period, as well as during half a dozen other warm periods.

Related Links:  New Paper: Roman & Medieval Warm Periods Were Warmer Than Previously Thought – ‘A paper published in Nature Climate Change finds prior temperature reconstructions from tree-rings ‘may underestimate pre-instrumental [pre-1850] temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.’ Many reconstructions show temperatures during the Medieval and Roman periods were warmer than the present, and this study suggests they were even warmer than previously thought’

‘More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’

Climate Claim:

“Most parts of the planet experienced above-average annual temperatures in 2013, NOAA officials said. Australia experienced its warmest year on record, while Argentina had its second warmest and New Zealand its third warmest.”

Dr. Easterbrook comment:

“But only by massive tampering with temp records.”

Related Links: Global Temperature Standstill Lengthens: No global warming for 17 years 10 months – Since Sept. 1996 (214 months)

Climate Claim:

“There was a new high-temperature record set at the South Pole, of minus 53 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 47 degrees Celsius).”

Dr. Easterbrook comment:

– 53 degrees F? “That must have caused a lot of ‘melting’!”

Climate Claim:

“Antarctic sea ice hit another record high: On October 1, Antarctic sea ice covered 7.56 million square miles (19.5 million square kilometers). This beats the old record set in 2012 by 0.7 percent. However, even though the Antarctic sea ice is growing, the continent’s land-based glaciers continued to melt and shrink.”

Dr. Easterbrook comment:

“NOT TRUE–total Antarctic ice is increasing.  There is NO melting of the East Antarctic ice sheet which contains more than 90% of Antarctic ice.”

Related linksEarth’s All Time Record High Temp Set in 1913 — Earth’s All Time Record Low Set in 2010 & 2nd All Time Record Low Set in 2013 — ‘What would warmists say if the dates were reversed?’

New paper finds East Antarctic ice sheet will have negative contribution to sea levels over next 200 years – Published The Cryosphere – Paper ‘studies one of the largest ice shelves in East Antarctica and predicts increased accumulation of ice on the surface of the ice shelf will have a net contribution of decreasing sea levels over the 21st and 22nd centuries. 

Oops. New Study finds West Antarctic Ice Sheet outlet glacier being melted by magma – not CO2 global warming after all – Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Climate alarmists make major blunder in reporting Antarctica ice loss results: ‘Total ice loss from latest study is ‘consistent’ with, not ‘double’ prior study measurements’

Climate Claim:

“Arctic sea ice low: The Arctic sea ice extent was the sixth lowest since satellite observations began in 1979. The sea ice extent is declining by about 14 percent per decade.”

Dr. Easterbrook comment:

“Not this past year–it is rebounding.”

Climate Claim:

“Arctic heat, Temperatures over land are rising faster in the Arctic than in other regions of the planet. Fairbanks, Alaska, had a record 36 days with temperatures at 80 degrees Fahrenheit (27 degrees Celsius) or warmer. However, Greenland had a cooler than average summer.”

Dr. Easterbrook comment:

“NOT TRUE–the 1920s and 1930s were warmer in the Arctic than now. This can be claimed only by tampering with past records.”

Climate Claim:

“Melting permafrost: For the second year in a row, record high temperatures were measured in permafrost on the North Slope of Alaska and in the Brooks Range.”

Dr. Easterbrook comment:

“A weather condition brought about by recent shift in the jet stream that produced record-breaking cold in the US.”

Related LinksAlaska Dispatch Dec. 2012: ‘In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state (Alaska) cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit’

New paper finds 4 Alaskan glaciers are about the same size as during the Medieval Warm Period

Alaskan Villages Have Been Sinking Into Permafrost For 70 Years

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: Arctic surface temperature anomalies in the 1930’s were as large as the recent temperature anomalies.’

Arctic ‘sea ice extent has varied naturally over the decades with some Russian data suggesting similar or even greater ice loss in some local areas in the 1930s’ – Analysis of Arctic ice: ‘Russian data shows that the [Arctic] ice was just as thin in 1940 as it is now. Models did not predict the record amount of Antarctic sea ice’  

Arctic Study Countered: ‘Studies have found that Arctic temperatures have fluctuated, and are now around the same level as they were in the mid-1930s’ – ‘Scientist Igor Polyakov of the International Arctic Research Center at the U. of Alaska, Fairbanks tracked Arctic temp records from latter part of 19th century until current decade, and found that 1930s marked the warmest time during that period’

Climate Claim:

“Extreme weather: Deadly Super Typhoon Haiyan had the highest wind speed ever recorded for a tropical cyclone, with one-minute sustained winds reaching 196 mph (315 km/h). Flooding in central Europe caused billions of dollars in damage and killed 24 people.

Dr. Easterbrook comment:

“This is weather, not climate!”

Related Links: UN Climate Summit Rejects Its Own Science – Links Typhoon Haiyan to Global Warming – UN Summit Degenerates Into Unscientific Claims to Advance Political Agenda – Climate Depot Special Report

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue demolishes claims that Typhoon Haiyan was ‘strongest storm ever’ – ‘Fact: Haiyan is 58th Super Typhoon since 1950 to reach central pressure of 900 mb or lower from historical records’ — Maue: ’50 of 58 Super Typhoons with pressure of 900 mb or lower occurred from 1950-1987 — only 8 in past 25 years’

Strongest storm ever? ‘Haiyan ranks at number 7 among the strongest storms ever to have hit the Philippines’

Extreme Weather: “It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Professor Roger Pielke Jr. said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Hurricanes: ‘Hurricanes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage in the U.S. since 1900.

Tornadoes: Tornadoes and tropical cyclones have also not become more intense or frequent since 1950 and 1970, respectfully.

Floods & Droughts: U.S. floods have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1950, according to Professor Roger Pielke Jr., and droughts have become shorter, less frequent, and smaller over the last century. Globally, floods have changed very little in the last 60 years.

Climate Claim:

“The ocean surface continues to warm.”

Four independent data-sets show that for surface ocean temperatures, last year was among the 10 warmest years on record. The North Pacific set a new record.

Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball comment:

“The data prior to the satellite data is extremely questionable. For example, there is the difference in results by water temperatures taken by dipping, leather, wooden and metal buckets. Even the first couple of years of the satellite data was problematic as they got results that were some times 6°C warmer than ocean “ground-truthing” results.  As I recall the major problem was in estimating the effect of particulates in the atmosphere. There was also an issue with the effects of measuring the surface molecular layer from which molecules are constantly escaping in the evaporative cooling process. Then there is question of how much SST data is available through cloud cover?

So, at best we can consider satellite data from 1970. As Don Easterbrook and others note, hardly a significant length in temperatures that can cycle over hundreds and even thousands of years, caused by either solar input changes or circulations within the oceans. Somebody once said economists are trying to predict the tide by measuring one wave. Climate scientists are much worse. Despite all this it is the headline from NOOA’s Karl that will dominate the news and remain in the public mind.”

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer comments:

“2014 is not quite as warm as the last time we were ramping into El Nino conditions (2009):

Satellite microwave SST anomalies (global) since mid-2002, updated through mid-July 2014.

Satellite microwave SST anomalies (global) since mid-2002, updated through mid-July 2014.

The Nemesis of Agenda21

Watching left-wing organizations lose their wits denouncing conservatives is always fun and particularly if you know one of their targets. In my case, that would be Tom DeWeese, the founder and president of the American Policy Center; the most expert and outspoken opponent of Agenda21 in the nation.

In the early 1990s I sent him a commentary and he published it in The DeWeese Report, a publication of the Center, and thereafter I served as the Center’s communications director for a while. These days I am on its board of advisors.

AA - Agenda21 - One World OrderHe is a patriot and he lives his love for America by devoting himself to educating people to the dangers of the United Nations Agenda 21 with its emphasis on “sustainable development” and a range of issues involving ill-conceived environmental policies and programs, the importance of private property rights, the threat of federal computer banks to individual privacy rights, as well as issues such as federal education policies in our nation’s schools.

At the heart of Agenda21 is “sustainable development” which is justified by the global warming hoax that is based on reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called greenhouse gases. The Earth’s temperature and climate is determined by the sun. The gases of its atmosphere are in flux as oceans absorb and release CO2, and clouds come and go in a constant dynamic of change. What mankind does has virtually no impact on the weather short-term or the climate long-term.

“Sustainable Development”, Tom wrote in “How Global Policy Becomes Local”, “is truly stunning in its magnitude to transform the world into feudal-like governance by make nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. It is a scheme fueled by unsound science and discredited economics that can only lead modern society down the road to a new Dark Age.”

“It is systematically implemented through the creation of non-elected visioning boards and planning commissions. There is no place in the Sustainable world for individual thought, private property or free enterprise. It is the exact opposite of the free society envisioned by this nation’s founders.”

I told you he was a patriot, didn’t I? Because only patriots feel that passionately about individual freedom, property rights, free enterprise, and all those concepts that make Leftists break out in a cold sweat.

Among the left-wing groups that do not like Tom is the Southern Poverty Law Center and it devotes a lot of time denouncing him. On their website, the SPLC reveals its own agenda and why Tom is the enemy. “For 20 years now, Tom DeWeese has been on a jihad against global plans for sustainable development.” The key word here is “global” as in U.N., not U.S.

Imagine my surprise as I read the SPLC post that said, “Serving on the board of DeWeese’s American Policy Center (is) Alan Caruba” and noting that I blog for the Tea Party Nation. I contribute to their blog section, but I do not blog for the group. It should come as no surprise that the SPLC identifies Tea Party Nation as “a hate group.” It’s a pretty good description of the SPLC!

“DeWeese’s outfit,” says the SPLC denunciation, “is only one of several obsessed with what has become one of the main conspiracy theories of the antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement.” What’s amusing is the backhanded way SPLC acknowledged his success. “The effect of the fear-mongering fairy tale offered up by DeWeese and other conspiracy theorists have been almost unbelievable. Not only have some counties passed resolutions opposing Agenda21” including the Republican National Committee” in 2012.

DeWeese offers advice to those who visit the APC site on how to stop Agenda21.

If “fear-mongering” includes pointing out that the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for the last seventeen years and that wind and solar power is an illusion costing far more than the value of the electricity it produces, then the SPLC has plenty to worry about.

America is fortunate to have patriots like Tom DeWeese who take its Constitution and its values so seriously that they devote their lives to protecting them.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLE: Pew poll suggests U.S. leads the world in climate change denial

Meteorologists and “climate scientists” — Who are you going to trust?

We’ve all seen polls of professions that enjoy high credibility with the public – nurses, medical doctors, pharmacists and engineers top the list. At the bottom are car salesmen, Congressmen, advertising people, and stockbrokers. I used to believe that scientists had high credibility. Unfortunately, the group that call themselves “climate scientists” are destroying that credibility, for all scientists. They’re doing it so quickly I can hardly keep up.

There are three examples of reasons for skepticism:

  1. The expensive computer climate models that have cost – literally – billions of dollars to develop have proven to be worthless. They’ve forecast continuous warming for decades, starting in the late 1970’s. But there has been no measurable global warming for the last 17 years, and the count continues, while carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to increase. The physics incorporated in these models is, ipse facto, invalid. That’s the Scientific Method; every hypothesis is tested against an experiment. The hypothesis said global temperature would increase, due to increasing atmospheric CO2. Nope! The “science” in “climate science” doesn’t work. But a recent article in last week’s Wall Street Journal (Confessions of a Computer Modeler, 8 July) also demonstrates that computer models can easily be manipulated to produce any answer wanted. Robert Caprara wrote computerized environmental models for the Environmental Protection Agency. His advice: be skeptical, especially if you’re hearing only one side of the argument. You want “warming”? Twiddle this parameter.
  2. Now another perversion of science – as in “climate science” – has come along, in the form of fraudulent “peer review.” The Wall Street Journal (14 July) and other publications report that SAGE Publishers is retracting 60 articles from the Journal of Vibration and Control after an investigation revealed a “peer review and citation ring.” “It was discovered that the author had created various aliases on SAGE Track, providing different email addresses to set up more than one account. Consequently, SAGE scrutinized further the coauthors of and reviewers selected for Peter Chen’s papers, [and] these names appear to form part of a peer review ring.” In November 2009, just before the Copenhagen IPCC Meeting, there was a major disclosure of emails to and from Hadley Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, called “ClimateGate.” In it, in a July 8, 2004 email, one scientist assured another that the hypothesis they shared would prevail “even if we have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is!” Perversion of the peer review process has been a problem in “climate science” for a long time.
  3. That’s bad enough, and now a new problem has come to light. Multiple authors now claim that NOAA, and especially NASA, have been changing observations of temperature over many years – warming temperatures from recent years, and cooling temperatures from years before the 1980’s back to the 1940’s.
Illtempadjusts

U.S. Historical Climate Network data. For a larger view click on the graph.

Here’s an example from a leading claimant, Steven Goddard:

“NCDC is doing some impressive adjusting in President Obama’s home state, turning a measured cooling trend into a fake warming trend – by adjusting the data upwards at a spectacular three degrees per century.”

NCDC is the National Climatic Data Center; the data shown is from the US Historical Climate Network. Numerous other authors, after some initial questioning of Goddard’s methods, now agree that the “adjustments” being made are excessive, one sided, and cumulatively in the direction of an apparent “global warming.”

Let’s understand that adjustments to the raw data – the on-the-spot observation of temperature, mostly highly automated – are necessary. That’s because, over many years, our weather observing network has become surrounded by cities and major airports. A study conducted by Anthony Watts and a group of volunteers found that 90% of NOAA weather stations don’t meet NOAA standards for an observing site. You can read Watts’ report on the weather stations they investigated at. Perhaps the worst is the site now located in the parking lot of the University of Phoenix. The standard requires the observing site to be on a natural grass surface, several yards away from buildings or any source of heat. We have observing sites located next to a brick building, next to the outflow from the building air conditioner. At airports, we have observing sites out by the runway, where they get a blast of jet exhaust every few minutes. Those are the gross problems, but the whole phenomenon goes by the moniker of “urban heat island (UHI).” Concrete, asphalt, and brick buildings store heat during the day, and release it during the night; multi-story building air conditioners, cars, buses, pump heat into the urban air.

Remember, we’re trying to rely on data, with a precision of a few tenths of a degree, from this Historical Climate Network to make major policy decisions that will affect – and perhaps seriously damage – our economy for years to come. In addition, the USA, as a major financial supporter of the Third World, controls access to fossil fuel electricity generation in large parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa. Such distortion of scientific fact dooms millions of poor African people to continuing poverty, hardship, and a shorter life span. Serious stuff.

So, it’s time to seriously rip those liars at NOAA and NCDC, right? Well, maybe not. NOAA is a Federal bureaucracy, and is subject to some amount of political pressure. I’d like to give NOAA some credit for trying to overcome the handicaps they have to deal with; the Urban Heat Island distortion of the data is serious. They have made a commendable effort to overcome it; it’s called the Climate Reference Network (USCRN). NOAA has completed a triply-redundant, pristine, state-of-the-art climate network nationwide that doesn’t require the adjustments and corrections that confuse older measurements. Here’s the network – you can read documentation and results here.

crn_map

For a larger view click on the map.

There are 114 locations in the continental U.S., with 10 more in Alaska and Hawaii (see map on the right). As you see, there are five in or on the borders of Florida; all are completely automated, in pristine locations, but close enough to existing stations to be easily compared. Credit to NOAA; this is as good as it gets, and this network has been in operation for 10 years now. So, you ask, what does the data show? Glad you asked!

uscrn_avg_temp_jan2004-april2014

For a larger view click on the chart.

I’ve deliberately left off any trend line. The chart on the left is the U.S. temperature anomaly (the difference from average) over the last ten years, January 2005 to April 2014, plotted by NOAA. Sometimes the US average temperature is 4 C above normal (even around February 2012). Sometimes average U.S. temperature is below normal (such as around February 2010). See a trend? Neither do I. It’s weather. Kudos to NOAA for creating such a highly accurate network and to NCDC for putting the data out there. Hmmm, I wonder if Barack knows? It puts the lie to his assertions about climate change.

Medium-range forecast:

Earlier this year, it was expected an El Nino was developing in the Pacific Ocean. In such a situation, the tropical Western Pacific warms, the warming moves east, the storm track into the US drops south, the Santa Monica Pier gets wiped out, California and Arizona and New Mexico and west Texas and Florida get rain.

That forecast was wrong. The El Nino seems to be failing. Unfortunately, the failure of that warm, wet regime makes the long-range forecast worse.

WINTER1415

For a larger view click on the image.

The conditions – mostly oceanic temperatures – that brought the U.S. the “polar vortex” last year are still in place. The Midwest is having a taste of polar vortex this week; Chicago is enjoying the coolth, and there will be remarks about the cool weather at the All-Star baseball game this evening in Minneapolis. It won’t be so enjoyable next December-January-February. Like to see a picture? This chart (right) is from the Icecap.us website, but the proprietor, Joe D’Aleo, is a principal in Weatherbell.com.

You’re seeing a preview of the information he sells to major companies. Doesn’t look good for Florida oranges.

Think I’ll tell Cousin Gwen in Columbus to hunker down. Meanwhile, Obama’s EPA is shutting down coal-fired electricity generating plants in….yes, you guessed it….Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky. Those coal plants were essential in meeting crunch-time electricity needs last Winter. Expect some Barack Blackouts in January.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pew poll suggests U.S. leads the world in climate change denial
EPA Goes Overboard on Greenhouse Gas Overreach, Supreme Court Rules

Colorado Expert: Florida on the path to legalizing recreational pot

Marijuana policy expert joins the growing Don’t Let Florida Go to Pot coalition.

A Colorado expert who helped state officials there develop regulations after voters approved legalized marijuana is warning Floridians that they too could be on the path to legalizing recreational use of the drug if they support Amendment 2 in November, which would authorize marijuana under the guise of medicine.

Colorado made history in 2012 by becoming the first state to legalize recreational use of marijuana. But the story actually began 14 years earlier, when voters passed a constitutional amendment approving marijuana as a compassionate solution for desperately ill patients that led to massive fraud and abuse, said attorney Rachel O’Bryan, who was appointed to work on marijuana regulatory issues by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. O’Bryan now serves as spokesperson for Smart Colorado, a non-profit group, formed in 2013, dedicated to minimizing the negative consequences of legalizing pot in that state and especially its impact on youth.

After Colorado voters legalized marijuana as “medicine,” they saw how easy the drug was to obtain and how widely it was being used for recreational—rather than medicinal—purposes. So two years ago, they voted to totally legalize pot for anyone 21 or older as a way to bring back honesty to the state’s marijuana laws, O’Bryan said. She suggested that Floridians educate themselves on Colorado’s experience with legalizing marijuana, because the Sunshine State is on a very similar path.

“In November, Florida voters will be faced with a choice of legalizing marijuana for medical use. Voters should ask themselves now whether they want commercialized, recreational marijuana use legalized in Florida, because that is the direction Florida is headed with Amendment 2,” O’Bryan said.

O’Bryan spoke Wednesday during a news conference at the Florida Press Center in Tallahassee, where she was joined by Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger and representatives of the Don’t Let Florida Go to Pot coalition. O’Bryan announced that she is joining the growing coalition, which provides information to Floridians about the social, educational and health consequences of legalizing marijuana use.

“Rachel O’Bryan has witnessed firsthand what happened after Colorado voters legalized marijuana under the guise of medicine, and she has been in the trenches assisting her state in grappling with the many negative implications from that decision,” Sheriff Eslinger said. “The lessons she brings from Colorado are critical for Floridians to understand in order to make their own informed choices.”

O’Bryan pointed out that Florida’s Amendment 2 contains three “fatal flaws” that mimic problems with Colorado’s law that legalized marijuana under the guise of medicine—and that ultimately opened the door to legalizing recreational use of pot in that state.

First, Florida’s Amendment 2 allows for any medical condition to qualify for marijuana treatment by defining a “debilitating medical condition” as one that includes “other conditions for which a physician believes the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient.” The likely result of this open-ended language is that individuals will use marijuana recreationally, despite the amendment’s stated intent not to allow this, O’Bryan said.

Colorado’s amendment legalizing marijuana as so-called medicine did the same thing by stating broadly that pot could be used to treat “severe pain.” As a result, Colorado’s patient registry statistics show that only one percent of patients use marijuana to treat HIV, AIDS, or glaucoma; only two percent list seizures; only three percent list cancer; while 94 percent list “severe pain,” a highly subjective, unverifiable condition.

Second, Florida’s Amendment 2 allows “medical” marijuana treatment centers to develop food products, even though most other types of medicines are not imbedded in food. These food products make it easier to discreetly consume marijuana, even on school property or at work. Colorado’s amendment legalizing marijuana as “medicine” also allowed food products. Today in Colorado, marijuana is infused in brownies, soda, breakfast cereals, cookies and snacks, cooking oil and salad dressings. Some “medical” marijuana companies are even buying children’s candies like Swedish Fish or Sour Patch Kids and spraying them with marijuana oil, O’Bryan said.

Third, Florida’s Amendment 2 places no age limits on “qualifying users” and also provides for user confidentiality. Coupled together, these two provisions open the door for Florida teenagers to be able to legally obtain marijuana without their parents being notified, O’Bryan said. This has significant social and educational implications for Florida’s youth, as long-term studies have shown that weekly marijuana use before age 18 is associated with a permanent decline in IQ.

Colorado’s amendment legalizing marijuana under the guise of medicine also placed no age limits on recipients, O’Bryan noted. As a result, the state has recently seen an explosion of “medical” marijuana users who are 18 to 20 years old. The number of people in this age range has increased by more than 46 percent since the end of 2012, while the state’s total “medical” marijuana patient registry only increased to two percent. Meanwhile, the latest Healthy Kids Colorado Survey found that 52 percent of high school seniors said it is “very easy” to get marijuana; 51 percent know someone with a medical marijuana card; and more than 11 percent said they had gotten marijuana within the previous 30 days from someone with a medical marijuana card.

O’Bryan noted the ballot summaries for proposed constitutional amendments in Florida are limited to just 75 words, which is typically all that voters read. Based on her expert interpretation of Florida’s Amendment 2, she said the ballot summary could read this way:

Allows for the use of marijuana for ANY medical condition. Allows teenagers to obtain marijuana without parental notification. Allows for the development of marijuana-infused foods, including candy and snacks that appeal to children. Does not recognize private property rights of landlords or condominium associations to prohibit the use of marijuana in multi-unit dwellings. Waives a patient’s right to medical malpractice claims against their physician related to their treatment with marijuana. 

“Would Florida voters still support this amendment if they had a full and accurate summary of what the amendment does?” O’Bryan asked.

Legalizing marijuana as a so-called “medicine” has literally changed the landscape in Colorado, especially Denver. Today, there are 493 pot shops in Colorado and 195 alone in Denver, where so-called medical marijuana shops now outnumber pharmacies, liquor stores, McDonald’s and Starbucks.

“Marijuana is smelled on the street and smoked in front yards,” O’Bryan said, adding this warning: “Florida voters, you may think you won’t go as far as Colorado and Washington, but you will be one step closer.”

ABOUT DRUG FREE AMERICA FOUNDATION, INC.

Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. is a national and international drug policy organization promoting effective and sound drug policies, education and prevention. www.dfaf.org.

For more information on Drug Free America Foundation, please visit www.dfaf.org, follow us on Twitter @DrugFreeAmerica and like DFAF on Facebook.

The Don’t Let Florida Go to Pot coalition is a collective effort of more than 100 local and state organizations to educate Floridians on the dangers of marijuana. From law enforcement to substance abuse groups, the coalition is working statewide to ensure public safety and the future of our youth. 

America’s poly-drug drift to “The world’s only fully industrialized Third World Nation”

Assassin: Word History Date of Origin 17th century:

Etymologically, an assassin is an ‘eater or smoker of hashish’, the drug cannabis. Arabic for ‘hashish-eater’ .One who kills for political or religious rather than personal motives.

In 1989 Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos said, “We are in danger of becoming the world’s only fully industrialized Third World nation.” What does the ancient “assassin” etymology mean for today’s “medical marijuana” experiment, legal in fifteen states, Washington DC., and counting. I will here, patient reader, briefly tease out marijuana, pornography and sex trafficking as the industrialization of Third World religiosity.

My pot interest began in 1978, reading “Qat’s Cradle,” in Human Behavior. The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare paid two jolly UCLA researchers to live two years in the Yemen Arab Republic studying, “What would life be like in a total drug culture?” The two reported a lethargic nation that grew a single crop–marijuana/qat—and that experienced widespread malnourishment, impoverishment and infant mortality. Everyone used.

Students chew liberally …. Children chew qat starting at seven or eight years of age … women …. have their own qat parties …. taxi drivers chew ..Politicians chew with politicians; religious leaders and scholars chew with their groups. Qat chewing even plays a role in the highest government circles.

From their two year long sojourn, our happy grantees concluded Americans should emulate this drug culture for Yemenites, they said, remain part of the “world economy.” The authors note Yemenite qat chewing as 400 years old. In the 19th century a traveler tried it and wrote:

The Yamini [sic] can go or several days without food, but not a single day without qat. Men and women and children, they all use it.

So, as conservative lawyers and ministers currently argue for pot legality, kindly stay with me on this. Drug apostles, “philanthropic” millionaires like Hugh Hefner, and billionaires like Peter Lewis, George Soros and similar venture capitalists financed marijuana legalization. Remember, before victims legally exposed big tobacco’s death rates and alcohol’s drunk-driving record, both industries controlled all mainline media. These “harms” emerged only after juries awarded millions to industry/advertising victims. Anticipate similar media censorship of pot harms.

Instead of the tragic Third World history of pot, we get pricey advertorials like the feature film, “It’s Complicated” where one film critic gushed, “director Nancy Meyers, and actors Meryl Streep, Steve Martin” and Alec Baldwin deserve awards for making marijuana “acceptable” in pop culture.

Sorry. When a hot new product gets “used” in a film, that is called an “advertorial” and it used to be illegitimate. The “using” star, director, writer, etc, commonly receives mucho gold to hawk the item—especially when it is supported by billions. GQ says:

I guess it began the moment medical-marijuana advocates began equating pot with something healthful and people started actually believing them….to treat nausea and headaches….

The GQ author says making it “healthy” sold pot, since folks think it’s no “more dangerous, than a bottle of spirulina…” Huffington Press’s Jason Silva says the “It’s Complicated” showed “successful, cosmopolitan adults enjoying a marijuana joint with no consequences.”

Well, if Streep, Martin and Baldwin’s pot acting promo didn’t pay more than their film salary their agents should be replaced forth with. Writing as though he is stoned, Silva adds, “Our 10,000 year relationship with cannabis can now exist without shame or rebellion. There are now more marijuana dispensaries in L.A. than there are Starbucks.”

Our” 10,000 year relationship with hashish? Americans? Silva shouldn’t smoke.

Our” cannabis “relationship,” roughly 50 years, was largely among criminals and then young, “educated” spoiled sex and drug rebels (see Woodstock’s shagged out chaos).

With U.S. marijuana use declining consistently “since the mid-1990s,” pot investors needed to lunch a media weed blitzkrieg with pricey celebrities snorting, (oops toking) in feature films like, “It’s Complicated,” “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” “[C]inema’s stoned age. Films featuring characters using marijuana have mushroomed.” says The Christian Science Monitor.

Silva reports, moms are “lighting up joints in Bryn Mawr and Squirrel Hill….Just ask Lisa….who works for a financial institution.” (She handles my money?) Lisa relaxes “with a joint” at night while the kiddos sleep.

Isn’t that inspiring? However, the Judeo-Christian religious proscriptions against mind altering drugs would have allowed “Lisa” and the Bryn Mar moms those leisurely swims in their back yard pools while their Third World sisters must still haul water from the well.

Remember, generations of Third World cultures relaxed “with a joint.” Arguably these “joints,” supported by religious worldviews, have kept its people impoverished.

Until recently, alcohol, relatively costly, morally proscribed (remember prohibition?) and water-soluble was the only intoxicant readily available to the Western masses.

Odysseus reported in The Odyssey, that the land of the “Lotus Eaters” induced a timeless drugged stupor. In The War on Drugs, researcher James Inciardi writes:

[R]eferences to marijuana appear in early Persian, Hindu, Greek, Arab and Chinese writings [and] chewing of coca had already been in Inca mythology for centuries.5

Despite rich national resources, indigenous peoples; Central Mexico, Costa Rica, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Jamaica, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Fiji, etc, generally live in dire poverty with cultural acceptance of drugs always filtering down to children.

Marijuana and betel nut are common in most of Egypt and Asia. The Cree Indians tolerate harsh labor by chewing and brewing calamus or “rat root, 6 while Central Mexico to Costa Rica, hashish and thle-pela-kano (“Leaf of God”) keep the natives in bondage. Opium, heroin, hash oil and hashish are indigenously Asian. 10 Hashish controls people in North Africa, Pakistan to Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Nepal.

Nepal’s life expectancy, like other Third World countries, teeters at about 50 years of age along with its annual per capita income in 2010 of $1,250.[11]

Indigenous drugs produce poverty, early mortality and illiteracy, and largely explain what the west calls amotivational syndrome. All adult use always leaves children vulnerable to vile abuse, from entrapment into prostitution to parental sale of their children.

Globally, men increasingly promote drug use by spouse and consort to get more dangerous sex acts and to recruit and control prostitutes and now, to create pornography. Drug use is directly associated with increased rates of myriad venereal diseases including AIDS (due to promiscuity, vaginal, oral and anal sex, rape, etc), unmarried births, infanticide and abortion.

Returning to the definition of “Assassin,” survivors speaking at the Liberty University Law School symposium on Genocide and the Holocaust (February 14, 2011) described the blood curdling public massacres in Rwanda. It turns out that marijuana played a role in that wholesale slaughter. Perhaps the effects of grass, or poly drug use, is not always as “laid back” as affluent Merel Streep’s acting demonstrated.

An official report on “Six rapid assessments of alcohol and other substance use in populations displaced by conflict” identifies “alcohol, khat, benzodiazepine, opiate, and other substance use” as part of heinous massacres and “gender-based violence” in Rwanda and other warring nations:

“People who take drugs get reckless…. Alcohol and cannabis were….widely consumed by men and women of all ages…Cannabis was typically smoked….Ex-combatants and their friends are typically perceived as the main sellers and users of cannabis….to be brave and strong to fight or just to meet their everyday difficulties…to stop the bad dreams.”

Substance use….[caused] violence, particularly gender-based violence….fear of substances and crime – associated with ex-combatants – pervaded Monrovia.

In addition, combat….may promote use “to dull their fears and anxieties and to commit heinous atrocities”….[They used] opiates (mainly opium), cannabis (hashish) and tranquilisers….[Men used] hashish….tranquilisers were used by women….. one third of the women interviewed said that they knew someone who had a serious problem with hashish and gave accounts of domestic violence associated with its use.…Women….[gave] opium to children to keep them quiet….traditional and widespread.

The “Assassin” definition indicts “medical” or recreational marijuana.  Whatever, impairs the brain’s frontal “braking thermostat,” (described by neurologist Don Hilton as common to pornography users) impairs conscience and escalates abuse and gender based violence.

Still working within the “medical marijuana” paradigm, do consider the role of pornography and impotence as an unending pot gold mine. Police commonly find drugs, prostitution, and pornography together in raids. Indeed, the industrialization of Third World drugs raises the real issue of criminality associated with pornography induced impotence, child pornography and sex trafficking.

Cavazos intuited we were becoming a poly-drug nation, mixing alcohol, marijuana (exogenous drugs) and pornography (an endogenous drug). Based on the porn-drug nexus, with roughly 5,200 apparently protected Pentagon child pornography users, legal marijuana will further weaken our economy, governance and security, as officials increasingly succumb to blackmail, bribery, or even assassins, high on the thrill of killing for “political or religious” reasons.

For the nasty subtext in roughly 2 million web hits for “porn addict recovery,” is pornography’s erototoxic castration fallout. Fox news peeps at the coming issues; “Italian scientists have identified [impotence] as a worrying side-effect of watching too much pornography.”Gosh, auto-eroticism to “pictures” can deflate the male — libido? Shock! Surprise! Stunner!

Indeed, the Italian researchers say porn “can lead to a loss of libido, impotence and a notion of sex that is totally divorced from real-life relations.” (Shock again.) Their study of 28,000 Italian hunks opined porn use led to “sexual anorexia,” even by the “mid-twenties.” This suggests whatever “aids” the estimated 40% to 70% of American male porn sufferers is into castration gold—this is a failure that keeps on paying.

The takeaway here is that as Viagra’s defects emerged (headaches, heart attacks, sexual failure without the drug, etc) legal pot is moving to center stage, teasing out the marijuana-porn mix as nirvana–a smoking eros! Sample Psychology Today readers celebrating marijuana’s libido lifts as erotic gold.

“[T]he most intense sexual experiences I’ve ever had was [sic] fueled by weed, tequila and cocaine.”

“I try and get high with every girl that I’m going to have sex with.”

Once the word gets out….the conservative right will jump on the weed bandwagon and forget about Viagra….the tables are turning to grow for a profit, instead of prohibit for a profit.”

Former drug advocate, Andrew Weil, M.D. observed that “18 million American men” suffer from impotence. Well, since pornography sets millions up only to let them down, “medical” marijuana seems like the smoke whose time has come.

All things being equal, pornography stimulated impotence is the siren call to marijuana as yet another prison for eroding conscience, thus the loss of masculine agency.

REFERENCES:

[2] January 4, 1989 The Washington Times

[13] http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=13802. Family North Carolina Magazine—January/February 2009 reported, “the greatest misconception from the drug legalization community is that marijuana can treat symptoms or illnesses which themselves can be the result of marijuana use….respiratory illnesses, immune system complications, and poor mental health….increased violence, traffic accidents, drug abuse, as well as poor grades and risky sexual behavior in youth….[impacting] pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory time and perception, and coordinated movement.”2

The drug lobby knows pot is used to hook girls into sex and prostitution; that clouded pot smokers are on record as sexually abusing their own and other children, that stoned lawyers and financers lost their clients’ life savings and that some users have totaled the car and in it an entire family driving home from church.

[19] http://digg.com/news/lifestyle/Porn_can_cause_impotence. ’

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Modkraft.

World Leaders: Please Stop The Kinsey Institute

Hat tip to Dr. Judith Reisman for pointing us to the following effort to Stop the Kinsey Institute:

On April 23, 2014 the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction was granted special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC).

This decision was based in part on misleading testimony regarding the nature of their work provided by a Kinsey Institute representative to the United Nations Committee on Nongovernmental Organizations.

From their fraudulent sex research, to their collaboration with pedophiles to publish their sex experiments on children, to their promotion of risky sexual behaviors as healthy and normal, which has formed the basis of dangerous sexuality education programs worldwide, the Kinsey Institute has caused incalculable harm to children, adults and families. For this reason the UN’s decision to grant ECOSOC status to the Kinsey Institute has outraged parents, government and civic leaders, lawmakers, researchers, and victims of sexual crimes around the world who understand how harmful the Kinsey Institute’s work has been, especially for the world’s children.

The goal of the Stop Kinsey Coalition is to educate world leaders and citizens about the past and present actions, goals and aims of the Kinsey Institute, and to demonstrate why the Kinsey Institute merits condemnation and censure rather than the legitimacy, prestige and access that UN consultative status affords them and which enables them to perpetuate their harmful work on a much larger world stage.

Summary of the Kinsey Institute’s Work

For more than a half century, most developed nations have been undergoing a “sexual revolution.”  This radical shift in traditional sexual norms, values and expectations has led to the liberalization of laws regulating sexual behavior.  This in turn has caused a dramatic increase in heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity contributing to the breakdown of the family and other social problems.

Many of these dramatic changes in sexual norms and laws can be traced back to the fraudulent sex “research” and sexual ideologies of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, founder of the Kinsey Institute.  Kinsey has been called the “father of the sexual rights revolution” because many sexual rights advocacy organizations rely on his ideologies to support their positions.

The Kinsey Institute’s philosophy that “children are sexual from birth,” has been used by pedophiles to justify sexual crimes against children.  The Institute’s sexual ideologies also form the basis of harmful sex education programs commonly known as “comprehensive sexuality education (CSE).”

These CSE programs are being aggressively promoted in UN documents, meetings and reports  as the solution to many world problems, including poverty, violence against women, teen pregnancy, the AIDS pandemic, and much more.  In fact, the Bali Youth Declaration and the more recent Colombo Youth Declaration promote access to CSE as a human right and also advance many other alleged sexual rights that are based on Kinsey’s sexual philosophies.

CSE programs are mostly sexual indoctrination programs designed to liberalize the sexual attitudes of the rising generation to accept and even celebrate heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity.  CSE programs also prepare youth to become sexual rights advocates to further liberalize laws that regulate sexual behaviors in their countries.

The main organizations behind the Kinsey-based sexual rights movement and CSE programs are International Planned Parenthood (IPPF), the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), Advocates for Youth, the World Organization of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, and the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA).  More recently, UNESCO and the World Health Organization have released sexuality education guidelines heavily influenced by IPPF and SIECUS and reflecting Kinsey ideology.  The aforementioned NGO organizations, especially International Planned Parenthood, usually hide their agenda to sexualize children under euphemistic language disguised as solutions to world problems.  In addition to promoting sexual rights for children, these organizations also aggressively promote abortion and LGBT rights under the banner of “sexual and reproductive health rights” or SRHR.  Kinsey-based sexuality and sex education programs are intended to change cultures and norms in harmful ways—just as has occurred in the United States and a number of other Western countries.  One of the key methods of sexual rights advocates is to establish adolescent and child rights to confidentiality and privacy, so that they can reach them with their sexual ideologies without the knowledge or consent of parents.

We have extensively documented the harmful activities and objectives of the Kinsey Institute, IPPF, and the other sexual rights advocacy organizations that promote the Comprehensive Sexuality Education agenda in several policy briefs posted at www.StoptheKinseyInstittute.org.

Governments need to understand that the sexualization of the children in their countries leads to big profits for many of these organizations. They make billions of dollars annually by providing sexuality education (often disguised as family life skills or HIV prevention education), contraceptives, abortion, HIV and other STI testing, treatment and associated care, and much more.

With its recently granted UN ECOSOC status, the Kinsey Institute and its allies will have even more influence and greater access and prestige to advance their harmful sexual rights ideologies, especially in developing countries, unless they are exposed and stopped.

Our website has a list of questions that the Kinsey Institute should have been required to answer before ever being considered for consultative status by the UN Committee on NGOs. The Kinsey Institute should still be required by the UN to answer these questions to help expose the harmful nature of its work.  Governments can also require the Institute to answer these questions as a condition of allowing them to work in their respective countries.

Nations would do well to carefully monitor any activities of the Kinsey Institute and their allied groups in their countries.

Note: Please beware of the Kinsey Institute’s new mobile phone app called “The Kinsey Reporter,” described in detail in the policy brief on our website entitled “The Kinsey Institute Exposed.”  This app will be used to try to show widespread promiscuity in countries and use that as a basis to call for the liberalization of sex-related laws by claiming that current laws need to be updated to reflect “reality.”  More information on this phone app as well as extensive information on the problems with the Kinsey Institute can be found at in our policy brief posted at www.StoptheKinseyInstitute.org 

For more information visit our website at www.StopTheKinseyInstitute.org

Please see our summary below of the harmful nature of the Kinsey Institute’s work.  Please also visit our website to view the extensive documentation we present in our policy brief: The Kinsey Institute Exposed:  A Warning to Parents & Governments Throughout the World

Making Gay Okay — and Criticizing It Taboo: An Interview with Robert Reilly on his book on the rationalizing of homosexual behavior

Last month Robert R. Reilly published a new book “Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behaviour is Changing Everything.” “Despite its high-interest subject matter, it met with a media blackout. Neither The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal or even more conservative publications wanted to review the book – not even to tear it to shreds, as some partisan websites have done,” notes Alvino-Mario Fantini from MercatorNet.com.

making gay okIn Making Gay Okay Reilly asks, “Why are Americans being forced to consider homosexual acts as morally acceptable? Why has the US Supreme Court accepted the validity of same-sex “marriage”, which, until a decade ago, was unheard of in the history of Western or any other civilization? Where has the “gay rights” movement come from, and how has it so easily conquered America?”

The answers are in the dynamics of the rationalization of sexual misbehavior. The power of rationalization the means by which one mentally transforms wrong into right drives the gay rights movement, gives it its revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest because the security of its rationalization requires universal acceptance. In other words, we all must say that the bad is good.

Fantini interviews Reilly about his book. Fantini’s first question:

What is the connection between sexuality, contraception, and same-sex marriage?

Once you separate sex from diapers through contraception, you’re on a slippery slope. In the U.S. legal system, we went from a Supreme Court case that first allowed contraception only for married couples, to a case that then allowed contraception for all adults, to another case which legalized contraception for everyone, including minors and children. In tandem to that, in Roe v. Wade the court said: If your contraceptive has failed, you oughtn’t be penalized by the child that is then so conceived and you may, therefore, eliminate it. The capstone came with the U.S. v. Windsor decision a little more than a year ago in which the Supreme Court said that sodomy basically can serve as the basis for marriage.

Click here to read the full interview with Robert Reilly.

“Plato teaches that societies take on the features and tastes of the persons most prominent in them. Reilly shows how America’s ruling class is shaping our society according to its taste for homosexuality and its distaste for natural families. If you want to know the philosophical and legal background of the revolution that is being imposed upon America and its consequences read this book.” — Angelo M. Codevilla , PhD Professor Emeritus, Boston University; Author, The Character of Nations.

George Orwell wrote, “The more a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image titled “Unreality Balloons” is courtesy of Life Site News.

Tide Turns Against Florida Marijuana Amendment

The tide is turning against Amendment 2, which legalizes marijuana in Florida. As Floridians gain a knowledge and understanding of the impact of this initiative the more they reject it. Two recent examples provide proof that the tide is turning.

stephanieharidopolos

Dr. Stephanie Haridopolos. Photo by Tim Shortt, FLORIDA TODAY)

The first is an op-ed titled “Say no to Amendment 2” by Dr. Dr. Stephanie Haridopolos in Florida Today. Dr. Haridopolos is president of the Brevard County Medical Society and a board-certified family practitioner. Dr. Haridopolos writes, “As a mother and physician, it’s important for me to shed light on Amendment 2 and how I feel it will hurt our communities, neighbors and, most importantly, our children — just like pill mills did in the all-too-recent past. If Amendment 2 is successful, it will unquestionably act as an open invitation for disreputable pot docs to open up shop in Florida.”

“I do not know any credible physicians who would recommend smoking pot to their patients. And if it passes, the language of the amendment is so loose, it will allow marijuana to be recommended to anyone, of any age for any medical condition. It is a thinly veiled step toward the full-blown legalization of pot,” notes Dr. Haridopolos.

Dr. Haridopolos warns, “[I] believe lenient pot regulations will be exploited by financial opportunists and recreational users, as pot docs will not be required to prescribe marijuana, but only give a recommendation for it. This will allow them to avoid any legal consequences and have immunity from prosecution. Marijuana will be sold by pot shops and not in medically controlled facilities like pharmacies. Users will not be monitored by physicians after they receive the recommendation to obtain marijuana, and there will be no consumer protection when it comes to quality or dosage control. For instance, consumers could be inhaling mold and pesticides.”

The concerns of Dr. Haridopolos were echoed at a recent meeting hosted by the Florida Department of Health (DOH). John Kennedy in his Palm Beach Post article “Harsh questions make marijuana workshop not so mellow” reports, “Florida’s new medical marijuana law drew dozens of questions Monday at the state’s first workshop aimed at crafting regulations for the non-euphoric product to be available under doctors’ orders Jan. 1. But the Department of Health’s scheduled daylong hearing on implementing the new law was enough to harsh the mellow of many marijuana supporters. Lawyers, growers, pharmacists and marijuana business organizations all took shots at a wide range of provisions in the 16-page draft rule floated by the department.”

Kennedy writes, “Much of the criticism centered on how the five growing and distribution centers scattered across the state would be selected and operate. Questions about product quality, local zoning, security, and DOH’s proposal to throw the competition open to a lottery if more than one grower sought a license in a region dominated testimony from a host of speakers.”

“This is completely different from a liquor license or something like that,” said Joel Stanley of Colorado Springs, who along with his brothers, helped develop the marijuana strain called Charlotte’s Web that would be authorized under the Florida law.

Kerry Herndon, who runs nurseries in Homestead and Apopka, called the idea of deciding a grower through a lottery, “profoundly bad public policy.”

Kennedy writes, “But some advocates warned that hundreds of license applications would flood the state. Many would be solely seeking the chance of winning the lucrative prescription pot lottery with little concern for quality.”

“These are going to be huge, huge operations,” said Kim Russell, of People United for Medical Marijuana, which supports a more sweeping medical marijuana proposal that will be on the November ballot.

As reported before, Amendment 2 is written so broadly so as to legalize marijuana in Florida. The Devil is always in the details.

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED COLUMNS:

Why Florida does not need a Constitutional Amendment Legalizing Marijuana for Medical Use
Florida: Learning from Colorado’s Marijuana Experiences
Politifact: Framers of Florida’s Medical Marijuana Amendment Repeatedly Kept Language Vague
Florida Medical Marijuana Amendment: The Devil is in the Details

Local Opposition Springs Up Against Federal Water Rule

Federal regulators have stirred up a hornets nest with their proposed expansion of federal power over bodies of water.

The proposed “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) rule would expand EPA’s and the Army Corps’ of Engineers authority over bodies of water beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA). It would give federal officials more control over how farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, home builders, and local governments can use their property and subject it to new layers of costly reviews and permitting.

This threat has motivated resistance. For example, Nebraska farmers have organized in opposition:

In a show of solidarity, seven Nebraskan farm and ranch groups on Tuesday announced a coalition dubbed Common Sense Nebraska formed to fight the rule, which they called a power grab by the EPA.

“What the EPA is proposing would be very disruptive to farming and ranching,” Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation President Steve Nelson said. “What this proposal does goes well beyond what is necessary to control water quality, and it really begins to be a land control issue. It would affect every possible thing farmers and ranchers could do on the land.”

Nelson said the rule would erode local control and lead to federal regulation of everything from building fences to crop rotation to application of fertilizer and pesticides.

“We’re making a strong effort here to help people understand the best we can what the rule says and encouraging everyone to get involved here and comment on the rule,” he said.

An Arkansas county government is also resistant to the water rule:

The Baxter County Quorum Court passed a resolution Tuesday night expressing opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency and Corps of Engineers proposed rule to clarify, or according to others expand, the definition of navigable waters in the Clean Water Act.

The EPA has said that the proposed rule does not protect any new types of waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act.

“What we’re reacting to is some of the summations they’ve come up with,” Pendergrass said. “Some of the definitions are not clear.”

According to the EPA, the purpose of the rule is to provide clarity as to what “navigable waters” are.

“It’s a play on words, it’s the legal jargon that they use, and it allows them to interpret it as to what navigable waters is under the Clean Water Act,” Pendergrass said.

Pendergrass said he has not spoken to the EPA. He said that the resolution is what voices his concern and he intends to ensure federal delegation understand his position. He said he thinks several counties are releasing similar resolutions and that it’s a statewide effort.

“Because our economy is based upon the waters we have in Baxter County and surrounding areas, we’re as sensitive to environmental damage to our water as anybody,” Pendergrass said.

Opposition like this has put EPA on the defensive. It’s arguing that the proposed rule is “not a sea change” and will not force farmers to apply for federal permits to work their land. In a blog post, Nancy Stoner, EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, writes:

The proposed Waters of the U.S. rule does not regulate new types of ditches, does not regulate activities on land, and does not apply to groundwater. The proposal does not change the permitting exemption for stock ponds, does not require permits for normal farming activities like moving cattle, and does not regulate puddles.

Instead, the proposed rule “will bring clarity and consistency to the process, cutting red tape and saving money.”

However, EPA’s ambiguous language appears to leave the door wide open for a massive expansion of its regulatory authority. In her blog post, Stoner writes that the Clean Water Act [emphasis mine]

didn’t just defend the mighty Mississippi or our Great Lakes; it also protected the smaller streams and wetlands that weave together a vast, interconnected system. It recognized that healthy families and farms downstream depend on healthy headwaters upstream.

WOTUS critics fear that EPA will use this interconnectedness argument to claim authority over ditches and fields that occasionally have standing water, as Sandy Bauers of the Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

The fields on Mark Scheetz’s 22-acre family farm in West Rockhill Township, Bucks County, have ditches, which prevent soil erosion during heavy rains. Ninety percent of the time, they’re dry. But what if the EPA came in and said he couldn’t farm within 150 feet? He’d still have to maintain land he couldn’t use and pay taxes on it.

“The real concern here is that farmers won’t find out which wet spot, which pond, which gully, which ditch is considered to be a water of the U.S. until the EPA or an environmental group brings a legal action against the farmer,” said John Bell, government affairs counsel for the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. “Farmers deserve a lot more clarity than that.”

A broad coalition of agricultural, construction, manufacturing, housing, real estate, mining, and energy, groups have united to oppose this expansion of federal regulatory power. Now we see that local opposition has sprouted. They all agree that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers should “Ditch the Rule.”

Follow Sean Hackbarth on Twitter at @seanhackbarth and the U.S. Chamber at @uschamber.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by photographer: Sam Beebe/Flickr. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Delusional Stalinist “Science”

It seems appropriate to think about freedom as one aspect of Science – perhaps the most important aspect. After all, the first scientific society, the Royal Society, has as its motto: ”Nullius in Verba.” It’s part of a longer quotation from the poet Horace, saying a person need not be bound by the opinion of his/her master. A member of the Royal Society was free to disagree with the King. The Royal who gave them that charter and his patronage is the under-appreciated Charles II.

Sad to see that the present Crown Prince is the terribly misinformed son of Elizabeth II, Charles, Duke of Wales, who persists in trying to convince the government of his delusions about man-made global warming. Like our own “Constitutional Scholar in the White House” (to quote his press flack), Charles doesn’t seem to understand Britain’s (unwritten) constitution. The Royal Family is a patriotic symbol, a unifying, apolitical embodiment of Britannia, of heritage, of patriotism, of duty. Charles, in a widely reported story in the British Press, has been trying to impose ever more renewable power generation on the population, already grumbling over the cost of electricity.

lysenko

Trofim Lysenko

The so-far classic example of political interference with scientific freedom is the Soviet Union under Stalin and Khrushchev, from 1927 till 1962. Their favored “scientist” was Trofim Lysenko, a minimally educated agronomist whose denial of Mendelian genetics turned Russia and Ukraine from the Breadbasket of Europe to an importer of grain for decades. Millions of Russians went hungry and thousands died of starvation. In the process, several thousand trained biologists were fired, imprisoned, or executed. Nikolai Vavilov was disgracefully dismissed from the presidency of the Agriculture Academy in 1938 and died in prison in 1940. Before the Bolsheviks, in the early 1900’s, two Russian biologists had received Nobel prizes; Russia was not a scientific backwater during  freedom.

Darwin had hypothesized that “… in the struggle for existence, …, favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species….” It’s important to realize that Darwin had no identified mechanism by which such a variation was transmitted to offspring; Gregor Mendel’s experiments with pea plants remained unknown for decades, and Darwin’s hypothesis was widely rejected. Genes, deduced from Mendel’s data, made Darwin’s evolution mechanism feasible. The American John Hunt Morgan (Nobel laureate) identified genes in 1933 as units of chromosomes.

Marxism-Leninism, however, rejected any ideal laws that exist independently of matter; genes, God and “absolute ideas” do not exist. The ideal Soviet Man could be formed to be whatever the state wanted; a human is a tabula rasa, to be written by society. Lysenko was clever enough to offer a biological version; under Lysenko’s theory of agriculture, Southern plants could be trained to grow in the North, cows could be trained to give fatter milk, rye could be transformed into wheat and wheat into barley, and hens could lay hybrid eggs after fertilization by several roosters. Mendelian theory was just Bourgeois corruption. This was music to Stalin’s ears and to the commisars that were installed at all levels of science. The damage to Russian science persists to this day; Amazon publishes a book on the subject, and Wikipedia has lots on Lysenko.

Today, in America, we have a similar situation. An arrogant ideologue in the White House, with no scientific training, claims that man-made climate change is the greatest crisis facing humanity (not a claim by the IPCC). Those who disagree are “members of the flat Earth Society.” Before I continue my rant, let’s remember a little perspective: there has been NO global warming for 17+ years, the 100+ climate forecast models of the IPCC have all been wrong in forecasting various degrees of heating, Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels (2.3 million sq kilometers above average), severe Atlantic hurricanes are rare, tornadoes last Summer were at a record low….there’s more, but the scientific method – comparing hypothesis with experimental data – no longer matters  to Obama, as it didn’t to Stalin. The cruel irony is that American “climate scientists” did this to themselves; Russian scientists at least tried to fight back against Stalin. Let’s hope no Americans freeze this Winter due to Obama’s restrictions on energy.

Peggy Noonan has an amusing weekend column, The Daydream and the Nightmare, accompanied by a sketch of Obama (the daydream) imagining his ugly head on Mt. Rushmore (the nightmare).  Noonan marvels that any president, golfing and traveling constantly, could be so unconcerned about the complete failure of both his domestic and foreign policy endeavors; she draws the conclusion that Obama considers them successful:

“He thinks he is right about his essential policies. He is steering the world toward not relying on America. He is steering America toward greater dependence on and allegiance to government. He is creating a more Federally-controlled, Washington-centric nation that is run and organized by progressives. He thinks he’s done his work, set America on a leftward course, and though his poll numbers    are down now, History will look back on him and see him as heroic… He is Lincoln, scorned in his time… He’s waiting for History to get its act together and see his true size…”

I give Ms. Noonan a B+ for her column; she missed a lot – the appointment of John Podesta, the recent Nat’l Climate Assessment, the “Risky Business” nonsense from his stooges. Obama’s not through yet; he’s not “running out the clock” as she puts it. The final item on his agenda is much on his mind, and he mentions it every week. He’s out to destroy American industry, to “make the cost of electricity skyrocket”, as he promised to his backers early in 2008 in San Francisco. That’s what the new EPA “carbon pollution” regs are all about. Only two and a half more years to get it done. Another aspect of American exceptionalism to kill.

A few things you may not have noticed (or didn’t hear from the Mainstream Media):

Canada has finally gotten tired of waiting and has voted to build a pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia  where an ocean terminal will transfer “dirty oil sands” black gold to Asia. It will be burned there, much less cleanly than here. Goodbye, Keystone XL; goodbye, 22,000 American jobs; goodbye, energy independence.

om www.americanthinker.com]
Coal may have played an integral role in turning the U.S. into the world’s top economic superpower, but President Obama is actively pushing China, India and other emerging economies to ignore the fuel that powered the Industrial Revolution and instead embrace renewable sources favored by those on the political left.

As part of his passionate push on climate change, the president recently implored developing countries to “leapfrog” old energy sources, which are the primary drivers of carbon emissions. So far, however, there’s little evidence those countries intend to listen to Mr. Obama, with China’s coal consumption, for example, skyrocketing and projected to keep growing for the foreseeable future. The country now accounts for nearly 50 percent of all global coal consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Some energy analysts say that expecting the president’s sermon — in which he urges nations to now do as we say, not as we did for more than a century — to dramatically alter the worldwide energy landscape is a glaring example of the “dream world” that Mr. Obama and his backers in the environmental movement call home. [Honest, folks, I don’t make this stuff up. As I said,  he is delusional. But his EPA will hurt America, which is the goal.]

Antarctic sea ice is at all-time record levels, 2.3 million sq kilometers above normal.

Wait, what?! It’s collapsing any day now; we all heard that last month.

[from http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html]

“In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.”

Hmmmm. The US/NASA  just launched a new satellite, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory -2 (OCO-2). It will be very interesting to see where the major sources of carbon dioxide are. Mount Fuji? Kilauea? Will Obama order somebody to shut them down?

Numerous solar physicists, Russian and American, have pointed out that solar activity, measured by sunspots and by geomagnetic field strength measurements, is decreasing, both long term,  over several solar cycles and over the declining current cycle. Several have claimed that terrestrial temperature must soon go down, i.e., Earth cooling lies ahead in the near future. Arm waving as far as I’ve been concerned.

But an Aussie scientist, David Evans, claims to have a statistical model, based on past records of solar activity and Earth temperature. It should be released, as an Excel spreadsheet, in a few weeks. Science is based on the ability to DISPROVE a hypothesis. Evans may turn out to be wrong – like the quacks who claim CO2 controls the climate – but it’s a starting point. BTW, climate history shows that the decline into a glacial age is usually slow, over several hundred years. I’ll let you know if anything seems to verify.

International Climate Skeptics Gather in Las Vegas

From July 7th to 9th, the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change will convene in Las Vegas in a dramatic demonstration that “global warming” was a huge hoax and the claims that “climate change” is responsible for everything are a continuation of that fraud.

As a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free market think tank, I attended its first climate change conference held in New York in 2009 to dispute the “science” advancing global warming. I have been writing about the hoax that gained momentum since James Edward Hansen testified before congressional committees in 1988. From 1981 to 2013 Hansen had been the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Along with other government agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA has been producing data that routinely tampers with climate statistics to maintain the hoax that gained an international platform with the creation of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1998.

In June a Pew Research Center poll announced that 35% of Americans say there is not enough solid evidence to suggest mankind is warming the Earth while another 18% says the world has warmed due to “natural patterns” and not human activity. That’s a total of 53% who disagree with the lies about climate change being told by President Obama and a host of politicians and scientists who have received millions to maintain the hoax. The poll also noted that 40% of Americans still believe that mankind is causing the planet to warm. They likely represent the cohort that has graduated from American schools whose curriculum has taught the Al Gore version of science.

Among the participants in Heartland’s 9th conference are Habibulio Abdussamatov, a Russian astrophysicist; Sonya Boehmer-Christiansen, a research analyst from Great Britain; Fred Goldberg, an associated professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden; Madhav Khandekar, a research analyst from Environment Canada; William Kinimonth who worked with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for 38 years; and Lord Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, a chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. They will be joined by American scientists, longtime skeptics of the hoax, often called “deniers” by those advocating it.

It is doubtful that the U.S. media will give much, if any, news coverage of the conference, but the eight previous conferences have done much to debunk and dispel the deluge of lies about the Earth’s climate.

Leading Heartland has been its president, Joseph Bast, who asks “How can there be a ‘scientific consensus’ on the causes or consequences of climate change when thousands of scientists, economists, and policy experts attend conferences devoted to expressing the opposite theme, that the science is still unsettled and climate change is not a crisis?” In May Bast was joined by research scientist, Roy Spencer, in a Wall Street Journal commentary that debunked the lie that 97% of scientists support climate change, noting that “surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus.”

Heartland has been a sponsor of the Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, a rival to the UN’s IPCC that continues to issue reports filled with claims of climate-related threats to mankind. The Obama administration recently released its National Climate Assessment echoing the IPCC claims, blaming all climate events on humankind. Common sense tells us that that events like Hurricane Arthur are natural and reflect the 4.5 billion year old Earth’s ongoing and ever-changing climate cycles.

Indeed, the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for seventeen years, something the climate change advocates are calling “a pause” in their global warming claims. Unknown to most Americans is that the Earth is at the end of its 11,500 year old interglacial cycle, suggesting that we are all in for a new ice age.

The global warming/climate change hoax is rooted in the claim that “greenhouse gases”, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) has caused the warming that is not occurring. Ironically, CO2 continues to accelerate in the atmosphere and, rather than a cause for concern, represent very good news for every piece of vegetation from crops to forests as it is as vital to their existence as oxygen is for humans and all other animals. The Earth has had periods when its presence was much higher.

The conference expects to draw several hundred attendees this year, but those who want to follow its panels, lectures, and discussions can do so via the Heartland website that will live-stream them. It can be followed as well via Twitter @HeartlandInst and on Facebook at Facebook.com/Heartland using the hashtag #ICCC9. Heartland will post the sessions on its YouTube page after the conference ends.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to the skeptics who have courageously disputed the global warming/climate change hoax and to The Heartland Institute that has provided a platform for them to gather to continue their efforts to educate a public that has been deluged by a massive deception.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: Click here for videos for all eight previous International Conferences on Climate Change.