Climate models that can’t predict climate

Last week we learned that the greenhouse effect is a diminishing effect. Why, then, do we hear all these catastrophic predictions?

Climate models

These claims of CO2 leading to runaway warming and catastrophic climate change are based on speculative climate models that include additional drivers of warming to the greenhouse effect.

It’s important to keep in mind that these models often contradict each other, both in their assumptions about key elements of climate like cloud formation and the role of aerosols, and in their predictions.

Even more important, though, is that the models that include these speculative drivers of warming have a terrible track record when it comes to predicting actual climate trends.

These charts show models that are trying to predict the future. We can see that in the past these have invariably dramatically over-predicted the amount of warming that would occur as more CO2 entered the atmosphere.



Why is this? Because these aren’t just based on the greenhouse effect. They’re based on other effects that putting more CO2 might have on climate, but these are unproven and the predictions based on this understanding of climate have not come true. Predictions based on the idea that CO2 has a much bigger effect in the atmosphere than it does in the laboratory have been systematically wrong.

The temperature record

What’s actually happening? The amount of warming we have experienced is mild by historical standards and it’s manageable.

Here’s another graph of the amount of warming since 1850.


What we see is what is at least in part a natural warming trend with no dramatic temperature increase. It’s tiny compared to what we deal with on a day-to-day, location-to-location, season-to-season basis. The warming isn’t significant and it doesn’t correlate very strongly with CO2.

We can also see that the temperature today is very cold on average in terms of the history of the earth. We’re not at all in unprecedented territory temperature-wise or CO2-wise. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution has risen from .03% of the atmosphere to .04%. Historically it was 20 times that and these were very fertile periods of the earth.

That’s going to bring us to the fertilizer effect, which we’ll discuss next week.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pope Francis’s Crusade Against Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All

Film ‘Upgrade’ — The Deadly Dark Side of the coming A.I. Apocalypse

I went to see the new film “Upgrade” and came away convinced that artificial intelligence (A.I.) is both deadly and has a very dark side. Here is the official “Upgrade” trailer:

Elon Musk. Photo: Pinerest.

Three years ago Elon Musk began warning about the possibility of technology, like A.I., running amok stating,

I think human extinction will probably occur, and technology will likely play a part in this.

After watching the film, I think the creators of “Upgrade” based their script on Elon’s vision of technology, specifically A.I.

In a CNBC article titled “The ‘father of A.I’ urges humans not to fear the technology” Andrew Wong wrote:

Artificial intelligence will one day be smarter than humans, but there’s no reason to fear the technology, according to a pioneer in AI technologies.

Jurgen Schmidhuber

“I’ve been working on [AI] for several decades, since the eighties basically, and I still believe it will be possible to witness that AIs are going to be much smarter than myself, such that I can retire,” Jurgen Schmidhuber, who is now co-founder and chief scientist of AI startup NNAISENSE.

He has been dubbed as the person that robots will most likely call “father.”

But dire warnings about AI have been repeatedly sounded by Tesla’s Elon Musk, who went as far as to claim that the danger of AI far surpasses that of nuclear warheads at a conference this year.

“I’ve talked to him for hours and I’ve tried to allay his fears on that, pointing out that even once AIs are smarter than we are, at some point they are just going to lose interest (in humans),” Schmidhuber told CNBC’s Nancy Hungerford, on his conversations with Musk.

Read more.,

So who is right, Elon Musk or Jurgen Schmidhuber?

Both are correct. Jurgen’s idea that A.I.s “are going to be much smarter than myself” and Elon’s claim that the danger of A.I. far surpasses that of nuclear warheads.

In the film A.I. does replace Gray Trace (played by Logan Marshall-Green) but in a horrible way. You see Trace’s brain and his soul gradually be taken over by an implant named Stem. Stem is A.I. taken to the ultimate logical end. Implanting chips into humans in the name of progress but when the chip takes over the end comes quickly.

Stem has no moral compass, no human qualities, but Stem is on a mission. A mission to become human. To make the human smarter but to eliminate what is truly human about each and everyone of us.

The question that those involved in technology must ask themselves is not can we do it but should we do it.

The film reminded me of this Steven Spielberg quote:

“Technology can be our best friend, and technology can also be the biggest party pooper of our lives. It interrupts our own story, interrupts our ability to have a thought or a daydream, to imagine something wonderful, because we’re too busy bridging the walk from the cafeteria back to the office on the cell phone.”

I highly recommend seeing “Upgrade.” You will learn much about where A.I. is heading.


Elon Musk’s Billion-Dollar Crusade to Stop the A.I. Apocalypse

Identity Warriors Have Infiltrated the Sciences. Here’s the Damage They’re Doing.

Meet the Arnolds: Planned Parenthood’s Billionaire Benefactors

With Starbucks in hot water over its donations to Planned Parenthood, 2ndVote decided to look into other major donors to the abortionist the general public might night be aware of.

John and Laura Arnold

The Laura and John Arnold Foundation has donated almost one billion dollars to research since 2011. The organization is renowned for its focus on evidence-based solutions to public policy problems. Its grants fund projects have funded research on those suffering from mental healthbetter understanding of gun violence, and bail reform.

What’s less known is that behind the Foundation’s “evidence-based” efforts is frequently distinctly left-wing, anti-life advocacy.

For example, while the Arnolds give to both parties, John Arnold was a bundler for the 2008 Obama campaign. According to Huffington Post in 2012:

Billionaire John Arnold, a former Enron trader and his wife Laura, were slated to host in their Houston home a $10,000-ticket Obama fundraiser to feature Michelle Obama last October (the event was postponed). Arnold describes himself as a libertarian, and his wife Laura identifies as a Democrat. Still, Arnold was one of Obama’s top 2008 donors, a bundler who gave the campaign between $50,000 and $100,000. According to Huffington Post’s FundRace, he has given $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund 2012.

Both Arnolds have also contributed a few thousand each to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and hundreds of thousands to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The Arnolds have also personally donated millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood’s powerful political arm. In the past two years alone, the Arnolds contributed to the following pro-abortion entities:

Also, their foundation gave nearly $1.5 million in 2015 and 2016 to Improving Contraceptive Options Now (ICON), a research project of MRDC which explicitly focuses on funding abortion-inducing drugs and devices like the Intra-Uterine Device for teenagers.

See more of 2nd Vote’s research on which companies and non-profits are funding Planned Parenthood here.

 Help us continue providing valuable content like this by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

RELATED ARTICLE: Child Abuse Cover-Ups Haven’t Stopped Starbucks’ Funding of Planned Parenthood

New Delaware School Rule on Gender: Reg-rettable

If there’s one thing the extreme Left is afraid of, it’s engaged parents. On everything from graphic sex ed to genderless bathrooms, moms and dads are becoming a force to reckon with in cities across the country. When school districts try to slip more indoctrination into the class day, parents have been up to the challenge.

In Delaware, locals could have given lessons on holding politicians accountable when the Department of Education tried to pass a regulation that would’ve let students choose their race and gender — without ever telling parents! The idea was so outrageous that complaints poured into state offices. “Literally,” Delaware Family Policy Council President Nicole Theis told Todd Starnes last year, “if a parent affirms their child’s biological sex, and now race, they are [considered] discriminatory through policies like Regulation 225. These policies are setting parents up as… unsupportive, even abusive, if they affirm their child’s biological realities…”

By state law, Delawareans had 30 days to comment on the proposal – and more than 11,000 did! Together with the more than 8,000 petitions collected by Theis, the governor got the message. To the cheers of parents, the governor backed off in December and asked the team to reconvene in January with new recommendations. This week, almost six months later, Delaware released the fruits of those meetings, a revised Regulation 225. Unfortunately, though, it’s only mildly better.

Delaware officials have made a better effort to include parents in the gender and race changes of their kids, but it doesn’t do nearly enough to involve moms and dads. Even in this version, employees of the school or state can still have secret conversations about a student’s gender without ever calling home. The rewrite also doesn’t do a thing to address the privacy concerns of so many parents. Under this latest draft, Regulation 225 doesn’t provide any relief for kids who feel pressured to undress, shower, or share an overnight room with students of the opposite sex.

Parents in the area have done an incredible job making their voices heard — and it looks like they’ll have to keep speaking up until Delaware gets it right. The public will have another 30 days to comment on the changes, so it will be up to the state to keep the pressure on about privacy and parental rights. Based on what they’ve accomplished already, there’s plenty of reason to hope! Although the fight isn’t over (yet!), be encouraged. Your involvement does make a difference!

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Soccer Star Keeps Ultimate Goal in Mind

Day of Heroes

Speculative climate chaos v. indisputable fossil fuel benefits

By Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek.

Judge William Alsup has a BS in engineering, has written computer programs for his ham radio hobby, delves deeply into the technical aspects of numerous cases before him, and even studied other programming languages for a complex Oracle v. Google lawsuit.

As presiding judge in People of the State of California v. BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell, he insisted that the litigants present their best scientific evidence for and against the state’s assertion that fossil fuel emissions are causing dangerous climate change. Now he wants to see, not just the alleged damages from burning oil, natural gas and coal – but also the immense benefits to humanity and the people of California from using those fuels for the past 150 years and more.

Environmental and climate activists, including cities pursuing climate lawsuits against oil companies, almost never acknowledge those benefits, which are far-reaching and indisputable. We can only hope attorneys Anne Champion, Philip Curtis, Diehl Kemper, et al. and friends of the court will do justice to the many blessings attributable to our use of these once unimaginable energy resources.

For countless millennia, our ancestors struggled to survive amid deprivation and backbreaking dusk-to-dawn labor, often on the brink of starvation – with the bulk of humanity living little better than their domesticated animals. Average nasty, brutish and short life expectancy hovered in the low thirties.

But then, suddenly and miraculously, in barely two centuries, health, prosperity and longevity began to climb. First coal, then oil, then natural gas paved the way, providing the fuels for transportation, communication, refrigeration, electricity and other incredible technologies that improve, enhance, safeguard and save lives. Incomes increased eleven-fold. Mass die-offs so confidently predicted by Malthus and Ehrlich never materialized. In fact, global life spans more than doubled, and today billions of people enjoy living standards that even kings and queens could not dream of 120 years ago.

Sadly, equal numbers of people still struggle on the edge of survival. A billion and a half are still without electricity, two billion still exist on a few dollars a day, and millions still die every year from insect-borne, lung and intestinal diseases – largely because they still burn wood and dung, instead of fossil fuels.

In 1900, New York City’s 3.4 million people relied on 100,000 horses whose “tailpipes” emitted 2.5 million pounds of manure and 60,000 gallons of urine every day. Sanitation crews cleaned it up, dumped it mostly in local rivers, and hauled dead horses to rendering plants. Farmers devoted thousands of acres just to growing horse feed. Imagine what today’s 8.6 million NYC residents would require and emit.

Today, far more powerful, far less polluting, trucks, cars, buses, trains, subways and airplanes move people, food and products far more quickly and efficiently. They take us to work, school and worship services; to the grocery, bank, drug store, doctor and restaurant; to movies, picnics and sporting events. Fire trucks help us battle devastating conflagrations, and ambulances take our injured to hospitals.

All these vehicles (internal combustion and electric) exist because of, are fueled by – and travel on roadways made with fossil fuels: asphalt from oil, metal and concrete manufactured using fossil fuels.

Even electric cars require oil, gas and coal for manufacturing and recharging. Indeed, the earth-moving machines, drilling rigs and production platforms, pipelines, foundries, factories and other technologies needed to extract, process and fabricate raw materials into the world around us exist because of fossil fuels. Every bit of metal, plastic, concrete, wood, fabric and food we see results from fossil fuels. Even wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels are impossible without the fuels that California so loves to hate.

Medical devices, computers, cell phones, radios and televisions, kitchen appliances, household and office heating and air conditioning, millions of other products of every description require fossil fuels for their components, manufacturing and daily operation. The schools and research laboratories that made our amazing technologies and other advancements possible are themselves made possible by fossil fuels.

The modern agricultural equipment and practices that feed the world share the same ancestry: tractor and harvester fuel, ammonia fertilizer from natural gas, pesticides and herbicides from petrochemicals. Carbon dioxide from burning these fuels helps crop, forage, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, with less water and better resistance to droughts and diseases. Our bounteous grain and other crops mean fewer famines, except where forced starvation is used to subdue and eliminate enemies.

Indeed, between 1961 and 2011, the total monetary value of CO2 enhancement for 45 crops reached an estimated cumulative value of $3.2 trillion! Carbon dioxide’s annual enrichment value rose from $19 billion in 1961 to $140 billion in 2010. Between 2012 and 2050, these benefits will total $9.8 trillion!

Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products all have their roots in petrochemicals – as do paints, synthetic fibers and plastics. Hockey and football players are dressed head to toe in fossil-fuel-sourced materials.

High-rise office and residential buildings made possible by steel and concrete allow our cities to grow upward, instead of just outward, preserving millions of acres of wildlife habitats and scenic areas.

Then there’s electricity. Look around you, and try to imagine your life without this wondrous, pervasive energy source. Electricity was properly ranked humanity’s second most significant innovation of the past 6,000 years, after the printing press! It has created, shaped, defined and powered the modern world, and facilitated virtually every technological achievement of the past century. Electrification of nations is undeniably the world’s most significant engineering and life-enhancing achievement of the past century.

Economic growth, quality of life and longevity are directly correlated to sufficient, reliable, affordable electricity. In today’s world, nothing happens without it: communication, transportation and research; the operation of every home, office, hospital, factory and airport; refrigeration to preserve food and medicine; heating and air conditioning to save lives and enable people to survive and prosper in any climate.

Electrification will be increasingly important in the 21st century, and world electricity consumption is forecast to double within four decades, as electricity supplies an increasing share of the world’s ever-increasing energy demand. Fossil fuels will continue generating at least 75% of electricity, even in 2050.

Hydroelectric and nuclear (which radical environmentalists also despise and oppose), a bit of geothermal, and a smattering of unreliable, weather-determined wind and solar power will supply the rest. The land, resource and environmental impacts of building and operating wind and solar must also be considered.

Social media and internet search engines (to run biased searches for alarmist climate news) also depend on electricity – 91.4% of which was generated by fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro in 2016 in the USA.

Increased productivity generated by all these technologies creates the leisure time and wealth that enable everyone to enjoy evenings, weekends and holidays – and the fossil fuel transportation to go places (including to faraway, exotic locales and 5-star hotels for IPCC climate change confabs).

Finally, aside from nuclear-powered ships, our highly mechanized military gets there “the fastest with the mostest” thanks to fossil fuels, to combat terrorism and provide for our national defense.

Judge Alsup’s case is thus really about highly speculative manmade climate disasters versus indisputable fossil fuel benefits – as further documented herehereherehereherehereherehere and elsewhere. Indeed, today’s undeniable fossil fuel benefits outweigh any hypothesized climate, sea level and other costs by literally orders of magnitude: at least 50:1 to more than 200:1.

Barring major efficiency, battery storage and other technology improvements, renewable energy cannot possibly replace fossil fuels. Judge Alsup has no choice but to rule in favor of the oil company defendants … and all who rely on oil, gas and coal for the countless, life-enhancing benefits barely touched on here.

About the Authors: 

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.

Roger Bezdek

Dr. Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and President of Management Information Services, Inc., in Washington, D.C.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Hong Kong is by Arisa Chattasa@golfarisa.

Sweeping DNA Study Supports Creationism?

In May, 2018 Mark Stoeckle Senior Research Associate in the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University in New York and Dr. David Thaler Center for Molecular Life Sciences at the University of Basel in Switzerland published the results of a study in which they compared five million gene snapshots (DNA bar codes) collected from 100,000 animal species by hundreds of researchers around the world and deposited in the U.S. government-run GenBank database.

What Stoeckle and Thaler found upends evolution theory and appears to support creationism in several ways.

Stoeckle and Thaler reported:

  1. For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same.”
  2. That species with large, far-flung populations—from ants, to rats, to humans—do not become more genetically diverse over time.
  3. That nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
  4. In analyzing the bar codes, across 100,000 species, found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans.
  5. Species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between.

Elizabeth M. Economou in an article titled “New DNA Findings Raise More Questions About Theory of Evolution” reported:

“This [study’s] conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler also told AFP (Agence France-Presse), the international news agency headquartered in Paris.

“What’s astounding to me in hearing about this study is that although evolutionary science is still not totally established, it is taught as unwavering fact in grade school through college,” a mortgage professional from North Carolina told LifeZette. “I questioned evolution and defended creationism in high school and was basically mocked by teachers. Now it turns out there is so much more to learn — and each step seems to strengthen creationism’s case.”

In his 1859 book, “On the Origin of the Species,” widely considered the foundation for evolutionary biology, Charles Darwin himself wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ [structure], existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Experts see more questions ahead for those who support evolution theories.

“There’s a great danger to the evolutionary model in this study in ways they don’t quite realize yet,” Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a research biologist for Answers in Genesis, told OneNewsNow of evolutionary theorists.

It appears that science now gives greater credence to Genesis 1: 20-24,

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

The truth is being revealed.

San Diego Parents Pulling Their Kids From School Over Inappropriate Sex-Ed Curriculum

“We’re going to ask them to suspend this new curriculum because it’s not a curriculum for the adolescent brain, it’s an adult curriculum,” mom Angela Beaver says about a sex-ed curriculum in San Diego.

San Diego parents pulled their kids from school and rallied outside the district’s headquarters Tuesday, expressing anger and frustration over a sex-ed curriculum they allege is completely inappropriate for their young children.

The sixth grade curriculum includes lessons on gender identity, birth control, the stages of sex, STDs, HIV, and pregnancy. Parents are calling the material “too much, too soon” and age-inappropriate while San Diego officials defend the curriculum by arguing that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports the lesson plans, CBS News 8 reported.


“We’re going to ask them to suspend this new curriculum because it’s not a curriculum for the adolescent brain, it’s an adult curriculum,” mom Angela Beaver told CBS 8 News.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

San Diego parents also loudly rallied in February, asking the district to change its sex-ed curriculum to make it age-appropriate, but the district board did not acquiesce. Parents also began an online petition asking the school district to abandon the curriculum.

“This is absolutely appropriate for our students,” said Isabella McNeil from the San Diego Unified School District, maintaining that the parents are getting upset over material that should in fact be taught to young students.

San Diego parents can opt their child out of the sex-ed curriculum if they choose, but no substitute curriculum will be provided.

Fort Worth schools have also been reeling after a sex-ed lesson for sixth-graders entailed gender transitions and sexual fluidity, according to the Star-Telegram.

Sex-ed programs in other states have also been causing chaos. A California school district told parents in February they can’t opt their kids out of a new sex education course covering abortion, homosexuality, and transgender issues. Despite California’s 2015 Healthy Youth Act, which lets parents opt their children out of sex-ed classes, the Orange County Board of Education decided parents don’t have that right.

Delaware is considering adopting a policy allowing young school students to choose whatever name, gender, or race they want under a veil of school protection mandating the parents not be informed of these decisions unless the student explicitly wishes the parent be included.


Grace Carr


Grace Carr is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email The featured image is by dolgachov/Getty Images.

VIDEO INTERVIEW: Tesla Autopilot Crash Survivor Shares His Story

Teslanomics published this video interview stating:

Tesla Autopilot crashes are in the news every day lately. In this episode, I chat w/ YouYou Xue who recently crashed in his Model 3 while on his world tour.

Starbucks on Shaky Grounds with Planned Parenthood

Your tax dollars aren’t the only thing supporting Planned Parenthood — proceeds from your daily coffee may be too! By now, Starbucks’s grande agenda on social issues isn’t a surprise to anyone, except maybe its CEO. Yesterday, in an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, Kevin Johnson seemed completely oblivious to Starbucks’s ongoing relationship with the abortion giant through its matching gift program.

For Johnson, it’s been a rocky few months at the head of one of America’s biggest brands. After an embarrassing scandal in Philadelphia, when a local employee had two African Americans arrested for sitting in their shop, the damage control was in full swing. Starbucks announced it was closing its 8,000 stores to have a “racial-bias education day” for its army of employees. But, our friend Alveda King says the company will have to do a lot more than that to end Starbucks’s bigotry. In an op-ed that’s gone viral, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. insists racism has been part of the company’s corporate identity long before the PR nightmare in April. She writes,

“Through its corporate donations, Starbucks contributes one of the most racist organizations in our nation’s history. Planned Parenthood, the largest single provider of abortions in the U.S., performs more than 300,000 terminations each year. Planned Parenthood operates the nation’s largest chain of abortion facilities, and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. About 13 percent of American women are black, but they have more than 35 percent of the abortions.”

Of course, conservatives have known about Starbucks’s ultra-liberal ties dating back to 2012, when then-CEO Howard Schultz told shareholders that redefining marriage really is “core to the Starbucks brand.” The company went on to sign a string of legal briefs for same-sex marriage, arguing at one point that customers who didn’t like it could take their business elsewhere. Some did. Others broke their Starbucks habit two years ago when 2nd Vote released a list of more than three dozen companies who’ve been contributing to Planned Parenthood — either directly or through an employee matching gift program. Apart from the more than half-billion dollar haul from U.S. taxpayers, the group was raking in some hefty financial support from household names like Johnson & Johnson, Levi Strauss, Microsoft, Nike, Pepsi, Tostitos, and more.

After intense public pressure, at least five of those brands dropped their partnership: AT&T, Coca-Cola, Ford, Macy’s, and Xerox. Starbucks, one of the most politically liberal companies on the market, refused — a fact obviously lost on CEO Kevin Johnson. Three times on Tuesday, he denied any knowledge of the program in his interview with Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo.

Bartiromo: “I don’t know if you saw Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece op-ed in the Washington Examiner. And she said, ‘If Starbucks wants to end racism it will stop funding Planned Parenthood.’ Are you going to stop funding Planned Parenthood?”

Johnson: “Well I am not aware that we, we do fund Planned Parenthood. So. I haven’t read the op-ed and I can’t comment on that.”

Bartiromo: “OK.”

Johnson: “But, I am not aware that we do that.”

Bartiromo: “Well, Alveda King says [so]…

Johnson: “Well, I am not aware of it.”

A few hours later, Starbucks corporate office released a statement admitting that there was, in fact, a link. “Starbucks is listed as a donor of an organization because the Starbucks ‘Partner Match’ program provides matched cash awards for contributions made by Starbucks partners (employees). Every fiscal year, funds are available to each partner to request in support of personal financial donations or individual community service efforts.”

Whether Johnson knew or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is what he does with the information now. Planned Parenthood is an organization under federal investigation by the FBI. If Starbucks wants to continue lining the organization’s pockets after the allegations that they traffic in baby body parts, that’s their choice. But know this: it won’t take long for Starbucks to lose bucks. Lining the pockets of the radical Left isn’t good for business. Just ask the NFLESPNTargetLands EndKellogg’sJ.C. Penney, and others.

If Starbucks cares about racial bias, prove it. “Stop funding Planned Parenthood’s house of horrors,” Alveda insists. “[I]f you’re really serious about eliminating racism, you will acknowledge that black people, and indeed all human beings, are of one blood and one human race — born and unborn. Racism and abortion are crimes against humanity.”

Give Kevin Johnson and team a helpful push. Call (800) 782-7282, email, or tweet them @Starbucks and ask them to stop sweetening the pot for America’s biggest abortion business.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Planned Parenthood’s War on (Underage) Women

Home Is Where the Classroom Is…

New Video: The Clarity Tool

Here’s a new video of a recent 10xTalk I gave on communication, titled “The Clarity Tool: How to Think About, Clarify, and Solve Your Biggest Problems.” In the speech, delivered at an event by Genius Network, I introduce the audience to a tool I developed to dramatically increase people’s ability to communicate clearly and effectively. You can download the Clarity Tool at the 10xTalk website.

Here’s their summary of the speech’s highlights:

  • Alex talks about the four aspects of a proper knowledge system that facilitates human flourishing
  • The #1 key to effectively communicating with other people and becoming more influential
  • Extreme Clarity: A 3-step process for persuasively getting your ideas across and increasing your credibility
  • How understanding and presenting opposing arguments can make your arguments stronger
  • Alex walks you through a fascinating step-by-step thinking tool that can transform your business and life

I hope you’ll check out the Clarity Tool and let me know what you think.

A climate lawsuit meets a climate thinker

There was a really interesting development in Oakland and San Francisco’s climate lawsuit against Chevron and several other fossil fuel companies. According to Bloomberg, Judge William Alsup has said that the parties to the lawsuit have to “prepare 10-page legal analyses on whether a century of American dependence on fossil fuels was worth the global warming it caused. . . .

“‘We needed oil and fossil fuels to get from 1859 to the present,’ said Alsup, 72, who hosted a five-hour climate-change tutorial in March. ‘Yes, that’s causing global warming. But against that negative, we need to weigh-in the larger benefits that have flowed from the use of fossil fuels. It’s been a huge, huge benefit.’”

As I regularly point out, the only way to make good decisions about our energy choices is to look at the full context: at the pros and the cons of our different options. Today’s near universal narrative that fossil fuels are ruining the planet depends on being biased and only looking at the alleged negative impacts of fossil fuels while ignoring the enormous positives.

Judge Alsup should be congratulated for demanding a clear, unbiased account in this case. Hopefully courts in other climate lawsuits will follow his lead.

Job opportunities at a new energy group

Our friends at Life:Powered, an energy project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, are hiring!

Check out these openings for a policy analyst and a project coordinator.


“Alex’s engaging and thought-provoking talk, presented eloquently with a sprinkling of humor, was a firm favorite among many of our delegates. Alex has a talent for employing formal logic in such a way as to create a climate of mutual understanding regardless of your position on fossil fuels, which is a powerful tool for diminishing bias and hearsay. He is an outstanding addition to any energy-related agenda.” Michelle Edge, Co-founder and Chief Creative Officer of Energy Disruptors

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 4 ways I can help you increase your energy influence.

1. Change a mind by sharing my Google talk. Do you have someone you know who needs to learn pro-human thinking about energy issues? A great place to start is by sharing my talk at Google, which is designed to persuade even those immersed in the biased, sloppy, and anti-human energy thinking in our culture. Click the button below and I’ll send you the link to the talk.

Access Google Talk

2. Empower a friend by inviting them to this newsletter. If you know someone who wants to increase their clarity and influence on energy issues, click the button below to invite them to this newsletter.

Invite to Newsletter

3. Bring me to speak at your next event. If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. If you’d like to consider me for your event, click the button below and I’ll send you the info.

Send Speaking Engagement Details

4. Recommend me for a high-level speaking event (and get an I Love Fossil Fuels t-shirt). One way to influence a high-level audience is to have me speak to them. If you are connected to any high-level events at companies, associations, and conferences, your recommendation could make a huge difference. A simple way to do this is to send an email to your event contact, CC’ing me, with: 1. That you’ve seen me speak. 2. Why you liked it. 3. Why I might be a good fit for their event. For every introduction you make I’ll send you an “I Love Fossil Fuels” t-shirt or a signed copy of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

EDITORS NOTE: Copyright © 2018 Center for Industrial Progress. All rights reserved. Do not copy, cite, or distribute without permission of the author.

Marijuana Industry Harming Babies? Not on Our Watch!

Two weeks ago, The Marijuana Report published a story (3rd article) about a new study showing that 70 percent of 400 Colorado dispensaries recommended marijuana to pregnant women for morning sickness. Scientific studies show the drug can harm the unborn when mothers use it.

Today, the Marijuana Accountability Project (MAC) and Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) are hanging baby bibs on dispensary doors, State House offices and the Colorado Department of Revenue, which regulates the industry. The bibs display the slogan: “Don’t hurt our future – CO kids.”

“Going against all available science, the marijuana industry is now recommending pot for pregnant women, actively putting their profits ahead of the healthy development of future Coloradans,” says Justin Luke Riley, MAC’s founder.

“This is a new low,” adds Dr. Kevin Sabet, founder and president of SAM. “We demand that the Colorado state government take immediate action and stop the pot industry from continuing with this. Pot and pregnancy don’t mix.”

See the MAC/SAM news release here.

Acute Poisonings from a Synthetic Cannabinoid Sold as Cannabidiol — Utah, 2017–2018

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that a federal/state investigation identified 52 suspected cases in Utah of adverse reactions people experienced after consuming CBD products that turned out to contain a synthetic cannabinoid, 4-CCB, but no CBD. Most of the people vaped the liquid, and 60 percent went to emergency departments with such adverse effects as altered mental status, nausea or vomiting, and seizures or shaking.

Many of the products were labeled Yolo CBD oil, pictured above. They displayed no manufacturer’s name or list of ingredients.

Cannabidiol is a non-psychoactive component of marijuana that scientists are studying for potential medical use. It is illegal under federal law and in Utah, although it can be bought online and in local shops.

Rapid discovery of the problem and state and federal warnings to the public contained the outbreak.

The CDC report warns, “This investigation highlights the hazards of consuming unregulated products labeled as CBD. States could consider regulating products labeled as CBD and establishing surveillance systems for illness associated with products labeled as CBD to minimize the risk for recurrences of this emerging public health threat.”

Executive Editor’s note: Amazon lists 13 pages of CBD oil products. Typing “CBD oil images” into Google brings up hundreds more. There is no guarantee any are safe. States that have legalized marijuana for medical use sometimes test products and find their labels are not always accurate.

Read the CDC report here.

Inside a Raid on a Cuban Drug Den in Colorado

This week NBC’s Today Show aired a video that shows everything is not all right with marijuana legalization in Colorado, as its officials would have you believe.

Advocates promised voters in 2012 that legalization would wipe out the marijuana black market. But the law allows people to grow their own at home, and pot cartels are taking that literally. Many are renting homes in upscale communities, gutting them, and growing huge marijuana crops inside. And that’s not legal, even in Colorado.

This shocking video shows how out of control the black market has become in the state by taking up residence in people’s homes and neighborhoods.

Click on picture or here to view the video.

Study Links Marijuana to Increased Death Risk among Young Heart Attack Sufferers

About 10 percent of people age 50 or younger who suffer a certain kind of heart attack (a Type 1 myocardial infarction or MI) use marijuana, cocaine, or both.

Researchers studied 2,097 patients in that age range from two Boston medical centers. They identified marijuana use in 6 percent of patients, cocaine use in 4.7 percent, and 1.7 percent used both.

Compared to nonusers, ratios for all-cause mortality were 2.09 for marijuana and 1.91 for cocaine; for cardiovascular death, ratios were 2.13 for marijuana and 2.32 for cocaine.

The researchers stress not enough is known yet to confirm causal effects, but say their study indicates a pressing need for more research to determine the potential relationship between drug use and poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Read Cardiovascular Business article here.

Read the Journal of the American College of Cardiology abstract here.

When Marijuana Is Used before Cigarettes or Alcohol: Demographic Predictors and Associations with Heavy Use, Cannabis Use Disorder, and Other Drug-related Outcomes

Gateway drugs for youth are alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. This study finds that adolescents who use marijuana first are more likely to be male, older, and Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, multiracial, or Hispanic rather than White or Asian.

Researchers analyzed data on 275,559 people aged 12 to 21 from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health between 2004 and 2014. Over that time, those using marijuana first (compared to alcohol or tobacco first) increased from 4.8 percent to 8.8 percent.

Those who began with marijuana were also more likely to become heavy users and to develop a cannabis use disorder.

The researchers say their study suggests that drug prevention strategies may need to target groups differently based on their risk of initiating alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana use first.

Read Prevention Science study here. See chart explanation on page 5.

Marijuana: Big Tobacco 2.0

This excellent article explains the parallels between the tobacco and marijuana industries.

“Savvy corporations such as Philip Morris, Lucky Strike, R.J. Reynolds, and the rest pitched their products with campaigns that made use of what were then revolutionary fields of advertising, public relations, and social psychology, portraying an inherently worthless, corrosive product as something that empowered, bettered, and liberated its consumers,” the author writes. And the marijuana industry is executing the same playbook, he continues.

“As was the case with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana is said to prove you’re sociable, hip, and modern.

“As with tobacco, marijuana is portrayed not only as largely harmless, but as objectively good for you, with a credible function as self-medication for all sorts of ailments.

“As with tobacco, marijuana is presented as a signifier of individual liberty and self-empowerment.

“As with critics of tobacco, critics of marijuana are cast as petty tyrants trampling on freedom while peddling hysterical junk science.

“And as with the tobacco industry, a cash-flush marijuana industry is eager to use its wealth to slant scientific study and political debate, lest its flattering claims begin to sire organized suspicion.”

Read full National Review article here.

Nature doesn’t give us a clean environment

Human environmental impacts can be positive, not just negative. In fact, they can be vitally positive.

Not all impacts are negative

Notice this is not discussed when we talk about environmental impact. There’s this assumption that all impacts are negative. Even when we think that an industry or an energy source is overall good for human beings, we think it’s definitely making our environment worse. This is certainly true for fossil fuels.

I want to question that from this perspective. Was our environment better 300 years ago before we started using fossil fuels to generate energy or is it better today? Now, if you had a time machine that could bring people from that period to today to any city in the US even next to a coal mine, it doesn’t matter.

Ask them, “Who has a better environment, you from 300 years ago or us today?” What do you think they’d say?


Our environment is cleaner than ever before

They would think it was an insane question because today’s environment would be so much better. They would look at our water and they would compare it to theirs and say, “Your water is so clean. Our water is filthy. It’s hard to get clean water. We don’t know what kind of dangerous substance it’s going to be contaminated with and it just makes us sick all the time. We have to go to huge lengths to get any kind of water and you can just have clean water on demand.”

Then they’d look at the air. “Your air is so clean. People in my time are constantly burning wood and dung and they’re burning it indoors.” Compare that to even living next door to the dirtiest power plant in the US, which is very clean by historical standards. We only call it dirty today because, in a sense, we’re spoiled by how good the technology has gotten. Our environment is way better.

The takeaway from this thought experiment is this:

Nature doesn’t give us the environment we need to flourish.

It doesn’t give us clean air. It doesn’t give us clean water. It does not give us good sanitation. We have to impact nature if we want to have a clean environment.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘This Is a Job-Killing Regulation That Will Put Our Company Out of Business’: Some Push EPA to Reverse Obama-Era Regulation

Trump’s New Regs Move Tax Dollars away from Abortion

It’s a big day in Washington where an injustice a quarter of a century in the making is finally being corrected. It was January 22, 1993 — the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade -when then President Bill Clinton suspended President Ronald Reagan’s regulation preventing federal Title X funds from going to family planning clinics where abortions are performed. Unbelievably, Clinton even went so far as to require every provider to refer for abortion, which disqualified pro-life and faith-based groups that have religious and moral objections to abortion from participating in the program. Since then, Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers have used these federal family planning programs as a slush fund to pay overhead expenses including staff salaries, facility rent, and even furniture. Sadly, no president over the past 25 years has stopped this co-mingling of taxpayer funds with the abortion industry — that is until today.

Under President Trump’s rule announced today, like Reagan’s, Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers will have to choose between dropping their abortion services from any location that gets family planning dollars and moving those abortion operations offsite. Either way, this will loosen Planned Parenthood’s grip on more than $60 million in taxpayer dollars. The new regulations will draw a bright line between abortion centers and family planning programs — just as the federal law requires and the Supreme Court upheld in a 1991 ruling.

Praise for the president is pouring in from pro-life leaders and Members of Congress. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) who serves as Co-Chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus applauded the new rule noting that it “at long last reinstates principles first put forward under the Reagan administration, and upheld by the Supreme Court nearly three decades ago…Abortion is not family planning — in sharp contrast, the violence of abortion wounds families.” Rep. Robert Aderholt (R- Ala.) also offered praise and explained, “we only have to look to Planned Parenthood’s activities in our own state to see why they do not deserve federal funds. Just within the last few years, the clinic in Mobile performed two abortions in less than a year on a 14-year-old girl. She was clearly being sexually abused, but no one at Planned Parenthood notified authorities, as is required by law. For them, it was another routine abortion.”

And remember, it was David Daleiden and his undercover videos that uncovered Planned Parenthood’s horrific routine of selling baby body parts. Thanks to President Trump, their routine — at least when it comes to treating the taxpayers like an ATM machine — is beginning to change. President Trump has teed up Congress to take the step toward the ultimate goal of ending taxpayers’ forced partnership with the abortion industry. That includes an end to Planned Parenthood’s federal gravy train in multiple federal programs in which they get over $400 million each year. The House has already voted to redirect tax dollars away from the abortion giant and the Senate came within one vote last year of sending the measure to President Trump’s desk to be signed into law.

With hundreds of millions at stake, Planned Parenthood’s PAC announced last month that they will spend $ 30 million dollars on the midterm elections. Obviously, it’s illegal for Richards to use even a cent of federal funds on the group’s political activities. And while her accountants use every possible trick to keep the monies separate, it is hard to separate the fact that $30 million is available to influence elections because the outcome of those elections has produced nearly a half a billion dollars of government money to fund their Leftist mission. In the meantime, President Trump is following through on his campaign promise that his administration will advocate for mothers and their unborn children every day he occupies the White House and take important steps to ensure taxpayers are not subsidizing the abortion industry. Join me in thanking the president by sending him an email of appreciation via the White House comment page.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Supporting Indonesia’s Religious Freedom-Loving Muslims

Stand Up and Be Counted

New Trump Administration Move Deals Significant Blow to Planned Parenthood

WARNING: Being LGBT is Hazardous to Your Health

The Recall Report has a section on LGBT health. The Recall Report warns:

Men and women who identify as LGBT have any number of health concerns depending on each individual.

[ … ]

Cancer is another big health risk for Americans in general, but there are some specific risks for LGBT people. For example, lesbians are at a greater risk of developing breast cancer than heterosexual women. This may be explained by the fact that lesbians are less likely to have full-term pregnancies, are more likely to be overweight, and are less likely to get mammograms and other cancer screenings.

Gay men are at a greater risk than their heterosexual counterparts for developing testicular, colon, and prostate cancers. Gay men and bisexual men who have sex with men are also at a greater risk for developing anal cancer because they are at a greater risk for being exposed to HPV, the human papilloma virus, which can cause cancer.

[ … ]

Both lesbian women and gay men report more harassment and physical abuse from family members. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexual men and women are all more often victims of domestic partner violence than heterosexual men or women. Gay men are both more likely to be victims of domestic abuse and criminal physical violence based on sexual orientation.

Read more.

Walt Heyer, who used to live as a transgender woman, now travels the country speaking about his experiences and reaching out to those who regret their own gender change.

The Daily Signal spoke with Heyer on camera about his story, as well as the lies he says society and the media tell young people today about gender.

David Carlin, professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, in a column titled “The Oddity of the LGBT Alliance” writes:

For some time now these rejections of nature have been celebrated, or at least condoned, on TV, in movies, in classrooms, in legislative chambers, and in law courts. What in particular?

  1. Homosexuality. It used to be called “the unnatural vice.” Now, according to the masters of our popular culture, it is a perfectly respectable form of love.

  2. Child abandonment. It used to be thought that only an unnatural parent would abandon his/her children, the parent-child bond being the most fundamental of all human connections. But for decades now American society has allowed fathers (though not yet mothers) to beget children and then walk out on them.

  3. Bodily mutilation. If you spend a lot of time among young people (as I myself do in my capacity as a community college professor), you will observe the relatively new fashion of making nickel-or-quarter-size holes in ear lobes or cheeks or elsewhere. That’s minor-league mutilation. More advanced advocates of mutilation (I have not, thank God, come across any of these at my college) go further, defending the amputation of fingers, hands, and limbs – either as a way of being “different” or as a way of maintaining solidarity with disabled (differently abled) persons.

  4. Suicide. It used to be that suicide was thought of as the most unnatural thing in the world. What could be more unnatural than to renounce life itself, the most fundamental of all natural goods? But now suicide or voluntary euthanasia is considered by truly “progressive” people to be a fine thing. To be sure, they don’t consider all suicide to be good. It is good that suicide or euthanasia should be chosen by very old people who are now (allegedly) incapable of getting any significant enjoyment out of life; or by terminally ill people who wish to shorten life by a few weeks or a few months; or by people whose life involves severe physical or mental suffering; or by mature (but not necessarily old) people who now find life boring. But it is not good (not yet, but stay tuned) if a 17-year-old girl commits suicide because her boyfriend dropped her.

  5. Transgenderism. In the other cases listed, nature gives us strong hints as to the correct way to proceed – e.g., “have sex with persons of the opposite sex only,” “don’t abandon your children,” “don’t mutilate your body,” and “don’t kill yourself.” But in the case of sexual/gender identity, what nature gives us is something more than a hint. It used to be thought that the question of whether a newborn is a boy or a girl could be answered by taking a quick glance at the baby’s genitalia. Now we are told that the question shouldn’t be answered by other persons (doctors, nurses, mothers, fathers) who “assign” a gender to the child.

Unnatural behaviors leads down a dangerous road that few travel. Even one person lost to the LGBT life style is one too many.


Drug and Alcohol Addiction in the LGBTQ Community

LGBT Lobby Rebutted by Medical Experts and Ex-gays

LGBT Playbook: Legally erase women through gender identity laws

Prenatal Marijuana Use Can Affect Infant Size, Behavior, Study Finds

We know that smoking cigarettes during pregnancy has negative effects on birth weights and is linked to health problems in childhood. Now, researchers have found that smoking marijuana can impact birth weights and lead to behavioral problems, and the effects are worsened when combined with tobacco use.

Nearly 30 percent of women who smoke during pregnancy report using marijuana as well. Researchers studied nearly 250 mothers and their infants; 173 of the babies had been exposed to tobacco and/or marijuana during their mothers’ pregnancies.

Compared to babies exposed to no drugs, those exposed to both drugs, especially in the third trimester, were:

  • smaller in length, weight, and head size,
  • more likely to be born earlier,
  • more irritable,
  • more easily frustrated, and
  • less likely to be able to calm themselves easily.

Women with symptoms of anger, hostility, and aggression reported more stress while pregnant and were more likely to continue tobacco and marijuana use throughout. This co-exposure increased the odds of giving birth to smaller babies who were more irritable and frustrated.

Finding ways to help women reduce stress and deal with negative emotions as well as to discourage both tobacco and marijuana use during pregnancy may lead to healthier babies.

This study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Read Science Daily account of it here. Read the study itself in the March/April issue of Child Development here.

Cannabis Use Up among Parents with Children in the Home

Marijuana use has increased among both parents who smoke cigarettes and non-smoking parents, threatening the overall decline in children’s exposure to second-hand smoke, a new study from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health and the City University of New York reveals.

Researchers analyzed data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. They found that marijuana use increased among parents with children living in the home from 5 percent in 2002 to 7 percent in 2015, while cigarette smoking decreased from 28 percent to 20 percent during that time.

In contrast, marijuana use among cigarette-smoking parents rose from 11 percent in 2002 to 17 percent in 2015, compared to an increase of 2 percent to 4 percent among non-smoking parents, making cigarette-smokers’ marijuana use nearly four times greater (17 percent vs 4 percent). Their daily marijuana use is five times greater (5 percent vs 1 percent).

The researchers say the results of their study support the reduction in overall second-hand tobacco smoke exposure but add new public health concerns about children’s exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke.

The study was funded by the National Institutes for Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Read Science Daily account of this study here. Read the Pediatrics study itself, in which the illustration above appears, here.

Most Marijuana Dispensaries Give Inaccurate Advice on Pot in Pregnancy

Nearly 70 percent of employees at 400 Colorado marijuana dispensaries say they would recommend marijuana to pregnant mothers experiencing nausea, a new study finds.

Researchers at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the Denver Health and Hospital Authority called dispensaries, pretending to be eight weeks pregnant and saying they felt “really nauseated.”

Of the 400 dispensaries contacted, employees at 277 recommended a marijuana product for morning sickness. Most based their recommendations on personal opinion. Some 36 percent said the drug is safe in pregnancy; about half (53 percent) said they weren’t sure of that.

One employee said that marijuana edibles wouldn’t be a risk to the baby, because “they would be going through the digestional [digestive] tract.”

“As cannabis legalization becomes more common, women should be cautioned that advice from dispensary employees might not necessarily be informed by medical evidence,” the researchers note.

Read Live Science account of the study here. Read the study itself in the June issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology here.