Totalitarianism: Biden’s Climate Plan Cuts 90% of Red Meat From Americans’ Diet, Requires 50% of Cars to Be Electric, and Forces 25% of Homes to Use Electric Heaters

May be an image of burger and text that says 'UP IN YOUR GRILL BIDEN'S CLIMATE REQUIREMENTS CUT 90% OF RED MEAT FROM DIET MAX 4 LBS PER YEAR ONE BURGER PER MONTH /FOX FOX NEWS channel DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN'

DaulyMail.com reports that

President Joe Biden’s ambitious plan to slash greenhouse emissions by 50 to 52 percent over the next decade could prompt sweeping changes that could affect how Americans eat, drive and heat their homes.

Biden announced the goal to cut emissions by 2030, compared with 2005 levels, at the start of a two-day climate summit on Thursday.

He vowed the plan, which would set the US on a path of a zero emissions economy by no later than 2050, would create jobs and boost economies.

But he is yet to release any firm details on exactly how such a plan will affect the daily lives of ordinary Americans.

He also hasn’t set out the price for reducing emissions.

The plan immediately sparked criticism from Republicans and industry experts who argue it isn’t sustainable in the long run, will put jobs at risk and cause tax hikes for Americans.

While Biden hasn’t released details on what life could look like for Americans, experts and recent studies have laid out what would need to change by 2030 to reach the goal.

Americans may have to cut their red meat consumption by a whopping 90 percent and cut their consumption of other animal based foods in half.

Gradually making those changes by 2030 could see diet-related greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 50 percent, according to a study by Michigan University’s Center for Sustainable Systems.

To do that, it would require Americans to only consume about four pounds of red meat per year, or 0.18 ounces per day.

It equates to consuming roughly one average sized burger per month.

More than half of new cars bought in the United States would need to be electric within the next decade, studies show.

The University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy estimated that cleaning up transportation would count towards about a quarter of Biden’s goal.

It would mean more than 65 percent of new cars and SUV sales and 10 percent of new truck sales would need to be electric.

Currently, electric cars make up about 2 percent of new passenger vehicle sales.

The average cost of a new electric vehicle is about $55,000.

More than half of new cars bought in the United States would need to be electric within the next decade, studies show. The average cost of a new electric vehicle is about $55,000

Nearly 25 percent of homes would need to be heated by electricity, rather than natural gas or oil, to help reach Biden’s emissions goal by 2030.

The average cost to install an electric heat pump, which an all-in-one heating and cooling unit, is about $5,613, according to figures home HomeAdvisor.

Industry leaders say Biden’s climate plan, while there are no cost specifics yet, could end up costing American taxpayers trillions of dollars.

David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, told DailyMail.com that Biden’s plan is just a ‘multi-trillion dollar corporate welfare giveaway’.

Joe Biden’s Handlers have lost their cotton-pickin’ minds!!!

Just as with everything else that they are attempting to force into law, they are seriously overstepping their bounds.

Mind you, this is no great surprise.

Every red-blooded American should have figured that something very strange and extremely evil was going on when a wall was erected around our nation’s capitol.

As I have said before, the Biden-Harris Administration, their Handlers, and the Democratic Elite are all working together to turn our Constitutional Republic into a Totalitarian Marxist Country.

Biden’s Climate Plan is a prime example.

They are using the THEORY of climate Change to change our day-to-day ‘lives and to take away our rights as Americans to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

We are “endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, as I just quoted.

Also among these rights is the ability to make our own choices as to how to live our lives as a Free People.

The ability to decide what we are going to eat and what sort of vehicle we are going to drive are not rights bestowed upon our Federal Government as it now stands.

Nor is the ability to mandate whether we use electricity or natural gas to heat our homes.

The Democrats who roam the Halls of Power in D.C. must believe that they are sitting on Mount Olympus.

Either that, or the realization that they are going to lose both the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2022 has got them convinced that they might as well go hog wild and attempt to turn the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave into Russia-West.

Never in my 62 years of living, have I witnessed the Majority Party in Congress turn their back on everything that has made America great and embrace the evil theory of Marxism the way this bunch of Useful Idiots have.

Thank God for the Filibuster.

Until He Comes,

KJ

DONATIONS ARE WELCOMED AND APPRECIATED.

 

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Pelosi at G7 Summit: “Climate Change is the Essential Threat of Our Time”

FoxNews.com reports that

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the parliamentary leaders of the G7 countries issued a joint declaration Saturday warning, “the climate crisis is the existential threat of our time.”

Pelosi, D-Calif., hosted the virtual summit with her legislative leader counterparts from Canada, the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom. The purpose was to devise a strong international response to climate change, and address health and economic disparities.

“The climate crisis is the existential threat of our time, jeopardizing the health and well-being of every family in every community around the world,” Pelosi and the world leaders wrote in their joint declaration.

“Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in 2020 are among the highest averages ever recorded. The planet suffered through the second hottest year ever in 2019.”

“As the Earth heats up, climate-related impacts, including heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and flooding, are worsening,” they added.

Saturday’s summit was to include virtual appearances from U2’s Bono, the Dalai Lama, Jane Goodall, former Obama administration Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and former Secretary of State John Kerry.

In this Sept. 7 photo, a firetruck drives along state Highway 168 while battling the Creek Fire in the Shaver Lake community of Fresno County, Calif. A weekend wildfire east of Fresno exploded so fast that it trapped hundreds of holiday campers who were airlifted to safety in a dramatic rescue that strained the limits of two California National Guard helicopters. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)

Pelosi and her fellow legislative leaders agreed that climate change and the coronavirus pandemic require a robust government response as does environmental justice for economically vulnerable and frontline communities.

“Climate policy can end the perpetuation of systemic inequalities,” the leaders wrote in their joint statement.

Pelosi, who links the raging wildfires on the West Coast to climate change, already said she plans to make climate legislation an early agenda item if Joe Biden and Democrats win in November.

“It is absolutely a priority,” Pelosi said.

Have you ever wondered why Far Left Democrat Nut Jobs, like Nancy Pelosi, are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals’ personal mantras, they still believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do the Dems continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science birthed by the P.T. Barnum of our time, Al Gore, an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1. Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama and Hillary. They are easily fooled. For a visual reference, watch Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. The Democrats are perpetuating it because they have political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Dems continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Biden will get elected and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost, and Biden is a loser. They have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Planet will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public next, with Trump having proclaimed in 2017 that “Climate Change” never was the “National Security Threat” that Obama claimed it to be?

How will they continue to distract from the immature, absurd, and corrupt nature of their never-ending TDS?

Will they start reshowing “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

By the way, have you noticed that they didn’t try disrupting the retail store traffic during the Stimulus Payouts in Flyover Country where us “Deplorables” live?

It’s because they know that they would get knocked down on their butts by masses of bargain-hunting Walmart Shoppers.

I’m just sayin’.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Libs Lose It Over Trump Tweet Telling Teen Climate Change Spokesperson to “Chill” Why Can’t Adults Stand Up to a Teen Activist?

01-dare-be-cold-li-600

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1205100602025545730

Newsbusters.org’s Kristine Marsh reported recently that

The View hosts were grateful for another opportunity to lavish praise on teenage climate crusader Greta Thunberg after Time Magazine named her their “Person of the Year,” Wednesday. On Thursday’s show, climate-obsessed host Joy Behar bashed President Trump as “jealous” of the “very smart” liberal teen, while her co-host Meghan McCain whined that she wanted the whistleblower to be “Person of the Year.”

After touting Thunberg winning the award to a cheering audience, Behar read a tweet from Trump snarking that the sour-faced teen had an “anger management problem” and should go “see a movie.”

This upset the host, who felt the need to defend Thunberg: “Hello. Look in the mirror!…I don’t know what he’s so mad about. He has made plenty of covers, hasn’t he? [puts up an unflattering Mad Magazine cover] This was one of the famous ones he was on. So let’s be real, okay? He’s just jealous it’s not him, okay?”

Behar and fellow co-host Sunny Hostin also called out First Lady Melania Trump for defending her teen son Barron, but not Thunberg, even though Thunberg petulantly lectured world leaders and thrust herself into the public spotlight:

BEHAR: Where is Melania? She was SO upset by the Barron comment, the lawyer!

HOSTIN: I don’t think it’s appropriate for the President to go after a 16-year-old who has Asperger’s, and climate activist I would like to see from the First Lady the same kind of energy and verve in which she used for defending her son!

Thunberg wasn’t the only one the hosts raved over. Hostin also praised the liberal rag for “paying homage” to the Democrat impeachment inquiry witnesses as the “guardians of the year.”

To that, Behar laughably touted, “the good guys are struggling to be heard!”

On the other hand, her co-host Meghan McCain said she disagreed with the Thunberg choice and wanted it to be the whistleblower:

“I actually wanted it to be the whistle-blower. I think it’s a more salient and timely choice,” she touted to the agreement of her liberal co-hosts. McCain added that the whistleblower “earned” this award more than Thunberg, which set off climate-obsessed Behar:

“It’s an American situation. She’s really global. So she has more influence in a way than the whistle-blower because everybody breathes the air!” Behar asserted.

As McCain took a different tack, worrying that the media was putting too much responsibility on the teenage girl’s shoulders, Behar claimed Thunberg could handle it.

“She’s smart. She’s really smart!” Behar gushed, adding that she had become the “face” of climate change.

Wednesday, the networks spent the morning groveling before the “woke” “sweet voiced” teen activist. On ABC’s Good Morning America, the network also shilled for their boss, Disney CEO Bob Iger, touting their “great leader” also winning an award from Time Magazine.

So, who is Greta Thunberg, Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year”, whom Americans are not supposed to criticize, according to wild-eyed Liberals?

On April 24, a Swedish Website, NyaTider.nu, posted the following article, which provides a succinct background of the apparent heir to Al Gore’s “untouchable” mantle as the Spokesperson for Climate Change..

Greta Thunberg has become world renowned for her fight for the climate and lower temperatures on earth. It all started in 2018 when she began a school strike all alone, standing outside the Swedish parliament with different placards trying to form opinion and get young people to join. The Swedish mainstream media quickly picked up her one-girl-mission for the climate and wrote several articles about her.

Few citizens of Sweden could back then even dream of what the future held – soon enough Thunberg met the pope, spoke in front of the United Nations, and has even been nominated for the Nobel peace price. The once so lonely 15-year old girl became world famous more or less over night when international mainstream media started reporting about her 15 day long school strike and Arnold Schwarzenegger invited her to a climate meeting in Vienna.

So who is then this young idealist? Greta Thunberg is now 16-years old and the daughter of famous opera singer and left-liberal activist Marlena Ernman, who in the background has helped her daughter get started. Thunberg soon also got her own coach – a well known climate activist from Germany by the name Luisa-Marie Neubauer. How big is the likelyhood that a young girl who starts a school strike outside the Swedish parliament can get schoolchildren from all over the world to join her cause and fight for the climate? How often does 16 year olds have their own coaches?

Luisa-Marie Neubauer, who has figured on a large amount of images and movies together with Greta when they jointly run climate strikes all over the world, belongs to the organization ”one foundation” which has several well-known wealthy financiers, including Bono, Bill and Melissa Gates. An even more striking name is the multi-billionaire oligarch George Soros, world famous for his currency speculation and maybe even more well-known as the father of the global, radical, and left-liberal lobby and activist network “Open Society”, supporting thousands of NGO:s.

Behind every world famous 16 year old climate activist there is a liberal oligarch and a globalist movement.

So, her Liberal activist parents train this challenged young child how to present herself in public.

They lead the child “in the way in which she should go” according to their activist view of “reality”.

They secure funding and she rises to stardom as the “Spokesperson for Climate Change, attacking adults who refuse to worship the pseudoscience of “Climate Change” with impunity, having been placed on a pedestal by adoring Liberals the world over.

As the Harpies on The View explained, we average Americans who chose to worship the God of Abraham instead of Mother Gaia, are not allowed to fight back against her verbal abuse , threats, and allegations, because she is a “child with disabilities”.

Her parents and their “sponsors” knew exactly what they were doing when they set this whole “spokesperson” thing in motion.

As the husband of a wonderful wife who works with special needs children believe me, they get corrected and disciplined just like any other child.

President Trump was exactly right.

Greta needs to be allowed to be just another happy teenager…actually having a life, instead of being the puppet of Climate Change Activists.

The hypocrisy of Liberals never ceasing to amaze me.

They tell us that it is a “Woman’s Right” to end the life which has begun inside of them.

But, don’t you dare correct an autistic teenager that they are using to further their Global Agenda advocating for something that is not even real.

Pitiful.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Climate Change Protest Group “Extinction Rebellion” Stages Protests on Black Friday

merlin_153967164_050c838e-6b66-45fd-82b0-67b9cb157ea5-articleLarge

Is it my imagination of have more nut jobs coming up from their Mom’s basements to be “activists” since Trump was elected President?

FoxNews.com reports that

The retail holiday saw protests in a long list of countries — including France, Germany, the United States — with some activists entering stores and others holding mock funerals. Near Paris, climate demonstrators blocked a shopping mall and gathered in from of Amazon’s headquarters to protest over-production they say is killing the planet.

To many activists, Black Friday is the epitome of this shift, a purely commercial event designed to boost U.S. retailers ahead of the Christmas holidays, the symbol of capitalism run amok.

“We are living in a system of endless consumerism,” the group Extinction Rebellion NYC tweeted on Friday. “Earth cannot sustain that, especially as we accelerate towards climate and ecological catastrophe.”

The group posted photos and videos purportedly showing activists protesting the holiday.

Protesters also reportedly shut down streets in Vancouver, Canada for a mock funeral procession.

The Sunrise Movement, a group that’s helped promote the Green New Deal, swarmed the large Water Tower Place shopping mall in Chicago.

In Washington, D.C., actress Jane Fonda led yet another protest as part of a series called “Fire Drill Fridays.” In a post retweeted by Fonda, the group cliamed that “38 people were arrested demanding food justice.” Activists also reportedly planned to hold a “Black Friday Funeral for the Future” on Capitol Hill in order to “eulogize and mourn all that has been lost and all that is threatened by the climate crisis.

Climate change protests seemed to intensify in the fall with thousands skipping school during September’s climate strike. Activist Greta Thunberg also appeared at a United Nations meeting where she vehemently denounced politicians for inaction on climate change.

And last week, nearly 260 groups sent a letter requesting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Ill., pursue policies like the Green New Deal instead of “incremental or isolated policy tweaks.”

According to The Washington Post, the group Extinction Rebellion held a hunger strike in an attempt to force the speaker into a video-recorded meeting. When they realized she was planning to leave D.C., the protesters attempted to storm past her office’s entrance and into a broader room where her chief of staff sat.

Also last week, climate protesters delayed a Harvard-Yale football game when they occupied the field and demanded the Ivy League schools divest from the fossil fuel industry.

The disruptions will likely continue as the United Nations meets to discuss the issue in Madrid on Monday.

The United Nations offered what it called “bleak” findings Tuesday as it warned that the world was headed toward global “extinction” and would need to increase its efforts “fivefold” if nations wanted to reach the temperature reduction goal outlined in the Paris climate agreement.

The United States recently filed paperwork to officially remove itself from the multilateral agreement. Conservatives, meanwhile, have warned about economic consequences of large-scale reform and pointed to failed, historical climate predictions as reasons for avoiding drastic change.

So, who is “Extinction Rebellion” and where are they getting their funding?

According to westernwire.net,

Started by two British activists in October 2018, Extinction Rebellion has caused mayhem across the U.K. and recently brought their tactics to the United States with the financial support of wealthy Americans.

The New York Times story profiles three individuals who have provided the bulk of financial and logistical support for the group, Aileen Getty, Rory Kennedy and Trevor Neilson. Getty is the granddaughter of the late oil billionaire J. Paul Getty. Kennedy is daughter of the late-U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy. Neilson is a consultant whose clients include Hollywood celebrities using philanthropy to burnish their images, has provided public relations guidance.

The three set up the Climate Emergency Fund to support disruptive activists and channeled huge financial resources to Extinction Rebellion. Getty made a $600,000 contribution earlier this year and other fundraising efforts have collected more than $1 million.

So, it’s a bunch of rich Liberals who believe that they can “change the climate”.

Have you ever wondered why Far Left Nut Jobs, like Jane Fonda, are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals’ personal mantras, they still believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do the Dems continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science birthed by the P.T. Barnum of our time, Al Gore, an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1. Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama and Hillary. They are easily fooled. For a visual reference, watch Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. The Democrats are perpetuating it because they have political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Dems continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recalled, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost, and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Planet will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public next, with Trump having proclaimed in 2017 that “Climate Change” never was the “National Security Threat” that Obama claimed it to be?

How will they continue to distract from the immature, absurd, and corrupt nature of their ongoing National Temper Tantrum over the lost of the 2016 Presidential Election?

Will they start reshowing “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

By the way, have you noticed that they didn’t try disrupting Black Friday in Flyover Country where us “Deplorables” live?

It’s because they know that they would get knocked down on their butts by masses of bargain-hunting Walmart Shoppers.

I’m just sayin’.

Until He Comes,

KJ

AOC Explains Dorian’s Destroying of the Bahamas: “This is What Climate Change Looks Like”…No, Really

aptopix_pelosi_aoc_70308.jpg

If brains were dynamite, this chick couldn’t blow her nose.

FoxNews.com reports that

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Tuesday that climate change was to blame for Hurricane Dorian’s devastating impact on the Bahamas.

“This is what climate change looks like: it hits vulnerable communities first,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted on Tuesday.

Dorian’s punishing winds and torrential rain battered the islands of Abaco and Grand Bahama, which have a combined population of about 70,000 and are known for their marinas, golf courses, and all-inclusive resorts.

The Grand Bahama airport was under 6 feet of water and at least five deaths were reported.

Freeport resident on damage from Hurricane Dorian: Utter devastation in the Bahamas
Video

The freshman New Yorker dismissed “climate deniers” who claim the latest hurricane has nothing to do with climate change.

“I can already hear climate deniers screeching: ‘It’s always been like this! You’re dim,’ etc. No. This is about science & leadership,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “We either decarbonize & cut emissions, or we don’t & let people die.”

Have you ever wondered why politicians representing the Far Left Democratic Party, like AOC, are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals’ personal mantras, they still believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do the Dems continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science birthed by the P.T. Barnum of our time, Al Gore, an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1. Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama and Hillary. They are easily fooled. For a visual reference, watch Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. The Democrats are perpetuating it because they have political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Dems continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recalled, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost, and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Planet will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public next, with Trump having proclaimed in 2017 that “Climate Change” never was the “National Security Threat” that Obama claimed it to be?

How will they continue to distract from the immature, absurd, and corrupt nature of their ongoing National Temper Tantrum over the lost of the 2016 Presidential Election?

Next, AOC will probably host a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ

AOC Proposes Population Control Because of “Climate Change”…Marxism By Any Other Name…

190120-alexandria_ocasio-cortez-se-1054a_86c07378d23071361d56dd00525f131e.fit-760w

Have you ever wondered why Modern American Liberals are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals personal mantras, they believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

For example…

FoxNews.com reports that

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said young people have to ask a “legitimate question” in the wake of climate change and mounting student loan debt: “Is it okay to still have children?”

In an Instagram Live video over the weekend, Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., welcomed supporters into her kitchen—and gave a “special hello to my haters”—while she made chili and poured herself a glass of white wine.

“Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around,” she said, as she chopped sweet potatoes. “And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think young people, to have a legitimate question. Ya know, should—is it okay to still have children?”

She continued: “Not just financially because people are graduating with 20, 30, 100 thousand dollars of student loan debt so they can’t even afford to have kids in the house, but there’s also just this basic moral question, like, what do we do?”

“And even if you don’t have kids, there are still children here in the world and we have a moral obligation to them to leave a better world to them.”

…“The whole premise of the Green New Deal, is that we’re screwed on climate. I’m sorry to break it to you,” she said. “When it comes to climate in particular, we’re actually screwed. There is a global threat to the planet.”

She added: “At this point, we don’t even have to prove it. Just walk outside in the winter in a lot of places, and its, either way worse than you’re used to, or way warmer than you’re used to.”

“Hurricanes, storms, wildfires,” she said. “We are dying now.”

While the resolution itself would do little because it is non-binding, it is the first time the policy proposal has been formally outlined in Congress.

“If we called a vote on the Green New Deal, tomorrow or Tuesday when I got back to D.C., and it passed, NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN,” she stressed, seemingly downplaying the impact should it be passed. “Literally, nothing would happen because it is a resolution. It is a statement. Be it resolved. It is us agreeing to a statement. Not any binding course of action.”

The resolution says “a new national social, industrial and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal” is an opportunity to tackle systemic injustices toward minority groups, create millions of high-wage jobs and “provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”

Its proposals include “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;” job creation; healthcare for all; infrastructure investment; guarantees of clean water, healthy food and sustainable environment; and a curiously undefined “access to nature.”

Isn’t it fascinating how the Liberals’ ongoing crusade against “Climate Change” has become an excuse to install a Marxist Government in America?

The Premiere “Useful Idiot” in America, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez never needs an excuse to promote cradle-to-grave governmental control over the lives of American Citizens but, with yesterday’s advice for millennials, she was able to combine the pseudo-science of Climate Change with Population Control, such as is mandated in Communist China.

According to TheFederalist.com,

For thousands of years, China didn’t have a population policy. Traditional Chinese culture believes that having many children is a blessing from heaven. Even after Communists took over China in 1949, Chairman Mao continued to encourage Chinese women to have as many babies as possible, because more babies meant more future foot-soldiers for his Communist Revolution. Under his rule, China’s population grew from 660 million in 1961 (after the Chinese famine) to 930 million in 1976.

When Mao passed away in 1976, he left China in such economic shambles that China’s per capita GDP was merely $162, only slightly better than Bangladesh ($142) but worse than Afghanistan ($200). Chinese leaders believed China’s economy couldn’t support a population any larger. By 1979, China’s population grew to 980 million and Chinese leaders decided to implement the one-child policy in order to curb population growth.

…The Chinese government finally relaxed the one-child policy in 2015 by telling the Chinese people, “now you are allowed to have two kids.” The Chinese government didn’t make this change out of any benevolence towards its people, but out of cold calculation of statistics: China’s working age population is shrinking and there is a huge gender imbalance. All are directly caused by the 35-year-old one-child policy.

“Climate Change” and Marxism have a lot in common. They both seek to limit people’s personal freedom and neither one of them have ever been proven to be viable. They both remain theories.

They also both require a great deal of arrogance to be absorbed as a belief…the kind of arrogance which enables to believe to accept the falsehood that he or she is their own god, cable of controlling the Earth’s weather and judging how much freedom an individual should have to control their own daily lives and destiny.

The Far Left champions of Democratic Socialism or “The New Bolsheviks” as I have dubbed them, are no less dangerous than the original ones who did the bidding of Vladimir Lenin by overthrowing the Czar and installing Marxist Theory in the form of Communism as the governing rule of law in Russia.

Today’s Far Left Democratic Party, as exemplified by “Useful Idiot” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wish to exchange our American Liberty for the fascism and subjugation of Marxism, self-assured that they will finally be the ones to make it “work”.

The late great Slim Pickens, as Major T. J. Kong in Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove”, finally got that nuclear bomb his plane was carrying to work…but he had to ride it to Hell in order to do it.

If the before-mentioned “Useful Idiot” Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow travelers ever gain control of our Sovereign Nation, America will go on that same ride.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Reality…What a Concept: Trump’s New National Security Policy will Eliminate “Climate Change” as a National Security Threat

untitled (210)

Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised. — Charles Krauthammer

TheFederalist.com reports that

The Trump administration will reverse course from previous Obama administration policy, eliminating climate change from a list of national security threats. The National Security Strategy to be released on Monday will emphasize the importance of balancing energy security with economic development and environmental protection, according to a source who has seen the document and shared excerpts of a late draft.

“Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system,” a draft of the National Security Strategy slated to be released on Monday said. “U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”

This matches President Trump’s vision, sometimes shared using his trademark hyperbole, that the United States needs to emphasize national security and economic growth over climate change.

During his successful campaign, Trump mocked Obama’s placement of climate change in the context of national security. Here’s a sample of his approach from a campaign speech in Hilton Head, South Carolina, in late 2015:

“So Obama’s always talking about the global warming, that global warming is our biggest and most dangerous problem, OK? No, no, think of it. I mean, even if you’re a believer in global warming, ISIS is a big problem, Russia’s a problem, China’s a problem. We’ve got a lot of problems. By the way, the maniac in North Korea is a problem. He actually has nuclear weapons, right? That’s a problem.

We’ve got a lot of problems. We’ve got a lot of problems. That’s right, we don’t win anymore. He said we want to win. We don’t win anymore. We’re going to win a lot — if I get elected, we’re going to win a lot.

(Applause)

We’re going to win so much — we’re going to win a lot. We’re going to win a lot. We’re going to win so much you’re all going to get sick and tired of winning. You’re going to say oh no, not again. I’m only kidding. You never get tired of winning, right? Never.

(Applause)

But think of it. So Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and the — a lot of it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it. And look, I want clean air and I want clean water. That’s my global — I want clean, clean crystal water and I want clean air. And we can do that, but we don’t have to destroy our businesses, we don’t have to destroy our —

And by the way, China isn’t abiding by anything. They’re buying all of our coal; we can’t use coal anymore essentially. They’re buying our coal and they’re using it. Now when you talk about the planet, it’s so big out there — we’re here, they’re there, it’s like they’re our next door neighbor, right, in terms of the universe.”

The draft of the National Security Strategy makes this approach policy, emphasizing national security and economic growth over climate change.

President Obama made climate change, and the burdensome regulations that accompany its focus, a primary focus of his administration, including in his National Security Strategy released in 2015. “[W]e are working toward an ambitious new global climate change agreement to shape standards for prevention, preparedness, and response over the next decade,” that report said.

“In some ways, [climate change] is akin to the problem of terrorism and ISIL,” Obama said at climate talks in Paris in 2015. During a weekly address, Obama said “Today, there is no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

In September 2016, President Obama released a memorandum requiring federal agencies to consider the effects of climate change in the development of national security-related doctrine, policies, and plans. All of this alarmed critics concerned with more pressing security risks.

By contrast, President Trump’s National Security Strategy will focus on conventional and immediate national security risks. The draft says, in part:

“North Korea seeks the capability to kill millions of Americans with nuclear weapons. Iran supports terrorist groups and openly calls for our destruction. Jihadist terrorist organizations such as ISIS and al Qaeda are determined to attack the United States and radicalize Americans with their hateful ideology. States and non-state actors undermine social order with drug and human trafficking networks, which drive violent crimes and cause thousands of American deaths each year…. Strengthening control over our borders and immigration system is central to national security, economic prosperity, and the rule of law. Terrorists, drug traffickers, and criminal cartels exploit porous borders and threaten U.S. security and public safety. These actors adapt quickly to outpace our defenses.”

As for climate change, the draft report says “The United States will remain a global leader in reducing traditional pollution, as well as greenhouse gases, while growing its economy. This achievement, which can serve as model to other countries, flows from innovation, technology breakthroughs, and energy efficiency gains –not from onerous regulation.”

Have you ever wondered why Modern American Liberals are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals personal mantras, they believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do Modern American Liberals continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science birthed by the P.T. Barnum of our time, Al Gore, an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1.  Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama and Hillary. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama perpetuated it because he had political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Liberals continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recalled, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost, and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Planet will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public now, with Trump proclaiming that “Climate Change” never was the “National Security Threat” that Obama claimed it to be?

How will they distract from the immature, absurd, and corrupt nature of their ongoing National Temper Tantrum over the lost of the 2016 Presidential Election?

Perhaps, they can get the Goreacle to present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ

Pelosi Says That Trump Withdrawing From Paris Accords “Dishonors God”. Wait. I Thought Man Controlled the “Climate”?

PelosiUpset

Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised. — Charles Krauthammer

Some people are so stupid, you wonder how they remember to breathe.

CNSNews.com reported yesterday that

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said at a press briefing today that withdrawing the United States from the Paris Accord on climate change dishonors God. 
“The Bible tells us that to minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship,” Pelosi said. “To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us and that is just what we are doing by walking away from this accord.”

Here is an excerpt from Pelosi’s briefing:

And we have a moral responsibility in addition to our national security, our economy and the good health of our children. We have a moral responsibility.     We must leave future generations with a healthy, sustainable planet. Faith leaders—starting with His Holiness, Pope Francis—to the Evangelical community have urged as to be responsible stewards of the beauty of God’s creation. They believe, as do I, that this planet is God’s creation and we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of it. When we worked with the Evangelical community to put together our climate legislation ten years ago, nine years ago–we worked on it for awhile–they had their literature which said that we had a moral responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, and, in doing so, we must pay special attention to the needs of the poor. They saw it as an environmental justice issue as well, the Evangelical community.
When the pope went to the White House he talked about the dangers of air pollution, when he was here. And just last week, the pope met with President Trump and gave him a copy of his encyclical, Laudate Si, which made the case for strong, urgent action to halt the climate crisis. The pope wrote: ‘The climate is a common good belonging to all and meant for all.’
The Bible tells us that to minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us and that is just what we are doing by walking away from this accord.

I just love it when Liberal Politicians like San Fran Nan attempt to speak for God.

Especially her.

In April of 2009, outspoken Abortion Rights Champion Pelosi traveled to Vatican City to meet with “Il Papa”.  Things did not go well for her. Here in Dixie, we would describe it as a “Come to Jesus” Meeting. (courtesy of catholicleague.org)

At their meeting, Pope Benedict XVI took the occasion “to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of development.”

What occasioned such a rebuke was not only Pelosi’s total support of abortion rights, including the now outlawed practice of partial-birth abortion, but her incredible statement last fall on “Meet the Press.” She said that the Catholic Church had not consistently opposed abortion over time. Hence, the pointed response by the pope.

What was perhaps even more significant, was the fact that Pelosi was denied her big prize: she desperately wanted a picture of her and the pope smiling together. But there was no photo-op—the Vatican, uncharacteristically, had no photographer present. Thus, there was no way for Pelosi to exploit her meeting.

And, then there was the 2012 Democratic National Convention

Delegates and members of the Democratic party booed after former Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) discussed God and moved to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles, had to ask for the Yea and Nay vote several times before declaring the motion passed.

C-SPAN cameras captured the dissatisfaction among members after the motion passed.

More information from the Associated Press:
Democrats have changed their convention platform to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

The move came after criticism from Republicans.

Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected.

He called for a vote three times before ruling.

The party reinstated language from the 2008 platform that said “we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

The platform also now includes what advisers said was Obama’s personal views on Jerusalem.

Now that we’ve established that American Liberals like Nancy Pelosi, only refer to the Diety of 75% of Americans when it is politically expedient to do so…

Have you ever wondered why Modern American Liberals are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals personal mantras, they believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

Including the sovereignty of the United States of America.

So, when President Trump told those countries who were looking forward to spending American Taxpayers’ money with no penalties or responsibility on their end, that the Gravy Train was pulling out of the station without them, and Obama’s quest for an enduring legacy was not as important as the American Jobs which would have been lost, Liberals had something else to throw a hissy fit about.

why do Modern American Liberals and bought-off Liberal Politicians continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1.  Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama and Hillary. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. They have got political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Liberals continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recall, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost, and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Planet will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

For Pelosi to attempt to argue that the God of Abraham is on her side is hypocritical at best and downright psychotic at worst.

Molech, yes. The God of Abraham, no.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they soon find Pelosi huddled in a corner, wearing her bloomers on top of her head, swearing that the ice is chasing her like it did people in that horrible movie starring Dennis Quaid, “The Day After Tomorrow”, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Trump’s Paris Climate Accord Speech: American Sovereignty is Cool Again

trump

The thunderclap which you may have heard at 3:32 EDT yesterday was not the result of a Climate-Changing Storm System as seen in the ridiculous movie “The Day After Tomorrow”.

It was the sound of the butt cheeks of those whose worship the Gospel According to Al Gore slamming together in unison as our American President fulfilled another Campaign Promise and got us out of an agreement made by Former President Barack Hussein Obama, which would have cost American Taxpayer Money and American Jobs, which were to be sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s Legacy.

Here is an excerpt from President Trump’s Historic Speech, courtesy of WhiteHouse.gov

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense.  They don’t put America first.  I do, and I always will.  (Applause.) The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance.  You see what’s happening.  It’s pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind.

At what point does America get demeaned?  At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?   We want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers.  We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore.  And they won’t be.  They won’t be.

I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.  (Applause.)  I promised I would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve America’s interests.  Many trade deals will soon be under renegotiation.  Very rarely do we have a deal that works for this country, but they’ll soon be under renegotiation.  The process has begun from day one.  But now we’re down to business.

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund — nice name — which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments.  So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else.  Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.

The Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion — nobody else is even close; most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism.  That’s where they came.  Believe me, they didn’t come from me.  They came just before I came into office.  Not good.  And not good the way they took the money.

In 2015, the United Nation’s departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as “peanuts,” and stated that “the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog.”  In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020.  And nobody even knows where the money is going to.  Nobody has been able to say, where is it going to?

Of course, the world’s top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the Green Fund, which we terminated.  America is $20 trillion in debt.  Cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure.  Millions of our citizens are out of work.  And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us.  So think of that.

There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well.  Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives.  Thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.  (Applause.)  Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it.  And I will.

Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly.  It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal.

The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time.  In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point.  And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.  Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.

As President, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people.  The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.  It is time to exit the Paris Accord — (applause) — and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country.

It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — along with many, many other locations within our great country — before Paris, France.  It is time to make America great again.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

No, thank you, Mr. President.

“Putting America First.” What a concept.

President Trump is working hard to fulfill his promise of making America great again.

Former President Obama was bound and determined during his 8 long years as President to make America into just another nation, assigning American Exceptionalism to the trash heap of  history.

His pure ignorance to America’s place in the world was overwhelming. Only by standing up to the thug nations represented at the UN and as President Trump mentioned, those who would ‘demean” us, will America be respected, and left alone, as the sovereign nation that we are.

Obama’s bowing and scraping, like a leader of a country who occupied a subservient position to nations filled with barbarians, who would slit every American’s throat, if given the chance, was an stunning display of naiveté and downright ignorance.

The moment that Barack Hussein Obama took office in January of 2009, the sovereignty of the Shining City Upon a Hill was placed in peril.

Barack Hussein Obama, beginning with his World Apology Tour, proclaimed to the world that America was just another nation, as subservient to the whims of the United Nations, as any third world nation.

After terrorists murdered four Americans at the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, Obama stepped in front of the General Assembly of United Nations, like a little school boy, repeating the lie which he and his staff concocted, that it was some little unwatched Youtube Video that caused the Muslims’ actions over there.

There is a reason that the Headquarters of the United Nations is in New York City in New York State in the United States of America.

We are not their servants. In fact, the United Nations would not exist if not for America.

So, what does being a “sovereign” nation mean?

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above our safe space-seeking Modern American Liberals, who do not believe in American Exceptionalism and our Sovereignty as a Free Nation, in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where these “smartest people in the room” are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

We are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws, the most important of which is The Constitution of the United States, which guarantees us, as a Free People, the right to cast our vote from whomever we please, which we did on November 8th, 2016, when we elected Donald J. Trump at the 45th President of the United States of America..

We are Americans.

We man up and we handle our own problems.

Yesterday, the world was put on notice. The United States of America will no longer be played as a patsy.

Being a Sovereign Nation is cool, again.

AMERICA FIRST.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Earth Day Celebrated. The Climate Changed: An Analysis of a Psuedo-Science

untitled (137)

Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised. — Charles Krauthammer

Foxnews.com reports that

March for Science rallies were held across the country Saturday in response to what organizers and attendees see as increasing attacks on science and concerns about looming cuts in government spending.

“When scientists were told on January 25 to be silent, this rally was conceived,” poet Jane Hirshfield told a rain-soaked crowd at a rally near the Washington Monument, footsteps from the White House that President Trump took over on January 20.

Hirshfield was preceded on stage by New Wave star Thomas Dolby, who sang his 1982, techo-influenced hit “She Blinded Me with Science.”

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges

Trump critics say they are concerned about the president’s proposed cutbacks for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health, his administration’s skepticism about the cause of climate change and other science-related issues.  

However, organizers say the march was political but not partisan — to in fact promote the understanding of science and defending it from attacks, including a proposed 20 percent cutback at the NIH.

“It’s not about the current administration,” said co-organizer and public health researcher Caroline Weinberg. “The truth is we should have been marching for science 30 years ago, 20 years, 10 years ago. … The current (political) situation took us from kind of ignoring science to blatantly attacking it. And that seems to be galvanizing people in a way it never has before.”

The rallies, coinciding with Earth Day, were held in more than 500 cities worldwide including New York, Chicago and Geneva.

Marchers in Geneva carried signs that read, “Science — A Candle in the Dark” and “Science is the Answer.”

“We are marching today to remind people, especially our lawmakers, about the significance of science,” Bill Nye, a TV science educator, said at the Washington rally.

“Rigorous science is critical to my administration’s efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection,” Trump said in a statement as the rallies began.

“My administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks. As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.”

In London, physicists, astronomers, biologists and celebrities gathered for a march past the city’s most celebrated research institutions. Supporters carried signs showing images of a double helix and chemical symbols.

The protest was putting scientists, who generally shy away from advocacy and whose work depends on objective experimentation, into a more public position.

Signs and banners readied for the Washington rally reflected anger, humor and obscure scientific references, such as “No Taxation without Taxonomy.”

Taxonomy is the science of classifying animals, plants and other organisms.

Scientists involved in the march said they were anxious about political and public rejection of established science such as climate change and the safety of vaccine immunizations.

“Scientists find it appalling that evidence has been crowded out by ideological assertions,” said Rush Holt, a former physicist and Democratic congressman who runs the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “It is not just about Donald Trump, but there is also no question that marchers are saying ‘when the shoe fits.”

Have you ever wondered why Modern American Liberals are still so preoccupied with the faux science of Global Warming/Climate Change?

I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to believe that you can make a change in the very weather itself, which is controlled by Someone way above your pay grade?

Invented by Al Gore, and propagandized in the book and the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Climate Change” has become both a Secular Liberal Religion and an industry, a failed one, but an industry none the less.

Ranging from washouts like Solyndra to GreenTech Automotive, millions of taxpayer dollars were sunk into these so-called green projects, through all 8 years of the Obama administration.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

It is so much a part of Congressional Liberals personal mantras, they believe that literally EVERYTHING is secondary to this faux science.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do Modern American Liberals continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science his legacy an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1.  Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama and Hillary. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama’s got political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Liberals continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recall, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost, and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Planet will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public from the immature, absurd, and corrupt nature of their ongoing National Temper Tantrum over the lost of the 2016 Presidential Election?

Perhaps, they can get the Goreacle to present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly at the Box Office, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ