Environmentalists first predicted impending climate disaster in the 1970s, but they didn’t call it global warming. Back then, it was “Global Cooling” that would end life on earth as we knew it. The smog of industrial pollutants was blocking out sunlight so severely, we were warned, that our planet would enter a new ice age unless we acted quickly. Magazine covers featured pictures of snowball earth.
In the eighties, we cleaned up our air, the threatened the ice age did not occur, and thousands of people with time on their hands and seeking purpose in life had discovered that they could make a career out of disaster prophecy. Thus, it was time for a new catastrophe: “Global Warming” Well, maybe not so new. Same villain: us and our machines. Same victim: our delicate planet earth. Same threat: the end of life as we know it. Only the predicted temperature had changed.
Family Security Matters
Harvey was the first hurricane of category 3 strength or greater to come ashore in the U.S. since Wilma hit Florida in 2005. Nevertheless, scientists from sea to shining sea are claiming that Harvey, and now Irma, prove beyond a doubt that man-made climate change is real.
Climate scientists tell us we must reduce our production of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. This would mean reducing the burning of coal, oil, and gas. Given the current state of our technology – wind and solar are vastly more expensive than fossil fuels – reducing the burning of coal, oil, and gas would mean reducing economic productivity altogether, especially energy generation and manufacturing. It would diminish Americans’ wealth, comfort, leisure, safety, health, and longevity, and it would weaken our security from foreign enemies.
But there’s more. If a government could arbitrarily reduce a people’s economic productivity, then liberty itself would soon be at an end. Imagine if government could limit the number of books that could be published in a given year, or the number of newspapers or websites that could operate at given time, or the number of churches there could be. To impose such limits would be tyranny. So would choking off the economic productivity of a people.
Paris Agreement on climate change, Obama did not even go through the motions. He bypassed Congress altogether
President Obama has just committed his most flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution to date. He purported to commit the United States to a legally binding treaty without first obtaining consent by two thirds of the Senators present, as required under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Obama is using the United Nations to end run the Senate with regard to the Paris Agreement on climate change negotiated last December.
Last week, Obama submitted an instrument to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, for deposit with the UN, which he claims signifies official “acceptance” of the Paris Agreement by the United States. Obama said he and China’s President Xi Jinping together decided to “commit formally to joining the agreement ahead of schedule.”
According to President Obama, the greatest threat we face is climate change. So his administration has gone to war on, wait for it, NASCAR.
That’s right. The Environmental Protection Agency under the direction of its regulate-everything-in-sight administrator, Gina McCarthy, has reportedly decided that – in the interest of cutting gases that supposedly contribute to planetary warming – the conversion of street cars into race cars will have to be restricted.
It’s not clear whether making it harder to upgrade regular cars into racing machines will make an iota of difference in world surface temperatures. Even the UN acknowledges that far more dramatic regulations won’t have appreciable impact. What is a pretty safe bet, though, is that the EPA’s ruling will inflame the nation’s millions of NASCAR fans – and give them a reason to vote this fall.
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
MUSLIM: “We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”
DEMOCRAT: “No you didn’t.”
MUSLIM:”Wait, what? Yes we did…”
DEMOCRAT: “No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”
MUSLIM: “WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”
DEMOCRAT: “No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”
MUSLIM: “Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”
DEMOCRAT: “Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”
MUSLIM: “What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”
DEMOCRAT: “Easy access to guns is what drives your anger.”
MUSLIM: “It’s not the guns! We will knife you, hang you, burn you, run you over, and bombs are easy to create in our kitchens! We don’t care about the guns! In fact, civilian might actually make it difficult for us!”
DEMOCRAT: “Obviously we need to ban all guns. We need to overturn the Second Amendment.”
MUSLIM: “By Allah, you are a motherless tool! The weapon is not the issue! Our Holy Jihad against you is the only thing that is important!”
DEMOCRAT: “Climate Change is the reason you rage against us. We deserve it.”
MUSLIM: “WHAT??!? What the hell does Climate Change have to do with this???”
DEMOCRAT: “Because of Climate Change, the oceans will rise by one-tenth of one inch, and that makes you furious….”
DEMOCRAT: “You see no future for your children because of Climate Change so you strap bombs on them and send them into shopping malls.
MUSLIM: “NO DAMMIT. It has NOTHING to do with Climate Change or Gun Control or ANYTHING like that! It is because we follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, who tells us to put all unbelievers to the sword! We are commanded by Allah to kill you all!”
DEMOCRAT: “This is all caused by the fact we bullied gays and transgenders in our past. If we hadn’t been so mean, and accepted Bruce Jenner for the amazing woman he was all those years, you would not be trying to kill us. Please forgive us.”
MUSLIM: “ARE YOU INSANE??? We kill gays the moment we find them! We hang them by their necks any chance we can! Islam hates homosexuality!”
DEMOCRAT: “Listen, it’s our fault. We resisted resettling you in our country. We should have given you more welfare and food stamps. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”
MUSLIM: “Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”
DEMOCRAT: “No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”
MUSLIM: “OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?””
DEMOCRAT: “Gun control will fix this.”
On November 13, the same day as the terrorist attacks in Paris, USA Today ran a full-page ad from billionaire Tom Steyer’s group NextGen Climate highlighting the alleged global threat from climate change. As hundreds of people were being injured or killed in Paris, the ad featured these quotes about the “climate crisis:”
- Hillary Clinton: “An existential threat”
- Bernie Sanders: “The greatest threat facing the planet”
- Martin O’Malley: “Critical threat to our economy”
In a new development, we have just learned from Judicial Watch that Hillary Clinton was characterized by her Muslim-connected aide, Huma Abedin, as being “very confused” about the world leaders she was supposed to be communicating with as secretary of state. The confusion may also be reflected in Mrs. Clinton’s bizarre utterance that so-called climate change is an “existential threat” that is somehow comparable to Russian nuclear weapons, which could reduce America to a burned-out cinder.
Mrs. Clinton is not alone, however. All of the Democrats running for president, plus former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, want to treat changes in the weather as something to be addressed through new treaties, international agreements and global tax schemes. This campaign has taken precedence over defeating international terrorism.
A popular weatherman announced Saturday evening he has been sacked by leading French news channel France TÃ©lÃ©visions for publishing a book which accused top climate change experts of misleading the world about the threat of global warming.
Philippe Verdier, a household name in France for his daily weather reports on the France 2 channel, announced in an online video that he had received a letter of dismissal.
My book Climate Investigation was published one month ago. It got me banned from the air waves, said the weatherman, who was put on leave from the TV station on October 12.
I received this letter this morning and decided to open it in front of you because it concerns everybody- in the name of freedom of expression and freedom of information.â€ His announcement comes four days after France TÃ©lÃ©visions chief Delphine Ernotte told French MPs that Verdier had been summoned to a formal interview that could lead to his dismissal. An employee who picked up the phone at France TÃ©lÃ©visions on Sunday morning told FRANCE 24 that there were no PRs present to confirm or deny Verdiera’s dismissal.
Many positive consequences to global warming The controversy around Verdiera’s claims has likely been heightened by their timing, with his book coming just weeks before the start of a much-anticipated UN climate change summit, known as COP21, to be held in Paris at the end of November.
I put myself in the path of COP21, which is a bulldozer, and this is the result,â€ Verdier told RTL radio station in October. He said he was inspired to write the book after Frances Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius met with TV meteorologists and asked them to highlight climate change issues in their broadcasts.
I was horrified by this speech, Verdier told French magazine Les Inrockuptibles last month. In his book, Verdier accuses state-funded climate change scientists of having been manipulated and politicised, even accusing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of publishing deliberately misleading data.
He also argues that there are a great many positive consequences to global warming, such as lower consumption of fuel used for heating and fewer cold-related deaths in winter.
I am being punished for exercising my freedom of expression, the weatherman told RTL.
Family Security Matters
President Obama hiked to Exit Glacier in Alaska last week, with photographers in tow, to send the world a message: The glacier is melting.
Obama blames it on the increasing use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, which he wants to restrict not only in the United States but worldwide. The photo op was designed to build support for an international climate agreement he’s pushing hard to sell, so far with little success.
Trouble is, the president needs to get his facts straight. Exit Glacier has been shrinking for 200 years – since 1815 – long before widespread industrialization and automobiles. As the president ended his trip, he sounded the alarm again: “This state’s climate is changing before our eyes.”
News flash, Mr. President: Alaska has been buffeted by cyclical swings in climate for thousands of years. That’s true for the rest of the world, too. There was a 300-year-long Medieval heat wave, followed by a Little Ice Age that began around 1300, and then the 300-year warming period we’re in now.
Having been bamboozled into passing a mere bill to thwart the Iran deal, rather than treating the agreement as a treaty, the Republican-controlled Congress is on the verge of being taken to the cleaners again. This time, President Obama is maneuvering to authorize U.S. participation in a United Nations climate change treaty through an executive agreement. The treaty is expected to come out of the December meeting in Paris of parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Rather than submit the agreement to the Senate as an Article II Treaty, it is anticipated that the Obama administration will simply accept the treaty on the basis of what it claims to be “existing” presidential authority.