“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
—Daniel J. Boorstin

College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming

Republicans with higher levels of education are more likely than those in their parties with less education to say that the seriousness of global warming is "generally exaggerated."

By contrast, Democrats with some college or more are less likely than those with less education to believe the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated, according to Gallup.


Feisty Ala. climate change critic claims Washington is trying to intimidate him

Prof. John ChristyProf. John ChristyAn Alabama atmospheric scientist who has gained a global reputation as a repudiator of "mainstream climate science" strongly defended his research record at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH), where he is a distinguished professor and director of the university's Earth System Science Center.

John Christy, who has been at UAH since 1987, said this week that all of his research funds are derived from state and federal agencies and that he has never accepted research money from business or industry groups that have challenged the scientific findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Research Council and other expert bodies.

Nor has he accepted research funding from groups actively engaged in lobbying against U.S. climate change policies, he said.

DIVESTMENT CON: Fossil fuels make protests possible

divestments protestAs a university professor for over 30 years, I can state unequivocally that campus rhetoric never produced one single kilowatt hour of electricity, never cooked one meal and never fueled one automobile.

The coal, natural gas and oil that do all these things provide 82 percent of our energy. Yet, organizers of "Global Divestment Day" held protests in February to demand that universities eliminate these life-giving fossil fuels from their financial holdings.

OK, let's just say the protesters tried to hold rallies. Many "global warming" gatherings fizzled because it was too cold. Such fair-weather protesters are mostly rich by world standards, mostly elite and mostly wrong. Fossil fuels, especially coal, are the solution, not the problem.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and the Global Warming Movement

RadicalsCCD Editor's note: After finally getting a chance to watch Dinesh D'Souza's America: Imagine the World Without Her last night, I couldn't help but notice the similarities between Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and the global warming movement. I did a quick Google search and found this very germane article about the two. By Russell Cook at RedState.com:

* * * *

Rush Limbaugh regularly points out how liberals employ Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to portray conservatives as villains, and he berates GOP politicians for the combined mistakes of seeking mainstream media approval / failing to comprehend how their positions cannot take root when they allow reporters to frame the discussion – as in, ‘tea-partiers aren’t worthy of consideration because they are racist, sexist homophobes.’  GOP politicians miss the perfect opportunity to destroy that baseless accusation with demands for the reporters to prove it true or justify its relevance, choosing instead to focus on detailed criticisms perhaps out of a politically correct urge to remain polite.

Pareto Speaks to Us About Environmentalism

paretoParetoVilfredo Pareto, who died in 1923, was an Italian economist and sociologist. In the spirit of Machiavelli, he developed theories concerning human belief and the rise and fall of elites. His insights can be applied to explain much about contemporary America. (See: The Rise and Fall of Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology by Vilfredo Pareto)

Pareto believed that men form their beliefs from emotion or sentiment and that rational justifications for beliefs are constructed after the belief has been subscribed to. In other words, the rational justification is window dressing. Pareto also thought that men deceive themselves about the origin of their beliefs, not recognizing that their beliefs are the consequence of sentiment. Men claim, and believe, that their beliefs are the result of rational thought.

Because belief is emotional at its root, it is extremely difficult to make ideological conversions by logical argument. Logical arguments won’t work because the believer will mount a logical defense to every argument and will be impervious to rebuttals. Successful ideological conversions are made by using emotional tactics, such as applying psychological pressure.

Earth Hour based on a myth

earth hourEarth Hour 2015 demonstrates how radical climate activists are ruining the credibility of the environmental movement. Rather than concentrating on sensible objectives we can accomplish such as reducing real air, land and water pollution, protecting species at risk, and conserving scarce resources, Earth Hour focuses mainly on the impossible: ‘stopping climate change.’

In the Earth Hour 2015 Official Video, we are told:

“Earth Hour is a way for the citizens of the world to send clear message they want action on climate change” (UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon).

Why Climate Change is a Moral Crusade in Search of a Scientific Theory

protestersThomas Kuhn, in his classic book on the structure of scientific revolutions, points out how difficult scientific paradigms are to shift. He suggests they become even more so when there is a moral element involved.

I will suggest that projected catastrophic man-made climate change is less a scientific theory with a moral element than a moral crusade that has recruited a scientific theory.

The great global warming fandango is – at root — the latest example of politically expedient demonization of the capitalist system. First let me provide some background on how I came to this issue, and pay tribute to a very important academic advisor to the GWPF: David Henderson.

Amendment introduced because Democrats don't have enough work to do

scottDon't Democrats have anything better to do than write these silly amendments (see this post) that will go nowhere in a Congress that's controlled by the party with the largest cerebral cortex? From National Journal:

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson has introduced an amendment to the Senate budget that would prevent any ban on federal agencies and employees from talking about climate change.

In a speech Thursday introducing the amendment, Nelson said it was a pushback about "news reports … that indeed some folks are trying to muzzle scientists from speaking about the science involving the oceans, the atmosphere, the climate, and the weather."

Rep. Barbara Lee: Stop Global Warming Before Everyone Gets an STI

leeI don't delve much into the Global Climate Change debate, mostly because it seems like there's no real way to be part of the conversation on either side without looking like a complete lunatic, and I already do more than enough of that. While I believe that stewardship of the environment is a very important thing, I'm not sure how the government, which can barely deliver the mail correctly on a good day, and frequently spends thirty times more on an item from a hardware store than it would cost on the black market in North Korea, is qualified to address the tragedies associated with a burning atmosphere and a rising ocean level.

I could be wrong. John Kerry could surprise me. But I doubt it.

Documentary Exposes Green Movement's Attack on Christianity

tyrannyA new documentary claims to expose the anti-Christian agenda behind the global environmental movement. The new film entitled "It's Easy Being Green When You Have No Choice" features some of the top experts on the green movement. The narrator for the film is former meteorologist and current morning host at KSFO Radio in San Francisco, Brian Sussman, who has authored two books entitled Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam and Eco-Tyranny: How the Left's Green Agenda will Dismantle America.

The documentary also features Marc Morano, Executive Director and Chief Correspondent for Climate Depot; Beverly Eakman, former writer for the U.S. Department of Justice and Executive Director of the National Educational Consortium; Steven Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute; Randal O'Toole, Cato Institute Senior Fellow; John L. Casey, President, Space and Science Research Corporation and former White House space program advisor and consultant to NASA Headquarters; and E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D, founder of Cornwall Alliance. Dr. Beisner wanted to be part of this important documentary to convey a Biblical perspective of earth stewardship, it is said in the press release from The Adams Group.

Coal Producers: Obama Royalty Reform May Shut Us Down

coal trainThe Obama administration has proposed to change how it collects royalties on coal mined from federal land, a move that environmentalists hope, and the industry worries, will cut use of the fuel linked to climate change.

The Interior Department says the accounting change is needed to update rules adopted almost three decades ago, and streamline the program for companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. and Arch Coal Inc. And more changes are on the way.

“It’s time for an honest and open conversation about modernizing the federal coal program,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a speech last week to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “How do we manage the program in a way that is consistent with our climate-change objectives?”

For industry, the broad effort is seen through the prism of their ongoing complaints that President Barack Obama is waging a “War on Coal.” Sales of federally owned coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana -- the biggest source -- topped 350 million tons last year, generating company revenues of almost $5 billion, government data showed.

Justices split: should EPA consider costs when making new rules?

power linesThe Associated Press is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a landmark case that challenges whether the EPA "unreasonably refused to consider the costs of new pollution rules" that have already forced some power plants to close, drove up electricity prices, and "threaten grid reliability."

Twenty-one states and industry groups who are challenging the EPA said in their briefs that the EPA was wrong to not consider the costs before instituting new regulations. After the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled last April that the EPA could refuse to assess the costs of its rules, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The two groups are "adamant that EPA's interpretation of the law is wrong, and asked the Supreme Court" to settle the matter.