With devastating floods ravaging counties across Texas, the establishment Left isn’t waiting for rescue workers to finish cleaning up the mess before they declare the culprit: climate change deniers.
The eco-doomsayer Think Progress will explain it to you:
Texas and Oklahoma both face intensifying drought and flooding, although politicians in both states have denied climate change. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Texas “has yet to formally address climate change preparedness” — one of only 12 states to not have taken any steps toward addressing the impacts of climate change on water resources.
“Between more intense rainstorms and sea level rise, flooding will only increase if we don’t address climate change,” according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The global warming debate is over!”
That has been a common battle cry from the political left and the news media for years now. As a conservative who is inherently skeptical of any media-driven “conventional wisdom” (mostly because they almost always turn out wrong), this declaration has always made me chuckle for several reasons.
First, as I recently asked Democratic congressman John Yarmuth on my syndicated radio show: If the left is so confident that they’ve “won” this debate (personally, I don’t recall that we ever really even had one), why in the world would they want so badly for it to be over? If I was really humiliating my opponents on an issue both in reality and in perception, I would want to keep that discussion going as long and as often as I possibly could.
Source=Wikimedia, Date=April 2004,
Author=Brocken InagloryThe hypothesis that “ocean acidification” will kill corals and shellfish due to higher levels of carbon dioxide dissolved in the sea is often used to stoke fear in the hearts of nature lovers.
Here’s why I don’t believe there is a shred of evidence to support these claims.
When the slight global warming that occurred between 1970 and 2000 came to a virtual standstill, the doomsayers adopted “climate change”, which apparently means all extreme weather events are caused by human emissions of CO2.
Cold, hot, wet, dry, wind, snow and large hailstones are attributed to humanity’s profligate use of fossil fuels. But the pause in global warming kept on and became embarrassing around 2005.
The war on coal is not just political rhetoric, or a paranoid fantasy concocted by rapacious polluters. It’s real and it’s relentless. Over the past five years, it has killed a coal-fired power plant every 10 days. It has quietly transformed the U.S. electric grid and the global climate debate.
The industry and its supporters use “war on coal” as shorthand for a ferocious assault by a hostile White House, but the real war on coal is not primarily an Obama war, or even a Washington war. It’s a guerrilla war. The front lines are not at the Environmental Protection Agency or the Supreme Court. If you want to see how the fossil fuel that once powered most of the country is being battered by enemy forces, you have to watch state and local hearings where utility commissions and other obscure governing bodies debate individual coal plants. You probably won’t find much drama. You’ll definitely find lawyers from the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, the boots on the ground in the war on coal.
Nye didn't get the 'astronaut gig' because he wears glasses, not for the lack of PhDs.In an interview with Vox, Bill Nye argues that politicians who deny man-made global warming are violating their constitutional duties to the American people. Nye then misconstrues a clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to support his point.
“Well, first of all, I think denying climate change is in nobody’s best interests,” Nye told Vox in a recent interview. “But I also think denying science in general is in no one’s best interests.”
“When you have people denying this basic process, and how we all got here, it’s offensive to me intellectually,” Nye added. “And I happen to think it’s unpatriotic. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says the government shall ‘promote the progress of science and useful arts.’”
A good science-fiction flick has to include futuristic technology—jet packs, soaring towers, robots who can fix anything, and, for George Clooney, windmills. That’s right—in Disney’s “Tomorrowland,” one of the harbingers of hope, innovation and the future is a medieval contraption that kills endangered birds and generates just enough energy to brew a cup of tea.
In a film about innovation and creativity, one could hope for futuristic technology that wows audiences rather than preaching left-leaning environmental policy. Unfortunately, “Tomorrowland” has entrenched itself in backward, liberal ideas.
Researchers from the University of Arizona and Stanford University used a contractor to conduct a survey, by telephone, of 803 Arizona residents about their views on global warming. They then conflated this very small sample into representing the views of all Arizonans.
The second paragraph of the study press release says:
“The survey also found that more than 70 percent of Arizonans support government action to reduce global warming, and a majority of state residents believe people are at least partly to blame for the planet’s warmer temperatures.” Or was it 70 percent of 803 Arizonans?
Farther down in the press release is this gem of a sentence: “Most Arizona residents believe action by the state to reduce global warming will help the state economy or have no effect, and 23 percent believe it will hurt it.” This is followed by “An overwhelming majority of Arizonans favor the federal government giving companies tax breaks to produce more electricity from renewable sources such as water, wind and solar power.” Since when is 70 percent of 803 an “overwhelming majority of Arizonans?” Do you see where this poll is going?
“Woe to the land that’s governed by a child.” - Shakespeare, Richard III
I have been wrestling for some kind of explanation why the President of the United States, Barack Obama, would continue to talk about climate change and urge the global transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar and bio-energy. I have concluded that he thinks everyone, not just Americans, are idiots.
We know he lies about everything, but these two topics are clearly near and dear to his heart.
My friend, Paul Driessen, is a policy analyst for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a free market think tank. Among the pundit class he’s ranked very high by his colleagues. Here’s what he has to say about climate change:
A media watchdog group says analysis of the coverage of California's lack of rain on the network evening newscasts in the last 18 months reveals a drought in balanced and accurate reporting.
According to the Media Research Center, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news featured 188 stories in the past year and a half about the California drought. MRC's Julia Seymour recognizes that it is a big story, so she is not surprised by that statistic.
"But what we didn't find in these stories and should have found were stories bringing up the problems that environmental regulations have actually caused or worsened the crisis by sending massive quantities of water out to sea through projects to divert water, like to save fish like the Delta Smelt," she submits. "Those stories were missing, as well as any real indication that the government might have failed to do its job to prepare for changes in weather patterns."
Hansen giving Congressional testimony in 1988 on the perils of global warming. His predictions were off by 300%.There’s an old saying that in polite company, it’s not proper to talk about religion or politics, so stick to neutral subjects like the weather to avoid conversational confrontation. Nowadays, the climate on that subject has changed dramatically.
Earlier this year, I attended a presentation on recent and projected short-term weather conditions for southwestern Pennsylvania. The event was directed at specialists in the public health profession. A meteorologist from the local National Weather Service office gave details on the region’s recent cold snap and estimated when he expected a warm-up for spring – all well and good, until an attendee turned the talk to anthropogenic climate change.
The woman who had been hanging off the anchor chain of a support ship that is part of Royal Dutch Shell's plans to explore for oil in the Arctic Ocean ended her days-long protest in Seattle on Monday morning.
Student activist Chiara D'Angelo requested assistance getting down from her perch on the Arctic Challenger in the Bellingham harbor around 9.30am on Monday, the Coast Guard said.
'Angelo was checked for hypothermia and then released,' Petty Officer 3rd Class Katelyn Shearer said.