March For Pseudoscience and Watermelon Environmentalism


When I saw that the “March for Science” was going to honor Bill Nye “The Sex Junk” Guy (Warning: you can not unsee this video) and Michael “Climate Bully” Mann, I knew this was nothing more than another phony sanctimonious narcissistic liberal lovefest designed to promote the corruption and politicization of science. To test my hypothesis that no honest self-respecting scientist would ever attend such an event I went searching for the list of speakers at this “March for Science,” and sure enough, not a single Nobel Prize in Science winner could be found. Michael “The Inquisition” Mann claims to have a Nobel Prize, but that is a Nobel PEACE Prize given to the IPCC, not a Nobel Prize in Science for work actually done in Science.

‘[Mann] did not receive any personal certificate’—Geir Lundestad, Dir. Prof. for The Norwegian Nobel Inst.: 1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to IPCC (& to Al Gore) & made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma’

Nobel Committee corrects Mann: ‘The text underneath diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to IPCC as such. No individuals on IPCC side received anything in 2007’

Science-March-2 (1)

Being a liberal event there is always a hidden agenda, and the one certainty is that the stated mission is not what the event is actually about. The “March for Science” wasn’t about science, at best it was about promoting the politicization of science, encouragement of pseudoscience and of course, more funding.

In other words, the “march for science” is just another mob of ignorant leftist loudmouths who want to enslave us all even more than we already are with huge new economy-destroying/unemployment-generating taxes and Soviet-style central planning of the economy in the name of “saving” Mother Earth. If they were really interested in helping the planet out, they would have spent their weekend picking up trash on the streets of D.C. instead of generating tons of it.


The other piece of evidence that this was simply a liberal lovefest, and not a legitimate “March for Science,” is that it was highly exclusionary. Just like the leftist “Women’s March” excluded Pro-Life Women, Berkeley excludes speakers like Milo and Ann Coulter, and every other liberal event, you either join the herd, tow the party line, embrace the groupthink, or be gone. Leftist politics is extremely intolerant of any dissension in the ranks. Leftists are the party of “collective rights,” “societal rights,” “the greater good,” they are not fans of individual rights. Community organizers aren’t working for the good of the individual, they aren’t personal life coaches helping someone with self-improvement, they are organizing communities behind a common cause, often a cause that is harmful to the individual being organized.

On Monday, it was revealed one of the sponsors of the march was removed from the event list due to outrage over the sponsor’s pro-life views. The group, New Wave Feminists, based out of Texas, is comprised of pro-life women who oppose Trump’s election. The organizers of the march claimed the platform is a pro-choice one which advocates for “open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people,” which is ultimately why the pro-life group is no longer welcome to participate. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America are sponsors of the event, but sadly there is no room for a pro-life group at a march representing and celebrating the diversity of feminism.

Here is the list of speakers at the “March for Science,” not a single Nobel Laureate listed. While I was unable to find any notable scientists on this list of speakers, I was able to find plenty of non-scientists, political groups, and NGOs. One would think that a “March for Science” would have to turn away real scientists from speaking, instead, it appears they had serious trouble finding anyone willing to attach their name to this event.

Here are a few names I felt were worth highlighting.

  1. Jane Hirshfield Award-winning Poet
  2. Roger Johnson President, National Farmers Union
  3. Timothy Ingalsbee Executive Director, Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology (FUSEE)
  4. Lydia Villa-Komaroff Founding Member, Society for the Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS)
  5. Shawn Otto Author of The War on Science & Co-founder and producer of US Presidential science debates
  6. Jeane Wong CEO & Founder, The League of Extraordinary Scientists and Engineers
  7. Taylor Richardson Aspiring Astronaut
  8. Dan Abrams Global Director of Earth Day
  9. Mark Tercek President and CEO, The Nature Conservancy
  10. Joe Romm Founding Editor,
  11. Maya Lin Artist, Environmentalist, Founder and President of What Is Missing? Foundation
  12. Rachel Kyte CEO and Special Representative to the UN Secretary-General for Sustainable Energy for All
  13. Christy Goldfuss Vice President, Energy and Environmental Policy, Center for American Progress
  14. Heidi Cullen Chief Scientist, Climate Central
  15. Jamie Rappaport Clark President & CEO, Defenders of Wildlife
  16. Lawrence Benenson Charitarian
  17. Brooke Bateman Director of Climate Watch, National Audubon Society, Science Division
  18. Mustafa Santiago Ali Senior Vice President of Climate, Environmental Justice and Community Revitalization, Hip Hop Caucus


Nowhere on the list of speakers or sponsors can you find anything close to legitimate scientists or scientific organizations. Real climate scientists like Dr. Spencer and Christy at UAH were not only not invited or welcomed, they had their windows shot out.  Dr. Pielke Jr and Dr. Curry were also notably absent, as were Anthony Watts and Kenji.

The smartest people on the planet want to oppose Trump & the best they can come up with is a march in support of themselves? – Roger Pielke Jr

Here are the sponsors of the “March for Science,” doubtful a legitimate science organization among any of them. The Orwellian “Union of Concerned Scientists” only requires a credit card for membership, no degree or professional requirements at all. They are mostly left-wing political advocacy groups masquerading as legitimate scientific authorities except, of course, maybe the “Hip Hop Caucus.”

Notably absent from the list of speakers and organizations are NASA, The Nobel Organization, The National Academy of Science, Science and Nature Magazine, Dr. James Hansen, NOAA Whistleblower John Bates, EPA Chief Scott Pruitt, or any organization that even slightly resembles a conservative leaning or Trump affiliation. This march was nothing more than political theater, and the real scientists know that, and that is why they avoided the event. The politicization of science is the greatest threat to real science, and the groups pushing that agenda are all listed on the “March for Climate Funding Science” website, right next to the “Donate” button. With friends like leftists, scientists don’t need enemies.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.



“Intelligent Talk” on NPR; Your Tax Dollars At Work

Capture30Posted with no comment:

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?

Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.

He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.”

Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe…

Americans and other rich nations produce the most carbon emissions per capita, he says. Yet people in the world’s poorest nations are most likely to suffer severe climate impacts, “and that seems unfair,” he says.

The philosopher’s personal dilemma

“I have been one of those women who actually craved to have a baby,” says Sadiye Rieder, smiling as she sits next to her husband in the sunroom of their Maryland home. “To go through pregnancy and everything, that mattered to me a lot.”…But by the time Sadiye began feeling ready for motherhood, Travis’ research had delved into the morality of adoption, which led to the ethics of procreation and to its impact on the climate.

“The climate crisis is a reproductive crisis”

Hoskins says she’s always wanted “little redheaded babies” — as do her parents, the sooner the better.

But she’s a grad student in environmental studies, and the more she learns, the more she questions what kind of life those babies would have…

At the New Hampshire meeting, 67-year-old Nancy Nolan tells two younger women that people didn’t know about climate change in the 1980s when she had her kids. Once her children were grown, “I said to them, ‘I hope you never have children,’ which is an awful thing to say,” Nolan says, her voice wavering. “It can bring me to tears easily.”…

With all that’s at stake, he says, we need to shift our cultural attitudes. “It’s not the childless who must justify their lifestyle. It’s the rest of us.”

“One and done”

After many conversations, he and Sadiye ended up convincing each other. Travis decided you can’t deny someone the hard-wired human fulfillment of creating a child.

But Sadiye agreed that the moral bar for a second child is much higher. The couple is “one and done.” Any more children will come through adoption…

When he writes online, Rieder often gets nasty comments, and inevitably people will say he must not have children. He believes it’s important that he understand viscerally what he’s asking of people. His daughter, he says, is “the most amazing thing we’ve ever done with our lives.”

Carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich

Rieder and his Georgetown collaborators have a proposal, and the first thing they stress is that it’s not like China’s abusive one-child policy. It aims to persuade people to choose fewer children with a strategy that boils down to carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich…

For the sticks part of the plan, Rieder proposes that richer nations do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents. He says the penalty should be progressive, based on income, and could increase with each additional child.

Think of it like a carbon tax, on kids. He knows that sounds crazy.

“But children, in a kind of cold way of looking at it, are an externality,” he says. “We as parents, we as family members, we get the good. And the world, the community, pays the cost.”

Full Article: Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?

Related Links: Pro-Choice Nancy Pelosi defends children

Please like, share, subscribe, re-blog and comment

Congress Should Investigate the Claim of Scientific Consensus

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The claim of “consensus” is one of the pillars of sand that is supporting the climate change political movement. The problem is, the way this conclusion was reached, it isn’t defensible. Searching published articles for certain words doesn’t prove a “consensus.” No one went or record supporting the claims of “consensus,” it all came from research of articles.

The story of how Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome set up the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to direct political and scientific focus on CO2 to ‘prove’ it was causing global warming is well documented…Consensus was a central theme to the political promotion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) from the start. Initially, it was the 6000+ representatives of the IPCC. Later, it became the manufactured percentages of 95 of Naomi Oreskes and 97 for John Cooke. However, there was another form of manufactured consensus that continues to influence public and political opinion…consensus of authority in the climate deception are the Nobel Prize, jointly awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC and the openly declared support of scientific societies for the IPCC Reports.

For there to be any real scientific “consensus” one would need models that accurately define the factors impacting global temperature. The model the IPCC has chosen claims CO2 is the most significant factors, yet all their models fail to demonstrate the validity of that theory. No real scientist would ever go on record defending the results of the IPCC Models. The models do more to discredit the theory than to validate it.


Because the failure is so spectacular, it is doubtful that any real scientist would testify before congress as to the claims that man is responsible for 100% of the warming over the past century. The evidence simply doesn’t exist to support that claim…and Michael Mann knows it.


Congress should investigate this claim of “consensus,” and demand that Mann,  Oreskes, and Cooke produce a list of scientists that support their claims. It is one thing to anonymously support a position on a survey, it is a whole other thing to testify in front of congress and risk your reputation. Congress should call the consensus bluff and tell these “scientists” to put up or shut-up. My bet is they will shut-up. Congress needs to stop investigating the science, and start exposing the lies.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

New York Times is Correct; Bigness is Bad, Time to Break Up the Climate Industrial Complex Monopoly


The New York Times has an interesting article out today that makes some interesting points, but as usual, is off target. The article appears to be a veiled threat to Google and Facebook. The new media sources have been devastating to the old print media, pushing many traditional news outlets to bankruptcy.  The power, prestige, reach and influence of the New York Times is but a shadow of its former self, dwarfed by new media companies like Google and Facebook whose market capitalizations have daily fluctuation that may exceed the entire value of the New York Times.


So what does a good leftist do when the free market kicks it in the crotch? They call for government action. Behind the laughable guise of a press organization wanting to stamp out what it deems to be “fake news,” the New York Times is making the argument that the Government should label Google and Facebook monopolies and break them up. In reality, they are lobbying for the Government violating the 1st Amendment and regulating the press and speech.

Brandeis wanted to eliminate monopolies, because (in the words of his biographer Melvin Urofsky) “in a democratic society the existence of large centers of private power is dangerous to the continuing vitality of a free people.” We need look no further than the conduct of the largest banks in the 2008 financial crisis or the role that Facebook and Google play in the “fake news” business to know that Brandeis was right.


The New York Times, however, doesn’t stop there, breaking up the Monopolies just isn’t enough. Breaking them up still allows them to be free, smaller, but free. The New York Times is a leftist organization, they don’t want freedom, they want to control. The New York Times isn’t only arguing for the breaking up of the new media, they want to deem them public utilities so the government can heavily regulate them. They want Google and Facebook to be tools of the Government, not tools of the people.

While Brandeis generally opposed regulation — which, he worried, inevitably led to the corruption of the regulator — and instead advocated breaking up “bigness,” he made an exception for “natural” monopolies, like telephone, water and power companies and railroads, where it made sense to have one or a few companies in control of an industry.Could it be that these companies — and Google in particular — have become natural monopolies by supplying an entire market’s demand for a service, at a price lower than what would be offered by two competing firms? And if so, is it time to regulate them like public utilities?


Off the charts Left-wing Silicon Valley had better wake up, and wake up fast. Their form of liberalism is based on individual freedoms, free markets, and private property rights. Silicon Valley is the epitome of free market capitalism. While they may wear their Che/Mao/Marx Tee-Shirts while coding for their 6 figure salaries, there is nothing collectivist about them. While they may support regulating fracking, oil, coal, banks and other industries, they would never accept regulation of themselves. Hypocrisy, ignorance, naivety and gullibility may be what defines them, but make no mistake, they aren’t stupid. Extremely misguided, yes, stupid? Not on your life. They want Government out of their lives, not intruding in it.


Hopefully, this article will be a shot across the bow, a wake-up call to Silicon Valley. The New York Times has brought out the big guns and pointed them squarely at the most powerful and liberal companies on earth. Like VP Frank Underwood said in House of Cards, “you may have all the money, but I have all the men with guns.” The Government and leftwing organizations like the New York Times are the greatest threats to the liberals in Silicon Valley. Ironically, the greatest allies Silicon Valley has are the Conservatives. As long as anti-big government, anti-regulation, pro-constitution people are in power, they have absolutely nothing to worry about. Conservatives may not like a whole lot that comes out of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, but they will fight to the death for their right to live their lives as they see fit.

This is a climate change blog, why am I writing about a spat between the New York Times, Google and Facebook? Because the New York Times makes a great case for breaking up not Google or Facebook, but the EPA.

While Brandeis generally opposed regulation — which, he worried, inevitably led to the corruption of the regulator — and instead advocated breaking up “bigness,”

The EPA is clearly a victim of what economists call “regulatory capture.” They no longer serve the public, they serve the interests and agendas of the NGOs and other interested parties that now control them. The recent behavior of EPA employees and others involved in the climate change movement provide the evidence that it is time to break up the climate change departments of the EPA, NOAA, and NASA. Clearly too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few activists masquerading as public servants and scientists.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Rules for Climate Radicals; Whenever Possible, Go Outside the Expertise of the Enemy.


In real science, you make an observation, make a hypothesis, collect the data, test the data and reach a conclusion. In other words, you stay focused on the issue. In politics, you deflect, pivot, change the subject and obfuscate. Which sounds more like the climate change debate? Clearly, climate change is a political issue, not a scientific issue. I’ve watched plenty of climate change debates and testimonies, and I’ve never once heard Michael Mann refer to the scientific method, or demonstrate its application to climate science. Applying the scientific method to ice core data results in accepting the null that climate change is natural and that there is nothing abnormal about the past 150 and 50 years of temperature variation when compared to the entire Holocene. The construction of the “Hockeystick” is a scientific joke. Science isn’t Michael Mann’s strong point, propaganda and politics are.

Michael Mann can recite the left-wing climate change talking points in his sleep. Allowing him to have a monolog reciting his lines is a huge mistake for people opposing him. This allows him to choose the field of battle and plays to his strengths. To defeat the propagandist and get the truth out, the opposition must get him to leave his position of strength, and focus on his weaknesses.

My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”

Michael Mann in the most recent congressional testimony exposed many of his weaknesses. Michael Mann is much like the Wizard of Oz, where his power-base and support is totally dependent upon the perception of credibility. Michael Mann wants people to believe he is a credible scientist. He has that perception in the public’s eye, that is why he is chosen by the Democrats as their champion for congressional testimony. He has the added benefit of having the support of organizations that can literally alter the data to get the results that they want, so no matter what scientific claim is made against climate change, Michael Mann will always be able to counter those claims with his own set of data and “peer-reviewed” research. Climate science is a rigged “science,” and it is rigged in favor of Michael Mann’s position. The government isn’t spending all this money to implicate CO2 expecting the conclusion to be CO2 isn’t to blame. There is no money to gained if CO2 isn’t the cause. To win the scientific debate you have to not only discredit Michael Mann, you have to discredit NASA, NOAA, the EPA, the Democratic Party, Big Bird, Bill Nye, Al Gore and countless NGOs and scientific and professional organizations. That is a tall and most likely unachievable task.  In politics the good guys don’t always win, in fact, I would argue they most likely lose. That is what the real scientists must understand, and change their tactics accordingly.

Michael Mann is trying to maintain a facade of scientific credibility, he is an emperor with no clothes, and he knows it. The general public has an image of what a real scientist is and Michael Mann knows he doesn’t fit that image. Michael Mann knows he has to keep the truth of his unprofessional, unethical,  and unscientific behavior hidden from the public. He knows that if the public ever knows the truth, the entire global warming fraud will collapse. Addressing these issues, not the scientific arguments, are the best way to win this battle for the truth.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Proof of this was demonstrated in the recent congressional hearings. Once Michael Mann was off his talking points he demonstrated what a true amateur he really is. The general public thinks that real science is performed by adults that rely on objective facts, reason, and logic.  The general public knows that Ad Hominin attacks are behaviors that have no place in science. That is why the highly polished and rehearsed Michael Mann lost his cool when the topic came up about him calling other scientists “deniers.” He clearly felt uncomfortable discussing that topic, and easily came across looking like a bully. “Deniers” is a derogatory political term used to fire up the passions of the political base, it is a red meat trigger word for the political left. Prosecuting/persecuting others that disagree with a position is also antithetical to what the general public expects from real scientists. Micheal Mann even went so far as to perjure himself than to admit association with such groups. This video captures Michael Mann’s guilt for all to see.

Michael Mann repeated all the expected lies, called his hockey stick an iconic result, and was caught in two new lies: he denied his affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute and he denied calling Dr. Curry a “denier.”

This video with Sen Ted Cruz and the Sierra Club President highlights what happens when discussing science is going outside the person’s expertise. This will never happen to Michael Mann, he is too well rehearsed in the focus group tested talking points. What trips Michael Mann up is discussing his unprofessional behaviors, of which there are many.

Instead of focusing on the science in the next congressional testimony, the focus should be on Michael Mann’s dishonest perjury, his association with groups that support inquisition-like tactics, his unprofessional labeling of scientists with differing views as “heretics” and “deniers.”  The Climategate emails are full of material for discussion. The rigging of the “peer review” process, the rigging of the publication process, the intimidation of fellow scientists, the collision and resulting “adjustments” to the data and conclusions, the acknowledgment that the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier isn’t melting yet nothing is done to inform the public about the true cause, sublimation. All these claims are factual, truthful and honest, and they are the last thing Michael Mann would ever want to discuss during a congressional testimony. It isn’t an Ad Hominin attack if it is truthful and helps expose a fraud. As long as Michael Mann can hide who he truly is from the public, the climate alarmists will win. It is time to pull the curtain way and expose the truth.

Another point of attack would be to hit Michael Mann on the economics of climate change. I would love to see him defend pouring money down the climate change rat hole when people are still living in poverty, attending failed school, don’t have access to healthcare, etc etc etc. Identifying the better uses for the trillions of dollars he would have us spend on fighting climate change would expose him to be astronomically out of touch with the average voter.

$7,000,000,000,000/year is the equivalent of:

Giving every American $22,000/yr
Giving every person on the face of the Earth $933/yr
7,000 new drugs/yr
8,750 new major hospitals, or 4.7 million new hospital beds
14,000,000 miles of new road/yr
28,000,000 Family MDs salaries
70,000,000 Teacher’s salaries
35 Apollo Missions
Preserve 700,000,000 acres of Rain Forest
70,000 endangered species breeding farms


Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Related Posts:

Rules for Climate Radicals; Never Go Outside the Expertise of Your People

Rules for Climate Radicals; Power is What the Enemy Thinks You Have

Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”

Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax

Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?



EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Should Take the Gloves Off; Turn the Crippling EPA Regs on Wind and Solar


One of the foundations of leftist politics is “accuse others of what you are guilty.” It is a wonderfully effective political tactic used by the most unethical, deceitful and deplorable of people. It unjustly accuses the innocent of guilt, marginalizes the crime, and most importantly puts the accused on defense when they should be on offense. Environmental groups are legendary for their willingness, ability, and voracity at abusing our legal system and undermining the democratic process. The most recent example is the opposition to President Trump’s “Border Wall.”

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) want the courts to halt construction of Trump’s border wall, arguing it will harm sensitive ecosystems and impede the movement of endangered species, specifically jaguars.

“Endangered species like jaguars and ocelots don’t observe international boundaries and should not be sacrificed for unnecessary border militarization,” Kierán Suckling, CBD’s executive director, said in a statement.

While those claims may be true, and accommodations should be made if justified, it is the “selective moral outrage” that makes these efforts so blatantly disingenuous. Deserts are some of the most fragile ecosystems out there, and there was barely a peep from environmentalists when it came to destroying thousands of pristine acres of desert habitat for a commercially unviable solar plant in the California desert. (Here is a video of what are called “streamers,” unfortunate birds vaporized by the plant)

 The $2.2 billion plant is designed to have 377 megawatts of capacity. But it has been plagued by charges of numerous bird deaths (the birds are supposedly zapped by the fierce beams between the mirrors and the collecting tower; these charges have been largely discounted by environmental impact studies) and accusations of production shortfalls.

Birds aren’t the only victims of the Ivanpah solar plant. Tortoises are at risk as well. Scott Pruitt should have an investigation to discover how this project sailed through the EPA approval process with such ease.  What he learns should then be passed on to the Nuclear, Coal, Fracking, and Petroleum Power industries so we can actually start solving our energy problems, instead of compounding them. The same standards need to be applied to all industries equally. The EPA should not be used as a tool to discriminate against certain energy sources. The EPS should support energy diversity.

That includes the high price of the electricity Ivanpah sells to the grid and the several score desert tortoises that have been its victims, despite over $50 million spent to relocate the animals…

Since 1950, the species’ population has collapsed by some 90 percent.

“Translocation is a terrible idea,” one of the biologists hired to try to save tortoises at the construction site told me, requesting anonymity because unauthorized contact with journalists violates BrightSource’s rules for the scientists it employs.

“Everybody knows that translocation doesn’t work.  When you’re walking in front of a bulldozer, crying, and moving animals and cacti out of the way, it’s hard to think that the project is a good idea.”

It’s not just tortoises dying.  During tests of the power plant before last week’s official opening, dead and injured birds with scorched feathers were found at the site.


Windfarms are basically giant bird Cuisinarts, killing many endangered species of raptors and bats.

Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought

Wind turbines are actually slaughtering millions of birds and bats annually

The Obama administration is issuing 30-year permits for “taking” (killing) bald and golden eagles. The great birds will be legally slaughtered “unintentionally” by lethal wind turbines installed in their breeding territories, and in “dispersion areas” where their young congregate (e.g. Altamont Pass).

By chance (if you believe in coincidences), a timely government study claims wind farms will kill “only” 1.4 million birds yearly by 2030. This new report is just one of many, financed with taxpayers’ money, aimed at convincing the public that additional mortality caused by wind plants is sustainable. – It is not.

Almost every “green initiative” has been both an economic and environmental disaster.

From killer diesel fumes to ruinous floods, every green initiative imposed on us by politicians has ended in disaster… and this is the great folly of our age

Ethanol is a complete joke. Ignoring the absurdity of burning food for fuel while people are starving in this world, it incentivizes farmers to plow, plant, fertilize, and pesticide extra acres of land, land that was once preserved as natural habitat. Brazil is cutting down the rain forest to produce the “green energy” ethanol, and ethanol is widely believed to be a net energy loser. Other research shows that this 100% Renewable Energy Utopia is nothing but pure fantasy.

While fully accepting the perspective that fossil fuel energy production and consumption must be dramatically reduced to save the planet from dangerous CO2-induced global warming, four Australian researchers have compiled a comprehensive rebuke of the premise that renewable energies (wind, solar, biomass, etc.) can feasibly supplant fossil fuels to become the dominant power source for the world.


Biodiesel’s palm oil farms also destroy sensitive habitat and forests.

New palm oil figures: Biodiesel use in EU fueling deforestation
Palm oil has become a major biofuel for EU vehicles, new figures show. But far from an eco-friendly alternative, biodiesel is 80 percent worse for the climate than fossil diesel, critics say.

To make matters worse, green fuels aren’t even green, and in some cases “dirtier than fossil fuels.”

Life-cycle non-GHG air pollutant emissions, particularly NOX [nitrous oxides] and PM [particulates], are higher for corn ethanol and other biofuel blends than conventional petroleum fuels

If the EPA is to protect the environment, which most people consider ensuring clean air and water for human consumption, promoting such environmental disasters as wind, solar, and biofuels appear to be in violation of their charter. If Environmental NGOs support opposition to environmentally friendly nuclear power, the EPA lines up with crippling lawsuits. If Environmental NGOs support opposition to environmentally friendly natural gas, clean coal, fracking, and petroleum production, the EPA lines up with crippling lawsuits. This one-sided application of the law through a governmental agency is solid evidence of “regulatory capture,” and must be addressed by the Trump administration.

This concentration of power is simply antithetical to any free democratic society, especially when trillions of dollars are allocated based upon the data these organizations produce. The concentration creates the possibility of what economists call “regulatory capture,” and it is such a threat that President Eisenhower warned the nation about it in his farewell speech. The recent protesting of President Trump’s nominee to run EPA by EPA employees is a clear sign the organization is no longer representing the will of the people. In another branch of the government, that kind of behavior would get you court-martialed. Much like the Trusts of the early 20th Century, it is time to break up government “Robber Barons,” starting with the EPA.

To demonstrate how insane the actions of the Obama administration’s EPA were, they convinced the SCOTUS to deem CO2 a pollutant? CO2 is the exhaust of life, CO2 is evidence of life, CO2 is critical to life, CO2 is the element upon which all organic life is based. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. CO2 is plant food, CO2 is essential for photosynthesis. We study the life cycle which is also called the carbon cycle. No one in the history of mankind has ever been harmed by CO2 levels reached over the entire geological record of the earth. No human has ever had an allergic reaction to CO2, no human has ever died from breathing CO2  at levels consistent with the atmosphere or even a submarine where the CO2 levels are 20x what are found in the atmosphere. The entire purpose of the human lung is to regulate CO2 and O2 within the human body. CO2 is essential to healthy human life.

The entire purpose of the lung is to manage the delicate balance between CO2 and O2 in the human body. CO2 is necessary for the lung and blood to function. Too little or too much CO2 in the lung and the pH of the blood can change, hyper- ventilating can cause a person to lose consciousness, too much CO2 and a person can suffocate. The standard level of CO2 in the lung is between 2.7 to 7.5%. To put that in perspective atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm, or 0.04%. 2.7 to 7.5% or 27,000 ppm to 75,000 ppm is between 67 and 187x the level of the atmosphere. Submarines can have CO2 levels near 10,000 ppm.

Accountability should also be demanded by the Trump administration. If the EPA claims something and then places regulations in place, that regulation had better solve the problem. Growing up the “Spotted Owl” was the environmental cause Du Jour, and it wreaked havoc on the timber industry and private property rights, which seemed to be of little concern to the lawyers employed by the NGOs.

The consequences for the rural economy in many areas of the Pacific Northwest
were devastating. As many as 135 mills were closed, pushing unemployment up to 25 percent in some small communities (Adams). The mill closings affected cutters, loggers, and truck drivers, including other businesses that provided services to them were also out of work. Once booming logging towns soon became ghost towns within the next year. Economic setbacks, due to saving complex ecosystems and endangered species is a small price to pay. If we continue to focus on quantity over quality, we will exhaust the earth’s precious gifts. We have already caused extensive damage to the environment, plants and animals due to greed and capitalism. It is certainly time for us to pay for our mistakes.

What were the benefits of all the job-killing regulations put in place by the EPA? The spotted owl population continues to decline to this day. All those lives and communities ruined for nothing. The only people that gained were the lawyers employed by the misguided environmental NGOs and the NGOs themselves that were able to con countless gullible donors and subscribers to join their Quixotic Marxist Crusade.

The Spotted Owl is experiencing a population decline over much of its range. In British Columbia, the population is thought to have declined by 67% between 1992 and 2002 (10.4% per year), and may have declined by over 90% since European settlement (Chutter et al. 2004). Estimates of population change at demography study areas in the United States indicate declines at all 3 study areas in Washington, at 2 of 5 study areas in Oregon, and at all 3 study areas in California (Dugger et al. 2016).

The sad truth is that logging wasn’t the problem for the Spotted Owls, encroaching species like the Barred Owl that feed on the Spotted Owl was one big problem. The other problem ironically is that the forests had become too dense due to fire prevention programs. Spotted Owls have a wide wingspan eat mice. Mice are live on the floor of the forest. In order for the Spotted Owl to catch a mouse, they have to fly down from the tree tops to catch the mouse on the floor. The more branches and tree trunks in the path to catching the mouse, the less likely a Spotted Owl is to catch the mouse. (Must watch Documentary)

Shooting Owls to Save Other Owls
Protecting habitat hasn’t stopped the spotted owl’s decline. Will shooting its rivals help?

It hasn’t turned out that way. The spotted owl population is dropping by about 3.9 percent a year, and the decline is even steeper in the northern part of the owl’s range in Washington, at 7 or 8 percent a year. The evidence is mounting that the barred owl is a big part of the problem.

With friends like the EPA and Environmentalists, the Earth and the American voters don’t need enemies. The Trump administration should demand accountability and cost-benefit analysis from the EPA. The EPA isn’t a tool for the misguided Watermelon environmentalists to push their Marxist anti-capitalist agenda. The EPA is to ensure a safe and clean environment for the American people, not to push a far-left political agenda. America needs more loggers, drillers, and miners, not more lawyers and environmental journalists.

To send a clear message to the watermelon environmentalists, President Trump should force the closure of all Wind and Solar facilities until they can ensure that no endangered birds will be harmed. Use the existing EPA laws and simply apply them to wind and solar. If we can shut down logging in the North West over the spotted owl, if we can shut down drilling to save the polar bears, we can shut down wind and solar over protecting the American Eagle. That way, the Watermelon NGOs will have to spend their resources fighting lawsuits instead of filing them.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Related Posts:

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Should Counter-sue The Climate Loons

Hey, Genius!!! Thick Polar Sea Ice Kills Whales and Polar Bears

Bill Nye Gets Eaten By the Crocodile

Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”

With Friends Like Environmentalists, the World Doesn’t Need Enemies

“It’s Official, Global Warming and Higher CO2 Ended the California Drought!!!”

Climate “Science” Gone Mad; The True Face of Envirofascism

Climate Change is a Political Battle, Not a Scientific One

The Benefits of Higher CO2 Levels; Fewer Hurricanes, Greater Prosperity, Longer Life

The Days of “Trust Me” Science Are Over

Climate “Science” on Trial; Climate McCartyism

Climate “Science” on Trial; Germany Builds Wind Farms While NATO Burns

Climate “Science” on Trial; Useful Idiots Don’t Rely on Facts

Climate “Science” on Trial; Snowflakes are Staffing the EPA

Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?

Climate “Science” on Trial; Clear-Cutting Forests to Save the Trees




Rules for Climate Radicals; Never Go Outside the Expertise of Your People


Rule #2: Never Go Outside the Expertise of Your People. How can real scientists use this rule to their advantage? Simple, force the climate alarmists to stray from their talking points. Michael Mann and his ilk have canned, focus group tested talking points and they stick to them like stink on poo. They can recite them in their sleep. They are very very very comfortable in that realm, as the recent congressional hearings demonstrated.

Michael Mann repeated all the expected lies, called his hockey stick an iconic result,  It appeared to me that questions the Democrats on the Committee asked Mann and the answers he gave had been scripted.

My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”

If it had been my first time hearing about this subject I would have concluded that the climate alarmists were right.

If you search Youtube, you won’t find many bloggers clipping out bits where they discuss the science, you will find them clipping out the political bits. The best one I’ve seen is the one where Dr. Judith Curry totally humiliates Michael Mann with a rebuttal regarding his calling her a “climate denier.” If you haven’t seen it, it can be seen here: I Am Woman Hear Me Roar; Michael Mann’s Bullying Backfires

A more detailed description of the hearing can be found here: Michael Mann Just Jumped the Climate Change Shark

The other newsworthy clip was when Mr. Higgens got Michael Mann to perjure himself and deny his association with certain groups.

Both these video clips demonstrate an application of Rule #2. Michael Mann is clearly uncomfortable discussing calling people “deniers” in front of a balanced crowd. Using terms and tactics like that is antithetical to professional scientific behavior, and he knows it. Those are political tactics used when throwing read meat to the political base. Michael Mann is also a bully, and not used to being challenged. His thin skin makes it easy to irritate and draw him out of his comfort zone.  Mr. Higgens’ video demonstrates another area Michael Mann would prefer to avoid, the thuggish behavior of some climate activist group with which he is associated. Once again, the facade Michael Mann is trying to maintain is that he represents “science,” and the tactics used by these groups are antithetical to how real science is performed.

Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print

Climate “Science” on Trial; Climate McCartyism

Climate “Science” Gone Mad; The True Face of Envirofascism

Michael Mann is able to remain in his comfort zone and control the message as long as he is on the offensive. Future hearings must work to put him on the defensive. His main talking points are “Consensus,” “Peer Review” and “Professional and Academic Organizational Support.” All three are incestually related, corrupt and fatally flawed. “Peer Reviewed Journals” don’t require the application of the scientific method or reproducibility for publication, the bedrock foundations of real science.

Scientists Not Served Here; Real Scientists Need Not Apply

Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax

Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

There are also many other things I’m sure Michael Mann would prefer to avoid like:

The Climate Gate Emails and “Mike’s Nature ‘Trick” to…Hide the Decline.”

The fact that the Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier isn’t melting

Why was thermometer data excluded from most of the “Hockeystick?”

Why is the track record of predictions made by climate alarmists so bad?

Sea Ice and Coral Reef changes have natural explanations

The climate models are a joke and have failed miserably

Do we want to spend a fortune based upon failed models? Are there better uses for that money?

Past climate change can not be explained by CO2

If real scientists want to win the war for climate science truth, they must win the political battle. To do so, Michael Mann and his ilk have to be removed from their “safe space/comfort zone” and put on the defensive. Instead of debating science where reasonable people can differ on the interpretation of the facts and data, Michael Mann should be forced to defend the indefensible like his behavior and the corruption of science that has occurred with his assistance.

Related Posts:

Rules for Climate Radicals; Power is What the Enemy Thinks You Have

Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.