Trump Pulls Out of Paris Accords

Thursday, June 1, AD 2017


Trump kept a campaign promise and pulled out of the Paris Climate Change Accords.  The reaction on the left in this country was apocalyptic and amusing to watch.  The biggest humbug on the planet today is global warming.  Among global elites the belief in climate change is one part religious faith to two parts cynicism.  A minority embrace climate change with a religious fervor.  The cynics find it useful for fund raising, to enlist foot soldiers in political crusades, and to engage in Eco-profiteering, Al Gore serving as the model for this.

The Paris Accords allowed global elites to be on the side of the green angels while committing their nations to nothing.  The US under Obama, waging war against its domestic coal industry, was one of the few nations taking this tripe seriously.  For the junk science of global warming Americans were to lose jobs while India was allowed to double its emissions and China had to do nothing at all until 2030.  No wonder this agreement was never submitted to the Senate where it would have been voted down overwhelmingly.

Donald Trump, to his everlasting credit, refused to go along with this nonsense.  What he did was the green equivalent of spitting in the Holy Water for a Catholic, and Trump was obviously having a good time while doing it.   Pope Francis hardest hit. Well played Mr. President, well played!

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Trump Pulls Out of Paris Accords

  • Bravo President Trump!

  • I’m pleased that the President did this, for multiple reasons. Of course,
    I’m pleased that we’re no longer tied to an agreement that would be bad
    for our economy, all in the name of some very dubious “science”. And
    Trump is seen to have kept a campaign promise despite the opposition of
    our own political and cultural elites.

    One other reason I’m glad this agreement has been binned is that, no
    matter what Obama called it, this was a treaty, and it undermines the
    prerogative, the duty of the Senate to vote on its ratification when
    a president is allowed to deem a treaty an “agreement” simply to avoid
    submitting it to a Senate vote as required by the Constitution. Shame on
    both sides of the Senate aisle for rolling over and letting Obama do that.

    So yes, today was a very good day in DC, for several reasons. Bravo
    President Trump!

  • I was impressed by his speech, which articulated, in words that normal Americans understand, what a sham the “treaty” was. He articulated the hamstringing of our own energy production while allowing China DN India to increase. He articulated the environmental disaster China would be allowed to continue while we suffered. He articulated what a loss of industry would be forthcoming. Steel, paper, concrete, all too expensive to make here, and the downstream effects would be devastating.

    It isn’t hard to hear him and believe he means it. That he means our country and our people deserve to be first to our elected leaders.

  • And while the eyes of the nation were focused on the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, Moody’s used the occasion today to drop the State of Illinois’ bond rating yet again (8 times in 8 years, now Baa3 rating, one level above junk) .

    The state owes $14.5 billion in past due IOU’S and will owe $300 million in interest and fees on the unpaid IOU’S by June 30th, deadline to negotiate a new budget.

  • Bravo to Donald Trump for removing the hoax of global weather/whatever from the Liberal pantheon of false gods. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Pope Francis had as much guts and insight.

  • Global warming is crap. Even Trump knows it.

  • I was interested in the Vatican response. Sadly I have concluded that many there think of the Church as a kind of NGO, or at best imbued with the mysticism of Teililhard De Chardin.

  • A strange thing. Everyone seems shocked when we all know he said this is what he would do. It reminds me of something someone told me on my blog. The debate was somehow about gay rights or the other. At one point it came down to bigots being against gay marriage. Someone – maybe me? – asked why Obama wasn’t called a homophobic bigot in 2008 when he said he wouldn’t support gay marriage. One of the commenters said it’s because they assumed he was lying. I’ve thought about that since then. Was a time when thinking our politicians were liars was a downer. This person seemed almost ecstatic about the thought that Obama was lying. Perhaps that’s the shock. Media elites and others not just assume, but hope, pols are lying. When one keeps his promise, it’s like a foreign language.

  • Heard on the news this morning that a group of various groups and states– like my former residence of Washington– are gathering to “assure” the UN that they’ll “do their part” to cut CO2, and my former governor had a clip about how “and there’s nothing (Trump) can do to stop us!”
    I did not tell the radio that we didn’t object to THEM doing it, we object to THEM forcing US to do it!

  • Obama used his pen and his phone and left his constituents in the dust as Obama gave our tax dollars away. President Trump brought our tax dollars back to America.

  • If liberals really believed in anthropogenic global warming from emissions off of the cunbustion of fossil fuel, then they would advocate an immediate full conversion to a nuclear – hydrogen economy where nuclear energy generates both electricity for the electric grid and hydrogen gas from splitting water molecules for combustion in transportation vehicles and aircraft.

    Liberals however oppose nuclear energy tooth and nail. So their wailing about climate change means nothing.

    To however debunk objections to nuclear energy, the following is provided based on a discussion I had the other day with a Deacon in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church:

    There is no meme or slogan that can distill the truth into a mere sound bite. I base what I write on 40+ years experience as a reactor operator and reactor instrumentation and controls engineer.

    The issue of “nuclear waste” is one of misnomer. First, there is low level radioactivity and second there is spent nuclear fuel with high level radioactivity. I will deal with both.

    Regarding low level radioactivity, coal combustion releases far more radioactivity into the environment from the naturally occurring uranium, thorium and radium in coal than any nuclear power plant does. Also, fracking for natural gas and oil releases far more radioactivity in the form of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes of radon and argon. Fossil fuel releases far more low level radioactivity into the environment per megawatt than any nuke.

    Regarding high level radioactivity in spent nuclear fuel, current US light water reactors (BWRs and PWRs) use only 5% of the energy content in the fuel; the rest is left over un-burnt in the fuel rods. If the spent fuel is recycled and reprocessed in fast neutron burner reactors – e.g., high temperature helium cooled reactors, molten salt homogeneous reactors, sodium cooled reactors or lead-bismuth cooled reactors – then the long lived actinides like Americium and Neptunium and Plutonium which contribute so much to long lived radioactivity can be completely consumed, obviating the need for a million year national geologic repository. We do not have a waste storage problem. We have a human greed problem that would rather focus on instant profit from natural gas spinning reserve for useless, worthless wind and solar than the responsibility of recycling and reusing our used nuclear fuel.

    Now a few words about waste in general. One pellet of uranium the size of your thumbnail equals the energy content of 3 barrels of oil each containing 42 gallons (that’s a total of 126 gallons), 1 ton of coal or 17000 cubic feet of natural gas. No matter what is done, waste is produced. From the numbers above, fossil fuel produces a lot more waste than nuclear per joule of energy generated. In fact, a 1000 megawatt coal plant dumps millions of tons of radioactive coal ash sludge into sludge ponds with nary a whimper. A 1000 megawatt gas plant dumps millions of tons of carbon pollutants into the atmosphere without a whisper. Yet every wind farm and every solar station requires gas backup spinning reserve for the 70% of the time when wind and sun are insufficient. And all this occurs while the spent nuclear fuel that the US generates from it 99 reactors would fit in a single football field to a depth of 8 feet, and all that fuel is sequestered from the environment, and all that fuel is resource for advanced fast neutron burner reactors. A few facts are in order:

    (1) Current high-level waste volume after 40 years of operations would fill an area about the size of a football field five yards deep

    (2) To replace US nukes with wind turbines requires land area the size of the state of Minnesota.

    (3) To replace US nukes with solar farms requires land area the size of the state of West Virginia.

    (4) Wind and solar have < 30% capacity factor, which means that 70% of the time fossil fuel spinning reserve is required.

    (5) Nuclear is the safest of all power generation. Nuclear has 0.04 fatalities per terawatt hour (even including TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima) compared to coal's 244, oil's 52, gas's 20, biofuel's 50, hydroelectric's 0.1 solar's 0.1 and wind's 0.15. Think on that – nuclear is an order of magnitude SAFER than renewable energy. Please see

    We do NOT have a nuclear waste problem. We have a human greed and ignorance problem. Gas companies want nukes shutdown so they promote useless, worthless wind and solar. In that way they maintain their profit off the ignorance of the average American.

    I have stood above freshly discharged spent nuclear fuel at both a Westinghouse PWR and a GE-Hitachi BWR. If high level nuclear waste were such a problem, then why am I not dead?

  • Glenn Reynolds will sometime make a note of the travel schedule of some environmental poseur or the square footage of their home and says “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when they start acting like it’s a crisis’.

    I have no understanding of old people who wish to own large homes, other than inertia (in the case of someone like Bess Truman). Al Gore, George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee, and now Barack Obama are living in mansions and / or own multiple homes (and Gore’s all by his lonesome, give or take a masseuse). Richard Nixon had the sense to downsize; it’s a good thing too. He owned two homes (both in warm-weather climates), one of which encompassed 9,000 sq feet. Gerald Ford and his wife occupied a 6,300 sq foot ranch house.

  • I haven’t felt this relieved since November 8, 2016! Donald Trump is our George Washington for our time.

  • How many other treaties disguised as accords or other misnomers are out there? President
    Trump should rescind them all.

Global Warming Scam Continues to Unravel

Monday, February 6, AD 2017

More evidence that global warming is nothing but a scam:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Global Warming Scam Continues to Unravel

  • One irrefutable fact; since Trump was elected, the climate has indeed changed.

  • Proceedings, the journal of the Naval Institute, this month has an article by a Coast Guard officer on the disastrous effects global warming his having on coastal communities in Alaska. Global warming is real. While articles like this are useful, we have to be careful that we do not fall into the same illogic that liberals did in the Cold War, when they argued that occasional Pentagon exaggerations of the Soviet threat proved they were not a threat, when in fact they were.

    We should stick to the facts, and use them to argue the following points:

    1) Not all global warming is of human origin, and we need to develop responses that will accommodate this. Policies that are based solely on human caused warming will fail.
    2) We need to develop policies that deliberately avoid statist methods that will reduce liberty and impoverish people. (Point #1 actually reinforces this)

  • Climate fluctuations are real enough Tom, but I have seen zip evidence to convince me that what we are experiencing now is abnormal or that there is anything Man can do, with current technology, to alter the average global temperature, even if Man possessed the wisdom to determine a proper temperature for this planet.

  • Don L.

    Your comment is not flippant.

    The real climate change is the heart, cold and frozen for over forty three years, now melting into a receptacle that can hold God’s grace. This climate change is conversion and it is more significant than any changing weather patterns.

    Please pray that this climate change raises the heart above itself, and becomes an beacon of hope for those born and unborn.

  • Don, I’ve seen enough of the satellite data to convince me it is real. I would not say it is abnormal, since we have had hotter climates in the distant past. On this subject there is no normal.

    “…or that there is anything Man can do, with current technology, to alter the average global temperature, even if Man possessed the wisdom to determine a proper temperature for this planet.”
    Well, Man had better use his God-given talents and develop the technology and the wisdom. A few centuries ago some people felt the same about anesthesia and vaccines and the like. Pain and disease were God’s will, and so should not be manipulated. They had a choice back then, and we have a similar one today: the natural way, or our way. We have to decide, which is God’s way?

  • BTW, the only way the current situation is a “fluctuation” is if we are about to have another Maunder Minimum, as evidence suggests. If the sunspots shut off within the next 20 years we will be damn glad for our CO2 pollution! Too bad the geniuses in Washington don’t realize this! BTW, this means we are already developing climate control technology, just haphazardly so.
    However, such a minimum is also a “fluctuation” that will last less than a century, and then we will be right back to where we are today.

  • If humans didn’t cause global warming, there isn’t much we can do to slow, stop or reverse it. And it would be a waste of resources to even try.

    Furthermore, it’s like the man said, “I’ll start believing it’s a crisis when the people telling me there’s a crisis start acting like it.”

  • If anthropogenic global warming is real, then why don’t the eco-wackoes purporting AGW support non-carbon polluting nuclear. Fact is they don’t. And they never will. This is all about worshiping the creature rather than the Creator. Remember the eco-wacko light show on St Peter’s Basilica on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 2015 – four footed beasts and creeping things displayed in satanic glory on a Holy Place in descration of God Himself.

  • I doubt the Russians and Canadians, who have each added about one million acres per year of arable land due to the minor increase in surface temperature, are too keen about reversing the process. For historical reference, check out farming in Greenland between 1000 and 1250 AD.

  • “If humans didn’t cause global warming, there isn’t much we can do to slow, stop or reverse it.”
    Not true. Roger Angel at the University of Arizona has done excellent work on this, although to my knowledge he has not addressed the non-human warming timelines.

    “And it would be a waste of resources to even try.”
    Not necessarily true. This becomes one of those classic cost/benefit analyses. Angel estimated the cost as $5 trillion spread over 50 years. The cost of not doing it will only increase in the coming millennia. Improved robotic technology will only bring the cost down.
    A similar study was done on the possible 2029 impact of the asteroid Apophis with the Earth. Preventing the impact would cost 2,000-3,000 the cost of the Apollo program. So, why not let it happen? Apophis is too small to cause global damage, we could just evacuated the possible affected areas and rebuild. It turns our rebuilding would cost 50 times the cost of stopping it.

  • During the reign of Hadrian, the Romans had vineyards in Britain and Rome had
    a seaport at Ostia. Now, it’s too cold to grow grapes in the UK, and Ostia is
    two miles inland. These changes happened over almost two thousand years, but
    it would be ludicrous to try to attribute the overall cooling we’ve experienced since
    then to anything mankind has done.

    Climate has always fluctuated. Instead of pretending that it doesn’t, or pretending
    that we can somehow freeze it in its present state, why not accept that climate
    changes, albeit slowly, and factor that in to our long-term planning?

  • I don’t and won’t buy into man’s idea that God didn’t know what He was doing when He created all life based on Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide. I will and do buy into the facts that man fudged computer data to create this false idea they originally called “Global Cooling,” which they changed to “Global Warming,” which they changed again to “Climate Change.” They’ve also lied about the numbers and percentage of so-called scientist who believe in their man-made “climate catastrophe” which amounts to only 67 people all of whom have grants to produce this bogus “science.” Interesting that their projected date for destruction of the planet also changes with the name changes. First it was within 20 years, then it became 10 years, now it’s somewhere between 65 to 300 years.

    How many of you believe God didn’t know what He was doing when He created all of life on CO2 and O2?

  • God knew what he was doing when He created us with free will so that we could follow His on our own volition. To ensure the existence of creatures with free will the universe and possibly the multiverse needed to be structured in a way much like what we see. Photons and quarks and dark matter and energy needed to behave much as we observe. Something like oxygen would be needed to transport energy within living organisms. The exact details of how oxygen ‘works’ do not show that God ‘knew’ what He was doing, any more that the ‘design’ of the prostate gland shows Divine ‘intelligence’. These things are ‘structured’ these ways not because they are physically optimal for us – they are not – but because they are spiritually optimal. What else really matters?

  • We seem susceptible to dire, but speculative warnings. Bird flu might mutate and kill millions of people. SARS might become a pandemic disaster. An asteroid might destroy the planet. We might be running out of oil, water, air, and according to Al Gore, we’re about to be fricasseed by global warming. Politicized scientists, such as those sponsored by the U.N., blame human activity for global warming. They warn us that our modern industrial world is bringing on an ecological disaster. We must accept that warning as an incontestable fact and tremble in the face of impending doom. We must submit to draconian measures that will eviscerate our economy or Earth’s coastal plains will disappear beneath the sea like Atlantis. The sky is falling.

    Global warming has occurred many times, even in the recorded ancient past, and often with a far greater intensity of warming than in our time. The ancient Romans recorded viniculture in Britain. The Vikings were encouraged by warm summers on the southern part of Greenland, to establish a settlement there. A cooling climate eventually doomed their settlement. The climate warmed so much, thousands of years ago, that the Celts left central Asia and migrated to Western Europe in order to survive. Here is something from an interesting little book about the ancient Celts:

    “For the period 2,300 -2,000 BC a series of extremely hot summers is attested.” This started the migration which stamped the Celtic influence on the face of Europe. “In the second half of the fifteenth century BC the whole world experienced a series of disasters such as has never since been recorded. It began with a fall in the water table to seven meters, with the result that springs dried up, rivers became trickles, bogs stopped growing”. 2

    Credentialed climatologists say that there have been about six hundred periods of global warming during the last one million years; that carbon dioxide plays a rather minimal role in climate change; and that other factors, such as variations in the Sun’s radiation are more credibly associated with global warming. There is a solid case to be made that global warming and cooling is primarily, a natural process and that it has been quite severe in the past. Has it occurred to you that Arabia, now a desert, is full of oil from the decomposition of enormous volumes of vegetation which flourished there during different climatic conditions?
    I think the most serious potential problem facing humanity is the one looming due to the combined effect of the radical environmentalist movement and the global governance conspiracy.

    An unholy trinity of radicals, media, and politicians has been successful in disseminating the deception of anthropogenic global warming on a worldwide scale. This myth declares that “manmade” carbon dioxide is the principle greenhouse gas and primary culprit in the current manifestation of global warming.

    Water vapor, however, is the major component at 95 % of the greenhouse gases that, thank God, keep us from freezing to death when the sun goes down. Carbon dioxide comprises 3.6 % of the remaining 5 % of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide resulting from human activity is only 3.2 % of that or 0.12 % of all greenhouse gases in total. That CO2 augments plant growth and the production of oxygen is notable.
    If we were to eliminate all of the CO2 generated by processes related to the Industrial Revolution, it might theoretically reduce the average temperature by 0.12% but what then of seven billion people who dependent on the current state of development? There were only one billion people on the planet prior to the Industrial Revolution. Oh yes! That’s where Global Governance comes in. Abortion, contraceptive drugs in the water supply, “Death with Dignity” and a host of other things not spoken about at large. God forbid!

  • Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit offered some time ago that the emails from the University of East Anglia suggested that the Climate Research Unit had ‘lost control of their data’ – which is to say they had inadequate documentation as to how it had been processed over the years and really little idea as a consequence of what it was telling them.

    Then you have Lonnie Thompson, who goes to the ends of the Earth to collect ice cores which then sit in a warehouse unanalyzed.

    What TomD I think is missing about the reception of reports on ‘global warming’ is that we’ve lived through this before – twice before – first at the hands of Paul Ehrlich and then at the hands of Carl Sagan and others. It may be it’s more persistent this time because better verified (or it may be that there are a great many careers and large flows of grant money riding on it). The abuse of dissidents by academic promoters of global warming (and by their stenographers in the science press) leads a prudent man to believe there’s something wrong here. Ehrlich (and the creep who had been employed as BO’s ‘science adviser’) were all about central compulsion inspired by (and often directed by) persons such as themselves. You need to treat people pushing that with some reserve. (And, yes, Ehrlich wasn’t above scamming around with the general public).

  • “What TomD I think is missing about the reception of reports on ‘global warming’ is that we’ve lived through this before – twice before – first at the hands of Paul Ehrlich and then at the hands of Carl Sagan and others.”
    I would disagree. Paul Ehrlich said nothing to my knowledge in his early career about global warming – he was all about resource depletion. He just jumped on the bandwagon later. Sagan, on the other hand, was on the intellectual continuum that led to today’s science. His problem was that at the time there was very little evidence and so Sagan’s views were simply hypotheticals, but still were valuable to the development of scientific thought.
    One point that I need to make is that I seem to create confusion when stick my nose into this subject, because my focus is on the natural processes and cycles that are on longer timeframes than human global warming. This creates an “apples and oranges” situation with regards to climate causes and effects. My position is that public policy has to take into account both views, and that the current focus on the human side of the equation is wrong for many reasons, not only because there is an outside chance it is overstated.

    “It may be it’s more persistent this time because better verified”
    Yes it is.

    “Ehrlich (and the creep who had been employed as BO’s ‘science adviser’) were all about central compulsion inspired by (and often directed by) persons such as themselves.”
    Very true

    “And, yes, Ehrlich wasn’t above scamming around with the general public”
    Now THAT is an understatement.

  • “The abuse of dissidents by academic promoters of global warming (and by their stenographers in the science press) leads a prudent man to believe there’s something wrong here.”
    Yes, Art, I agree, especially since I’ve received some of that abuse myself. I’m grateful that my employer allows me to say what I believe.

  • I would disagree. Paul Ehrlich said nothing to my knowledge in his early career about global warming – he was all about resource depletion. He just jumped on the bandwagon later. Sagan, on the other hand, was on the intellectual continuum that led to today’s science. His problem was that at the time there was very little evidence and so Sagan’s views were simply hypotheticals, but still were valuable to the development of scientific thought.

    [drums fingers] Ehrlich was a promoter of demographic disaster scenarios. I’m sure he had his hand in other sorts of environmental eschatology, but that was his principal inventory. The people promoting disaster scenarios derived from resource depletion were the characters hired by the Club of Rome (which the Club of Rome later repudiated). The 3d echelon Carter Administration officials who produced the Global 2000 Report were of this kidney. Carl Sagan was promoting global cooling scenarios. Yes, some his work was peer reviewed and it was published in Science, a plum you receive only when the editors employed by the AAAS want to give your thesis maximum distribution.

  • “Carl Sagan was promoting global cooling scenarios.”
    Yes, in the early 1980’s, particularly with the “nuclear winter” idea. His global warming speculations came in the late 1960’s and were derived from his early 1960’s work on Venus.

  • Someone else who was certain of “resource depletion” was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.

    Oh, you know, that great thinker/lawyer turned economics expert, “VI Lenin”.

  • Yes, in the early 1980’s, particularly with the “nuclear winter” idea.

    No, the nuclear winter discourse was derived from a different set of controversies. Sagan was nothing if not fashionable, and he was on journalists rolodexes big time, in addition to being welcome at outlets like the New York Review of Books. His article in Science on global cooling was a professional-academic publication and it antedated discussion of nuclear winter by about 4 years. “Nuclear winter”, “nuclear freeze”, The Day After, blah blah was all the rage in 1982-83.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Wednesday, January 4, AD 2017




“If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him”

(Deut. 18:22).




Hattip to Thomas Sowell.

Originally filmed backed in 2007, the above video is still on target.  The global warming scam has little to do with science and everything to do with an ecological substitute religion for wealthy elites in the West.  This substitute religion is eagerly embraced by politicians in search of green crusades to bring themselves political power.  The harsh reception this film received from the green acolytes when it was released in 2007 was proof of just how effective it was.  Since the original Earth Day in 1970 green prophets have been uttering endless nonsense predictions that have not come true:


1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

Continue reading...

13 Responses to The Great Global Warming Swindle

  • Hope Trump stops all funding for this nonsense. Ironic that the ‘elites’ have faith that people cause climate change but not faith in the One who created the climate in the first place. Probable reason: there money in climate change.

  • IF “they” really and truly believed in global warming from green house gas emissions from fossil fuel burning, THEN “they” would abandon worhtless, useless less than 30% capacity factor wind and solar energy AND go full tilt nuclear energy.
    “They” do NOT. Therefore, “they” are liars and charlatans and deceivers.
    Green power, black death. Remember that phrase. This is nothing but Satan’s tool for goddess Gaia replacing God Almighty. St. Paul said it best. “They” want to worship the creature rather than the Creator.

  • Real climate researchers are watching for President Trump to allow scientific debate and stop the blind enforcing of green myths/graft. In other words, they hope that President Trump will end the left’s war on science.
    8 May 2016, Zero Hedge: “If Elon Musk’s various projects are so Iron Man fabulous, why do they all need so much government “help”? Shouldn’t Tesla – and Solar City and SpaceX – be able to stand on their merits… if they actually have merit?”
    The left’s plot to impoverish the middle class and enrich favored billionaires (environmentalism): Democrat Party of the rich. “Nothing in American politics is more corrupt than the environmental movement. . . . What’s it all about? Money. Money for the politically connected, at your expense.”

  • With all the hot air these idiots put out, there should have been global warming years ago!

  • As you already know… It’s ALL about the buck $.

  • What’s a Catholic to do? Even Pope Francis has embraced the AGW/CC narrative.

  • Considering he is a left winger, I would be surprised if he were not a fan of this scam. That does not oblige Catholics to drink this Koolaid with him.

  • Philip is 100% right. Consider this. Govt puts a carbon tax on fossil fuel because of carbon emissions. Govt then gets addicted to the revenue from that tax. Do you really believe that govt will EVER wanna get rid of fossil fuel and replace it with something that works 24 / 7 / 365 like nuclear? Or rather, would govt prefer to market useless worthless solar and wind that works less than 30% of the time (no sun light, no solar, no wind, no spinning blades) that always necessitates spinning fossil fuel reserve?
    It’s no wonder that the regs of the US NRC are so constrictive that the nuke industry is dying. It is no wonder that natural gas prices are so low in order to get people addicted to methane, and then the companies selling the methane jack up the prices once the nukes are all shut down.
    This IS a conspiracy and it’s one of greed for money, pure and simple.

  • Carbon Dioxide is an essential component of our atmosphere. As we who received a grounding in science before the Left came to dominate education, know something about photosynthesis and more. The extreme environmentalists are advocates of population control and global government who would tax the very air we breathe.

  • The left and the twisted cult film Clockwork Orange are synonymous, in that the disordered mind will act in behaviours befitting the criminally insane, not empathetic to the most vulnerable in society but just the opposite. They are heartless and conniving. Rape is equally shared in the fiction of Clockwork Orange and in the reality of gender identity paradigm, homosexuality and freedom to kill the unborn.


    The Left is sick.

  • Disordered sovereignty over their own personhood distinguishes a righteous man from a criminal. If sovereign persons institute the state, that is, government, and the person is not sovereign over himself he cannot institute the sovereign state. On the contrary, his acts detract, literally suck the life out of the nation, the government and the people.

  • Correction: Disordered sovereignty over their own personhood distinguishes a criminal from a righteous man.

  • Global-warming-alarmism is actually a false premise for global government/income redistribution on a world-wide scale. But for God’s grace and my Christian conscience, I might say: Comes de revolution, ve shoot dem.

“Climate Change” and the Pentagon

Monday, February 8, AD 2016


Just in case you didn’t think we are currently being governed by lunatics:

The Pentagon is ordering the top brass to incorporate climate change into virtually everything they do, from testing weapons to training troops to war planning to joint exercises with allies.

A new directive’s theme: The U.S. Armed Forces must show “resilience” and beat back the threat based on “actionable science.”

It says the military will not be able to maintain effectiveness unless the directive is followed. It orders the establishment of a new layer of bureaucracy — a wide array of “climate change boards, councils and working groups” to infuse climate change into “programs, plans and policies.”

The Pentagon defines resilience to climate change as: “Ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions.”

To four-star generals and admirals, among them the regional combatant commanders who plan and fight the nation’s wars, the directive tells them: “Incorporate climate change impacts into plans and operations and integrate DoD guidance and analysis in Combatant Command planning to address climate change-related risks and opportunities across the full range of military operations, including steady-state campaign planning and operations and contingency planning.”

The directive, “Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience,” is in line with President Obama’s view that global warming is the country’s foremost national security threat, or close to it. Mr. Obama says there is no debate on the existence of man-made global warming and its ensuing climate change. Supporters of this viewpoint label as “deniers” any scientists who disagree.


Dakota Wood, a retired Marine Corps officer and U.S. Central Command planner, said the Pentagon is introducing climate change, right down to military tactics level.

“By equating tactical actions of immediate or short-term utility with large-scale, strategic-level issues of profound importance, the issue of climate change and its potential impact on national security interests is undermined,” he said. “People tend to dismiss the whole, what might be truly important, because of all the little silly distractions that are included along the way.”

He said climate change is typically measured in long stretches of time.

“The climate does change over great periods of time, typically measured in millennia, though sometimes in centuries,” he said. “But the document mentions accounting for such down to the level of changes in ‘tactics, techniques and procedures’ as if reviewing how a squad conducts a patrol should be accorded the same level of importance and attention as determining whether the naval base at Norfolk, Virginia, might have to be relocated as sea levels rise over the next 100 years.”

Multipoint strategy

The directive originated in the office of Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. Final approval came from Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work.

The directive is loaded with orders to civilian leaders and officers on specifically how counter-climate change strategy is to permeate planning.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to “Climate Change” and the Pentagon

  • Hummm.
    Ok. The Navy can reduce its carbon footprint by going to wind power. Sailing the seven seas. Air Force? Hang gliding of course and the restricted use of hot air ballooning.
    As for our ground force’s… snare’s, crossbows and sling shots should fit into the green think just perfectly.

    We won’t have to worry about global warming.
    The climate is stable six feet underground.

  • Well, the USMC is asking the science fiction community to help predict future threats which I think is actually less whacky than the whole climate change thing:

  • Recognition of the possible impacts of climate change at the strategic level is smart. Doing it at the tactical level is dumb, other than the issuance of new charts for the navy.

    One thing to keep in mind: our enemies (and bad actors in general) will hitch their evil to ‘climate change’ and try to blame us for their actions. We already have seen this with the Rwandan genocide: Western population control ‘experts’ have uncritically cited Hutu killers as saying they were motivated by overpopulation concerns, instead of seeing their statements as those of criminals simply looking for alibis.

  • All of America and the global servant class, will soon submit themselves to the “climate” weapon of the left or pay a price. This cake has been baked for decades and both parties apparently want it.

  • I rather think we will have actual disasters to confront that will cause the endless bloviating about climate change to come to an end.

  • “Recognition of the possible impacts of climate change at the strategic level is smart.”

    Except that our predictive ability beyond a month as to weather is practically nill. This is all a huge waste of time, which so accurately sums up the eight grasshopper years of the Obama administration.

  • “I rather think we will have actual disasters to confront that will cause the endless bloviating about climate change to come to an end.”
    C’mon Don, if South and Southwest Asia go up in smoke our environmental nuts will have MORE reason to complain about the coming climate change.

    “Except that our predictive ability beyond a month as to weather is practically nill.”
    True, but climate and weather are not the same thing, and it is not absolutely nil with regards to climate. As readers may recall, I’ve posted evidence here that we actually may be within 20 years of a new Maunder Minimum in the sunspot cycle and a resulting Little Ice Age. Real global warming may not happen until the 22nd century, in 2030 the Pentagon may be speculating about colder climate change (nothing wrong with that), and today’s experts may look rather stupid.

    ” This is all a huge waste of time…”
    I agree if we focus on the thrust of the original article and focus on the adjective “huge”. A small theoretical effort is not a waste of time.

    “…which so accurately sums up the eight grasshopper years of the Obama administration.”
    Well, yes, for serious people. It hasn’t been a waste of time for the fantasy prone.

  • Truly, the gravest threat facing the USA is the gang of evil (narcissists and nihilists) imbeciles (saboteurs and traitors) running the USA.

  • Perhaps the really problematic issue with this report is the explicit bureaucratization of climate change awareness at the Pentagon. It appears that people all up and down the chain of command will be filling out compliance reports o ensure that the policies are followed. Do people there understand the word “sclerotic”?

  • If the Administration wants the Pentegon to really do something about its fossil fuel emissions to avert anthropogenic global warming, then:
    (1) Why not small modular reactors for military and naval bases?
    (2) Why nuclear powered surface combatants besides aircraft carriers? We had them – the Brainbridge, the Langbeach, the Truxton, etc., but now all we are doing is building gas turbine ships.
    (3) Why not nuclear propulsion space craft? We designed the reactors (called NERVA) back in the 60s but then abandoned the project.
    (4) Why not nuclear powered aircraft? We designed a molten salt reactor for aircraft back in the 60s (Oak Ridge National Laboratory did that using thorium fuel). We even flew a reactor (albeit without it powering the aircraft).
    Amici, it’s all smoke and mirrors. This Administration doesn’t give a care about anthropogenic global warming. It’s concern is simply emasculating the military and constricting the supply of energy.

  • I’m looking forward to the skills sharpened by writing up bragsheets to be applied to explaining how (important thing that they rejected funding for) is ABSOLUTELY NEEDED because of climate change. 😀

  • Foxfier, You bet….. that comes under technical writing, doesn’t it? I can foresee government grants for those that choose to pursue such a degree.

Quick, Someone Tell the Pope

Thursday, December 31, AD 2015


“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades, this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.”

Pope Francis, Laudato Si



Well, apparently scientists, contrary to the claims of advocates of the global warming scam, are not in lock step behind this hoax:


It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Quick, Someone Tell the Pope

  • For me, another worrisome thing is CCC 841, the Muslims adoring the same god (God) as we do. I agree that Muslims play a role as part of salvation history, but not in the cheery way the Catechism hints. It’s clearly bunk, to me at least. What does this kind of thing mean for the Catechism? How much is bunk?

  • DJH: When God promised a Redeemer in the Garden of Eden, God revealed Himself as a Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Allah has no son to love nor to love him.
    In the matter of global warming, even if it were true; (some scientists say that the Antarctic cap grows in proportion to the Arctic cap shrinking) betraying America’s sovereignty to a one world, godless government is treason. When Obama acts outside of our Constitution, Obama does not represent his constituents and so, Obama self-impeaches himself.
    People as pollution is another form of the hoax of overpopulation, denial of the metaphysical human soul, the imposition of atheism on the whole world and acknowledging the devil as the Prince of the world instead of the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.

  • DJH- I think of it this way; I’ve had people talk about me and get it wrong in every single detail, including my name, sex and marital status.
    They were still talking about me, they were just wrong.

  • DJH: Thank you for pointing out CCC 841. I threw out my copy of the CCC. All the CCC I need is the 1959 Baltimore Catechism.
    Anyhow, I needed the space in the bookshelf for something useful: that would include anything north of simple smut.
    Whoever wrote that BS in CCC 841: Dulce Muslimensis inexpertis.

  • In the meantime, (not to appear obsessed) if we could save but one polar bears life….

  • I have some real problems with the original study and with the Forbes article about it. It’s a peer-reviewed journal, but a journal of organization studies, a social science. It’s a bit deceptive labeling its analysis as peer-reviewed. From the looks of it, the people who were surveyed weren’t ordinary geoscientists but employees in the oil industry, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a bias against AGW among them. Only the 36% in the “Comply with Kyoto” group were identified with the belief in AGW, but three of the other four groups considered global warming to have natural and man-made causes. It would be just as fair to say that only 24% of those surveyed didn’t believe in AGW.

  • Yes, of course, the entire climate change business is a hoax and nothing but a political power play. And the involvement of Pope Francis in quite simply embarrassing, if not ridiculous. But the truly troubling thing about Pope Francis’, beyond his meddlesome intrusion into meteorological matters where he has no competence, is his quixotic involvement in Catholic doctrine where he is supposed to have some expertise but most unfortunately doesn’t. Conclusion: Pope Francis is failing us on both the earthly and the heavenly. 2015 is the year all of this became clear. Let us pray 2016 will be better.

  • Michael, you make some points, but let’s not forget those many cardinals, bishops, and clergy who enable all this. They too often appear to be among the crowd shouting out to “give us Barabbas.”

  • The tyrannical powers given to the EPA under Ted Kennedy’s Clean Air & Water Act are the stuff of Communist dictator’s dreams. It is simply unbelievable what they do to people & what they want to do to people…confiscation of thousands of acres of land, bankrupting private individuals & businesses, regulating dust from the farming of fields, regulating the mud puddles in our yards, etc. Climate change bunk is just another tool of big govt to control peoples’ lives & take their assets from them. I’m sure there are some true believers, however like governmental power grabs, I believe most folks are in it for the profits they receive.

  • We live under dictatorship disguised as a democracy. Constitution and laws only apply to political enemies. I hadn’t known that Bill Cosby is an enemy of the state. By Clinton gang rules, he and later his wife should be running for President.

    When confronted with the facts, I.e., this is the weakest recovery since the Great Depression, the lying liars shriek , “Bush had so severely wrecked the economy.” Unadulterated baloney! Beginning with the war on coal , skyrocketing electric bills, wasteful subsidies for green energy boondoggles, Dodd-Frank (that was like Hitler writing holocaust survivors’ relief aid program), Fed bailing out Wall Street/ignoring Main Street, Obamacare . . . nearly everything these nihilists have done has been detrimental to private sector economic growth.

Bad Science and Worse Religion

Tuesday, December 15, AD 2015


Weird Smoke


Father George Rutler explains why the Saint Peter’s light show was bad science and bad religion walking hand in hand:

There are legitimate ways to consider the significance of carbon emissions in relation to variations in solar activity, changes in the terrestrial orbit and axis, fluctuations in gamma ray activity, and tectonic shifts, and the solid fact that Earth has been warmer than it is now in 7,000 of the last 10,000 years, but hypotheses should not be pronounced as conclusions. And if the Church’s “voice crying in the desert” is to be prophetic, it should not cry wolf. Nor should the Church allow herself to be appropriated by political elites, business interests, and what Santillana in the instance of the Renaissance called “vested academic interests,” whose tendency is to exploit benevolent, if emotive, environmentalists.

So it was perplexing that on the recent Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the feast itself was upstaged by an unprecedented light show cast on the façade of St. Peter’s Basilica, sponsored by the World Bank Group, an environmental foundation called Okeanos, and Vulcan, Inc., a Seattle-based private company dedicated to exposing “sins against the climate.” Sins? These interests may have good intentions, but the parameters of banking, business and academe do not include imputing sin. There may be offenses and even crimes against the balance of the ecosystem, but not sins, unless science really has become a religion. The irony is that many who impute sins to those who disrupt the balance of nature, also defend and promote unnatural acts among humans. Although the Immaculate Conception was neglected by the New Age light show with its flying birds and leaping porpoises, it is consoling to remember that the Virgin Mary was completely free of sins against the climate, and departed this world without leaving any carbon footprint.

In the saga of environmentalism, the eleventh century Anglo-Scandinavian King Canute is often mistakenly evoked as a symbol of arrogance for setting his throne up on an English beach, possibly at Westminster or West Sussex or Southampton, and ordering the tides to roll back. The details are vague,  but the real point of the story is that Canute deliberately choreographed that drama to instruct his flattering courtiers in the limits of earthly power against the seas and skies. They had preened that their king could slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. The tides did not withdraw, the king and his court got wet and Canute declared: “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.”  It was a warning for scientists flattered by clerics, and clerics flattered by scientists. King Canute’s performance was better than any flamboyant light show. Better still, King Canute then placed his crown on the great crucifix in Winchester Cathedral and never wore it again.  In matters of speculative science, it would be edifying to see the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the directors of the World Bank Group, corporate executives, and academics, do the same.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Bad Science and Worse Religion

  • Good post. Environmentalism is nothing more than the resurrected pagan worship of goddess Gaia.

  • Great post. Pope Francis has drunk from the well of secular life, and now it’s the preferred libation. Sorry PaPa. The life giving waters would never smother the feast of the Immaculata Conception with a dog and pony show on St. Peters dome. Never!

    Mother Mary, our Lady of sorrows, pray for us!

  • The photo of the light show follows naturally the one of the lightning strike on St Peters a few years (actually, eons) ago

  • Not only bad science and bad religion, but if one looks closely at the smoke above the edifice, one sees demonic images embedded in the dark shroud hovering over Saint Peter’s. It needs to be swept clean. It is very disturbing to me, just as when Bergoglio stepped out onto the conclave. I can’t explain my revulsion.

  • and then the hawk assaulted the dove of peace, making a mockery of the symbol and the ritual. Please note and act accordingly. No peace here.

  • Again, why does Pope Francis reject the science of the DNA of the individual, newly begotten child of God and embrace the science of climate change. A house divided against itself shall not stand. How will Pope Francis explain his prejudice, his bias and his denial of the Immaculate Conception of the innocent soul of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Can the sovereign person who is Pope Francis grow to spiritual maturity without the truth of Jesus Christ?

  • “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”…ratified by all of the states.
    Has Pope Francis read our Founding Principles?
    Neither Pope Francis nor Obama can ratify any document without the People in the Magisterium and the Congress.

  • The smoke of scientism is invading the Church.

Politics as Substitute Religion

Tuesday, December 8, AD 2015


Father Z uses the S word:

I thought I could just let it pass… but I can’t.

On 8 December (Feast of the Immaculate Conception) at 7 pm climate-change zealots will be allowed to project a light show entitled “Illuminating Our Common Home” onto the facade of St. Peter’s Basilica in order to “educate and inspire change around the climate crisis across generations, cultures, languages, religions and class,” a press release states.

On the opening of the Year of Mercy?

Why not rent out the Sistine chapel too, while they’re at it? HERE

The Vatican basilica is a consecrated building.  This is a non-sacred use – in fact it is an irreverent use – of a consecrated building.

St. Peter’s is, without question, a sacred place and object (a very large one, too!).  It is, without question, dedicated by the Church to sacred purposes.  The use of this sacred building and place (where St. Peter was martyred and buried, a pilgrimage place, etc. etc. etc.) as a projection screen for mere secular purposes is irreverent treatment.

From The Catholic Dictonary:

Sacrilege: “The irreverent treatment of sacred things, persons or places, i.e., those dedicated by God or the Church to sacred purposes.  It is a sin against the virtue of religion, of its nature grave, but admitting smallness of matter. Sacrilege may be either personal, as when violence is done to a cleric or religious; local, as when certain crimes are committed or actions done in a church; real, as by the abuse of sacraments, the theft of sacred objects or their irreverent misuse and the sin of simony. These varieties of the sin differ specifically from one another.”

And… on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception?  Really?

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Politics as Substitute Religion

  • The creation as a manifestation of the divine is a perennial theme in Catholic poets down the ages, although few have expressed it better than Alexander Pope:-
    “All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
    Whose body Nature is, and God the soul;
    That, changed through all, and yet in all the same;
    Great in the earth, as in the ethereal frame;
    Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze,
    Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees,
    Lives through all life, extends through all extent,
    Spreads undivided, operates unspent;
    Breathes in our soul, informs our mortal part,
    As full, as perfect, in a hair as heart:
    As full, as perfect, in vile man that mourns,
    As the rapt seraph that adores and burns:
    To him no high, no low, no great, no small;
    He fills, he bounds, connects, and equals all.”

  • This is blasphemy.

  • Only if they, you know, literally start worshipping creation instead of the Creator during the show.

  • Italy where the Vatican is located gets the overwhelming majority of its electrical energy from burning fossil fuel. There is some import of Frend nuclar electricity in the north. But Italy denuked itself after fears of Chernobyl in the early 90s, never mind the fact that Italy did not possess the type of reactor – a light water cooled and boiling reactor moderated by graphite with a positive void co-efficient of reactivity – that could undergo the kind of accident which happened at Chernobyl. So does the Pope realize exactly how may tons of CO2 he will be authorizing to release into the atmosphere from the fossil fuel burning for the electricity used to supply energy to his light show?
    Liberal progressive Argentinian Peronist! He knows zero science, zero engineering, and obviously has zero respect for Catholic tradition. He and Obama deserve each other.

  • It is like our Holy Church has fallen trough the “looking glass.”

  • I think it likely that the people running this pontificate see this as a twofer —
    they get cred as super-caring social justice warriors so the elites of the secular
    left might let them sit at the cool kid’s table, and they get to stick their thumb in
    the eye of those tradition-loving Catholics they not-so-secretly cannot stand.
    Now that I think of it, I’m surprised they haven’t done something like this sooner.

  • Methinks, this global warming nonsense is not so much about sanctifying the AGW political agenda of the left, as it is about good old ecumenism. After all, we need to be “merciful” to those who worship Gaia too.
    By tomorrow, they’ll come up with a new trick to confuse us all.
    I do love it when they go too far, and paganizing Michelangelo’s dome on the house of Peter does just that.
    Even the most radical of the naïve deniers among Catholics must soon begin to see the corruption within our Holy Church.

  • My impression of Mr. Doino is that he’s given to whistling past the graveyard. (I think our friend Mr. Price uses the term ‘normalcy bias’). His fancies are that nothing is amiss because there are limits to how blatant Francis elects to be.

  • Mahound’s Paradise gves some photos of this demonic light show of eco-wacko Gaia worshipping heresy:
    I pray for the end of the the current Pontificate and the current US Presidency. But will what replaces them be worse?

  • But will what replaces them be worse?

    I was blindsided by how wretched is Francis, so I would not lay any predictions there. In re Obama, Hillary is much more energetically crooked, and her husband is a threat; Mooch just spends like a drunken sailor and stuffs whole wheat bread down the throats of unwilling children, so the threat from that quarter is circumscribed.

  • In the 1951 movie version of a Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, one ‘ghost’ scene shows two youngsters with no vitality. Scrooge is told that the boy is called Ignorance and the girl, Want; and that Ignorance is the most dangerous .

    Under the influence of the aforementioned two leaders, the balance and beauty in Alexander Pope’s poem is in jeopardy as regards man. Young and old seem to have contracted a pandemic virus that sickens heart, mind and soul; and the two ‘caregivers’ are helping the contagion.

  • May I retroactively suggest the perfect musical score for this enviro-wacko light show:

  • YUGO (The eco-acronym de jour?)

  • Patricia wrote, “Scrooge is told that the boy is called Ignorance and the girl, Want; and that Ignorance is the most dangerous…”

    I often find myself recalling Lord Acton’s words, “Liberty, next to religion, has been the motive of good deeds and the common pretext of crime, from the sowing of the seed at Athens, two thousand four hundred and sixty years ago, until the ripened harvest was gathered by men of our race. It is the delicate fruit of a mature civilisation; and scarcely a century has passed since nations, that knew the meaning of the term, resolved to be free. In every age its progress has been beset by its natural enemies, by ignorance and superstition, by lust of conquest and by love of ease, by the strong man’s craving for power, and the poor man’s craving for food.”

Mark Shea on Climate Change

Thursday, June 18, AD 2015


After the issuance of the Green Encyclical today I assume that Catholics will be debating global warming.  I thought we would kick off the debate here on TAC with Mark Shea representing both sides:


As you probably know, I’m skeptical of the Global Warming hype, not least because its marketers and packagers keep changing the name. First, it was “Global Warming,” then “Climate Change” (as if climate does anything besides change) and lately it’s “Global Climate Disruption.” I’m also skeptical that it is man made, and I think the dishonesty of some of the scientists in the field, not to mention the packagers and marketers, leaves me cold (clever pun, eh?). So, for instance, when I see evidence of rising sea levels that doesn’t always refer me back to the same remote island nobody knows anything about except that it might be a case of erosion and not rising sea levels, I will begin to take our melting ice caps more seriously.

Go here to read the rest.


I have always expressed ignorance of the science for the very good reason that I am not a scientist. I have always granted the premise that there is climate change for the very good reason that change is what climate does. Beyond that, I have always left the matter in the hands of experts to hash out because what do I know?

Go here to read the rest.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Mark Shea on Climate Change

Just in Time for the Green Encyclical

Friday, June 5, AD 2015





Pope Francis is releasing his global warming encyclical on June 18.  Right on schedule we have further evidence that the global warming scam is falling apart:

Science mag is publishing a blockbuster paper today, on June 4.  Oh boy!  Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists.  Is there a “pause”?  Did global climate really stop warming during the last dozen years, 18 years, or even 40 years – in spite of rising levels of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide?

The renowned National Climate Data Center (NCDC), a division of NOAA located in Asheville, NC, claims that the widely reported (and accepted) temperature hiatus (i.e., near-zero trend) is an illusion – just an artifact of data analysis – and that the global climate never really stopped warming.If true, what a blessing that would be for the UN-IPCC – and for climate alarmists generally, who have been under siege to explain the cause of the pause.

This paper is turning out to be a “big deal.”The publisher of Science has even issued a special press release, promoting the NCDC claim of continued slow but steady warming.

Of course, NCDC-NOAA and Science may end up with egg on their collective faces.It does look a little suspicious that NCDC arrived at this earth-shaking “discovery” after all these years, after “massaging” its own weather-station data, just before the big policy conference in December in Paris that is supposed to slow the rise of CO2 from the burning of energy fuels, coal, oil, and gas.

Now watch the sparks fly — as there are two major constituencies that have a vested interest in the pause:

Continue reading...

39 Responses to Just in Time for the Green Encyclical

  • Perhaps the sorriest thing our dear Pope supports is the religion of climate change, probably in an effort to make the Catholic Church relevant, relevant mostly to folks who don’t believe in God, but who do believe in abortion, and who do believe in totalitarian economic control. Like evolution there is no truly scientific evidence for the climate change theory. Why would Pope Francis engage himself in this nonsense besides the temporary applause he will receive from those who oppose what he claims to represent? I can only ascribe it to a profound loss of faith and hope in God and his Providence along with a failure of courage to carry the message of the Cross. Let us pray that Pope Francis soon recovers from his profound spiritual blindness.

  • The USCCB and its funding source CCHD have been fully committed to this hoax even claiming that global warming and particularly power generating facilities affect the poor. Bishop Wenski can doublespeak for himself when he urges the EPA to take greater control of our society.

    “The USCCB recognizes the importance of finding means to reduce carbon pollution,” Archbishop Wenski said. “These standards should protect the health and welfare of all people, especially children, the elderly, as well as poor and vulnerable communities, from harmful pollution emitted from power plants and from the impacts of climate change.” The letter can be found at

  • There is no scientific proof of any kind that CO2 causes significant global warming. There is no scientific proof of any kind that global warming, if it is occurring, is harmful. There is satellite evidence that the earth is greening, likely enhanced by increased CO2. There is data showing global crop yields at record levels, likely enhanced by CO2. There is satellite evidence that there has been no significant warming in 18+ years as CO2 has steadily increased. There is ice core data which indicates CO2 is caused by global warming not vice versa. Man caused CO2 is a very small part of total natural CO2. CO2 is a trace gas (0.04%) of the atmosphere and is unlikely to have any significant thermal effect. That the clerics of our church would ally with baby killers to promote the AGW agenda gives one pause to wonder whether their faith in our faith is specious as well.

  • I think that….call it the “human influenced climate change” crowd needs to acknowledge a fundamental truth…..the goal of getting the entire Earth behind the substantial cuts is not going to happen. My whole life, the campaign has been going on. And it’s failed! Getting an entire planet with various competing interests…..including dictatorships… sign onto this was perhaps always a pipe dream. Perhaps the cuts were as well. The proponents of HICC will never convince the majorities they would need to make the cuts they claim are needed to….reduce the inevitable rate by which the climate changes to a slower level less detrimental to humanity. If those who are convinced HICC is a problem are right, it’s over. It cannot be changed. Its happening and cannot be stopped. Only endured.

    I’d recomend they stop talking about the idea and focus on the specific effects. My understanding is that the ice at the poles is actually melting at a dangerously accelerated rate. So without talking about what the causes might have been, just go to costal areas and say “the ice caps are melting at an accelerated rate, that will in time cause increased flooding”, and focus their recommendations on what can be done to endure these changes without loss of life…measures like trying to convince people to move further away from the waterfront, or investing in infrastructure preparation. Areas further inland? Empazise the risks of greater drought.

    If HICC is real……we are too late to undue what has been done. Endurance and science are what will save us (materially speaking).

  • I think I may go with the hope-against-hope that they actually did a decent job and stuck to guiding prudential judgement, without any poison pills.
    I know it’ll be abused no matter what, so it’s not like that’s new…..

  • CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and man generates but a trace of the trace. There is much fossil evidence that an increase in CO2 is a result of a warming trend. I can cite personal evidence for this phenomenon as well. If you make beer or wine, you will observe how the area in the crock above the fermenting must or wort fills with CO2. It will quickly extinguish a lowered burning match. When the fructose or maltose ferments, the action of the yeast converts into equal parts of alcohol and carbon dioxide until the fermenting liquid reaches about 14% alcohol which causes the yeast to go dormant. Another thing that makes the yeast less active is a lowering temperature in the room where the crock is located. It doesn’t take a leap of intellectual understanding to realize that a similar thing happens in the global biosphere. Decomposition, fermentation, putrefaction and the like are temperature sensitive. That’s why we put food in the refrigerator or freezer, and that is also why CO2 is a byproduct of global warming cycles. It also seems obvious that achieving a significant reduction in man’s trace contribution to this trace gas would require measures of devastating impact on the seven billion people who inhabit the earth. Before the Industrial Revolution, there were only about one billion of us. If we were to eliminate all the smokestacks and tail pipes of our modern machinations, we might eliminate something less than a tenth of a percent of atmospheric CO2, and we will also eliminate most of the six billion human beings presently inhabiting the planet. There are a few crazy loons, and some in high places, who would relish such a prospect. Population control has long been a fixation of the political Left, people for whom, ” “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” is anathema.

  • @Michael Dowd: Thank you for your incisive succinct summaries.
    As regards the Encyclical, though the Pope has given us cause for caution even in his area of competency [Faith & Morals], I believe it is better we wait for the actual Encyclical.

  • I agree with William P Walsh. And any replacement for fossil fuel that isn’t useless and worthless like solar and wind will be opposed with the same vehemence that fossil fuel is opposed, hence today’s anti-nuclear fission movement. Indeed, if fusion ever becomes workable, then that too will be opposed.
    By the way, have you ever noticed that the people with the biggest mouths opposing fossil fuel continue to buy gasoline and methane and diesel with complete abandon? Godless eco-wacko feminist liberal progressive nit wits.

  • To the Pope, for his Brave New World Encyclical. “The comedy of man survives the tragedy of man.” GK Chesterton. This Popes need for popularity, exceeds his usefulness in fulfilling his obligation toward sustaining the Catholic Faith, but finds it more important in sustaining the continuance of the poor, by supporting a progressive political perspective that will make the entire world a poor and unhappy habitat. “An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered.” G.K.C And when that inconvenience is a hoax on mankind it is neither just wrong or right, it is just plain evil.

  • What the company I work for is doing for carbon emissions reduction – will the Pope support such a technology?
    Browse the web site. Lots of videos. And the technobabble is made understandable to the layman.

  • Very good Thomas. Evil is exactly what is being emitted. Evil is when everyone loses.

  • The image accompanying this blog post is misleading. It pairs an image of Pope Francis with a remark in quotes but the remark is not his.

  • The quote, as indicated, is from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Social Sciences.

  • J S Person

    Relax, the poles are not melting. Antarctic ice is at record levels, Arctic ice has increased over the last few years. The thousand year ‘rise’ in the oceans continues at a barely perceptible rate. If people actually believed the things you cited there would be a lot of cheap beach front property for sale, including Al Gore’s?

  • Don’t bother waiting for the encyclical. The mere fact that it is being addressed as a serious subject shows the influence of Satan.

  • In France, it has been the Hard Left (particularly the Anarcho-Sydicalists) that has been most sceptical of Environmentalism: “Tracking, transparency, certification, eco-taxes, environmental excellence, and the policing of water, all give us an idea of the coming state of ecological emergency. Everything is permitted to a power structure that bases its authority in Nature, in health and in well-being… Those who claim that generalized self-control will spare us from an environmental dictatorship are lying: the one will prepare the way for the other, and we will end up with both… ”
    Sometimes, the protest achieves an almost lyrical quality: “There is no “environmental catastrophe.” The catastrophe is the environment itself. The environment is what is left to man after he has lost everything. Those who live in a neighbourhood, a street, a valley, a war-zone, a workshop – they don’t have an “environment”; they move through a world peopled by presences, dangers, friends, enemies, moments of life and death, all kinds of beings. Such a world has its own consistency, which varies according to the intensity and quality of the ties attaching us to all of these beings, to all of these places. It is only us, the children of the final dispossession, exiles of the final hour – the ones who come into the world in concrete cubes, pick our fruits at the supermarket, and watch for an echo of the world on television – only we get to have an environment. “

  • “In the past when data didn’t fit a theory the theory had to be adjusted to reflect the data.”

    In the long run, yes, but usually the scientific community has been happy to espouse theories that is knows don’t explain everything under the methodology of “it’s good enough for now”. The small items of data that contradict the common wisdom are allowed to float out there until the better theory comes along. The layman needs to understand that these contraindications neither disprove exist theory nor do they relentlessly drive new theory. Unlike the development of new technology, new theories are more the child of inspiration rather than perspiration.

    “Now, the data is adjusted to fit the theory.” That has happened before too, and that has always been a bad thing. Look up the history of n-rays (not x-rays) for example. This usually happens when the data is, for a variety of reasons, marginal in quality or quantity, and egos get in the way. Sound familiar?

    BTW, as I have posted before, I am not a denier of human caused global warming. It is just that, given the fact of solar warming due to helium production in the sun’s core, I see it as irrelevant.

  • Tom D.- It is just that, given the fact of solar warming due to helium production in the sun’s core, I see it as irrelevant. I think we agree. Man’s activity does contribute to global warming like spitting in the ocean actually does cause the level of the sea to rise.

  • Pingback: The Catholic Church & the Inherit Dignity of Women - Big Pulp
  • As to solar warming due to helium production, can we say NUCLEAR fusion? Dumb idiot eco wackoes.

  • PS my commment is NOT directed against the last 2 commenters, Tom D and Wm Walsh.

  • Not to worry Paul. We know who you meant. Besides, everyone knows I’m not an eco-whacko. I am a proud right-wing nut. 😉

  • William P. Walsh wrote “Man’s activity does contribute to global warming like spitting in the ocean actually does cause the level of the sea to rise.”

    Perhaps. I myself can’t say for sure one way or the other. What I do know is that the technology required to save the planet from solar warming requires the infrastructure that creates human global warming, and so eliminating human global warming will not only impoverish billions of people but will also destroy our ability to save the planet in the near term from solar warming. Funny, isn’t it? Also, the cure for solar warming would actually allow us to not worry about CO2 at all. We’d be fine for the next 5 billion years, instead of a few hundred thousand.

  • Tom D. Of course, my spitting in the ocean remark was hyperbolic. Nonetheless your reference to a “cure for solar warming” is interesting. Is it more than relaxing while increased plant growth converts the excess CO2 into oxygen? Shall we tell Al Gore that the Earth, praise God, is actually in balance after all?

  • William, the ‘cure’ is to place shades in space between the earth and sun. Optimally the best way is to install a large number of spacecraft (300-1000) at the L1 Lagrangian point between the two bodies. Each would have a large shade or shades which could be rotated to alternately block or pass sunlight. Controllers on earth could then adjust the alignment of individual shades to manipulate the climate. As the sun warms more shades would be rotated to block sunlight.

    Once you can do this then CO2 levels no longer matter. If they rise a bit and the earth warms you just close a few more shades. In fact, an elevated CO2 level could be an advantage during Maunder minimum periods when the sun spots shut off and a “little ice age” sets in for 80 years or so. These apparently happen every 500 years or so, and there are signs that the next one may be only a couple decades away. A Little Ice Age starts? No problem! Turn up the heat, burn some more fossil fuels, and open a few L1 shades.

    The only downsides to these shades are, aside from the cost and the learning curve (“Too cold last year, can you do better?”) is that the solar observatories on earth are hurt a bit. But surprise! Several of the most important solar observatories are already located at L1.

    The biggest problem with the current views on global climate and ecology is that people have the idea that balance and stability are natural states. Nothing could be further from the truth! The climate on earth has never been stable, and never will be, unless we learn how to stabilize it. Letting nature take its course in the long term will fail.

  • Make the shades solar power satellites and convert the sunlight into microwaves, beam the microwaves to a rectenna farm on the surface and convert the microwaves into electricity.
    But all the eco nit wit nuts who today oppose fossil and nuclear will oppose that too.

  • Actually, Paul, I’m not too sure about that idea for a few cost/benefit reasons. Also, the idea usually puts those satellites at geosynchronous orbit. The earth-sun L1 point is over four times farther away than geosynchronous; I’m sure you can imagine the impact that difference has on the microwave losses (inverse square law?)

    Both the solar warming problem and the asteroid threat require that, in the long run, we take over the inner solar system. At some point it becomes more cost effective to move some manufacturing to the moon, which means some nuclear reactors to power the smelters and, well, everything else. Want to go?

  • “The earth-sun L1 point is over four times farther ” Oops, Meant to write “almost four times”. The moon is 400,000 km, the L1 point is 1,500,000 km away. The poor brain got in to ‘big’ mode and got stuck there.

  • Bottom line: the common wisdom is really not wise. Hopefully the encyclical will be humble enough to allow us the room to make these arguments. Right now I fully expect to be able to continue to do so.

  • To Tom D – I did want to go. That was the reason I became a submarine reactor operator – to become a spacecraft reactor operator. I am now 57 and am too old. However, if you have 40+ minutes of viewing time to spare, here is something more educational than reality TV. We did develop nuclear thermal rockets in the 60s and 70s. Because of fear they went nowhere.

  • Here is a test of that nuclear rocket:

  • sorry guys, dont want to be a spoilsport, but all these science fiction ideas – interesting though they are – will not go anywhere.
    Because there is no time for it. The time is up. Few more decades and that is it. And those few decades? A period of wars, strife, squalor. You get the drift? Jeremiads? Prophet of Doom?well that is what the said in the years leading to 587 BC.

  • The Emperor has no (warm) clothes!

  • Cpola, I pray that you are wrong but I think that you are right.

  • In the old USSR, some Siberian towns received their heating fuel rations based on their reported temperatures. (Y’know; To each according to his need, and all that). After the collapse of the communist system, their winter temps miraculously went up. (Y’know; corrupt bribery and all that)
    If man gained control of the weather, as Tom D suggests, the corruption would be astronomical.

  • cpola, I think you are right too. Also, perhaps Revelation 8:8 indicates that we will not do the responsible things to protect our fellow human beings on the earth.

    It is not science fiction anymore than, say, building dykes is. But it is a social fiction in this passionately neo-pagan age.

  • “If man gained control of the weather, as Tom D suggests, the corruption would be astronomical.”

    I don’t necessarily agree, exNOAAman. It would be difficult to manipulate the climate to the benefit of one location and at the expense of another, especially from 1.5 million kilometers away. As long as all power over climate control is not centralized in any single government (or one world government) I don’t see it happening.

  • Postscript on cpola’s comment: just because cpola may be right doesn’t mean it ought to be so. We should still argue in favor of the proper uses of science and technology, just as we do for democracy, liberty, capitalism, faith, and every other good thing.

Now Where Have I Heard This Before?

Wednesday, May 13, AD 2015

MoS2 Template Master

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9



One advantage of studying history is that you learn the truth of Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun.  That is why when I was reading this morning the latest antics of the deranged campus Left it seemed so familiar:

Out in Washington State, some students at Western Washington University have come up with interesting new techniques in the field of debate. For example, one of their state senators, Doug Ericksen (R-Ferndale) was found by the upset underclassmen to be a heretical non-believer when it comes to the issue of global warming. Ericksen, as it turns out, is an alumnus of WWU, so rather than debating him on the hot topic, they have issued demands to have his diploma revoked.

This isn’t an election year for state Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, but challengers do seek to wrest something from him — not his elected office but rather one of his college degrees.

A group of students with ties to Huxley College held a meeting at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, May 7, on campus, to start what promises to be an uphill — if not Quixotic — battle to convince university administration to strip Ericksen of his diploma.

“We’re framing it in a more radical way,” D’Angelo said. “We’re not just trying to have a conversation with him or hold him accountable. We’re trying to revoke his degree and get people to pay attention.”

The Republican senator has been at odds with Democrats over how to craft policy on climate change and carbon reduction. He butted heads with Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee and Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, on the Climate Legislative and Executive Workgroup. Ericksen removed language in the bill creating the workgroup that mentioned “climate change” and the threat it posed to the state.

While Ericksen may have stripped the phrase “climate change” out of a bill, upsetting the young Democrats, he had primarily worked to prevent any tax increases which were supposed to pay for carbon capping. But but does that make him a “climate change denier” in the full sense of the word? Not exactly.

The students refer to Ericksen as a “climate denier” on their Facebook page. He told this blogger a couple years back he was a “climate agnostic,” which may be more accurate. While he stripped the words “climate change” from the 2013 Climate Legislative and Executive workgroup bill, he at least conceded the possibility of human-caused climate change in 2015 legislation that would give utilities more flexibility in meeting state-mandated alternative energy goals. (Ericksen’s bill, SB 5735, passed the Senate on March 9 but has not yet made it through the House.)

In an amendment Ericksen introduced, the bill’s intent section reads, “The Legislature finds that climate change is real and that human activity may contribute to climate change.”

This is apparently the bar which must be met when dealing with college campus activists. Publishing legislation which says that climate change is real and human activity may contribute to it isn’t going to cut the mustard, folks. You’re going to have to do better than that. And if you don’t, your opponents will work with the university to strip you of your credentials.

Go here to Hot Air to read the rest.  The idiots behind this lunacy worked in the campaign of the defeated Democrat opponent of Ericksen.  While I was reading this, I knew I recalled similar measures taken against political adversaries before.  It took me a moment, and then it came to me:  Nazi Germany!

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Now Where Have I Heard This Before?

  • These same left wing lunatics wholly given over to the false gospel of goddess Gaia will not support the only other form of baseload electricity besides fossil fuel that would obviate the emission of so-called green-house gas CO2: nuclear. In fact, they single-mindedly oppose nuclear energy with the same vehemence and ferocity that they support the false notion of anthropogenic global warming. This isn’t about protecting the environment. It is rather about constricting the energy supply so that politicians can decide who gets energy and who doesn’t. It will be the same as it was before: Jews and Christians will be denied: first their college diplomas, then energy, then food, then freedom, then finally their lives.

  • Some scientists have said that as the ice cap on the arctic melts and shrinks, the ice cap on the antarctic grows in direct proportion, which means that only a portion of the globe is in warming. The global warming enthusiasts like to share only half truths to progress their agenda. Freedom of speech is only engaged through the truth, The rest is perjury in a court of law. This mob mentality, imminent death and death without purpose and death with out Divine Providence, death without God causes hysteria, and panic. The best place to run and or hide is in Church with Jesus as they did in H. G. Wells WAR OF THE WORLDS. Denying Faith from God is a terrible crime against our people. The mob needs to prove that global warming is not a normal occurrence to indict the senator. Otherwise imposing their dearly held beliefs is unconstitutional and scientific heresy.

  • Nazi Germany revoked the teaching license of every Jewish professor, including Lisa Mitner who discovered atomic fission and whose nephew, (cannot remember his name) headed up America’s construction of the atomic bomb which was planned to be dropped on Germany, but was precluded by the end of the war in Europe. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot or in Hitler’s case, in the head. Thank you Mr. MCclarey for remembering.

  • With this and every other “controversy” that involves vocal/extreme Leftist activism, the underlying truth is “The issue isn’t the issue. The issue is the Revolution.”
    The Revolution’s only real goal is the destruction of The Church; it’s a pretty short putt to discern then who exactly is ultimately behind the Revolution.

  • So, does that mean “conversation,” like “dialog,” is now officially newspeak for “shut up.”

  • We (real) scientists are currently fond of saying that this sort of thing shows how desperate the warmists have become…they grasp at any straw as their house of cards falls.
    However, Mr. WK is so very right. The issue isn’t the issue. After this ruse fails, they’ll just move on to some other big lie, to advance Satan’s agenda.
    A warm seat in Hell…

Our Sunday Visitor: Company Rag

Thursday, May 7, AD 2015


Once upon a time Our Sunday Visitor supplied fairly orthodox commentary upon the Church and the World, although it was always careful to never disturb the powers that be at the Vatican.  That was before the present Pontificate.  Now, it is in essence a “Yes Sir!” magazine to whatever latest cause is promoted by the powers that be at the Vatican, orthodoxy and the traditional teachings of the Church be hanged.  Case in point, this current editorial attacking the reaction of some orthodox Catholics to the forthcoming climate change encyclical of the Pope:

The main bone of contention in this debate is climate change. While we do believe that this is an issue that has serious implications on human welfare, we are not choosing to argue its merits today. On the contrary, we acknowledge the right of all parties engaged in the debate to participate in a rational and responsible exchange of thoughts, ideas and information.


A line is crossed, however, when such rational exchange turns into venom-spewing, ideologically based commentary. And this is what has taken place. Well before the encyclical’s release, a veritable campaign against its content has not only been initiated, but has been growing in intensity. That these efforts presuppose the document’s content is bad enough, but they have gone much further. Some Catholic observers and commentators have recommended that their fellow members in faith completely ignore the work, calling it baseless and not a priority.  Others have even mocked the Holy Father and questioned his mental state. It’s shameful behavior, and hardly befitting a Church that calls itself “one, holy and apostolic.”


That the majority of this vitriol should come at the hands of self-styled conservatives is as disappointing as it is ironic. Just a few short years ago, with Pope Benedict at the helm of the Church, it was these same Catholics calling on their self-styled liberal counterparts to not ignore or berate the teachings or the office of the Holy Father — in short to not be “cafeteria Catholics” when they disagreed with Benedict. Now the situation is reversed, and these offended Catholics are becoming the perpetrators of the same offensive abuse.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Our Sunday Visitor: Company Rag

  • Well put Donald McClarey; …”comparing apples and rock salt”
    In both cases Catholics are defending the Truth… and, as well,in both instances, catholics are obfuscating it.

  • I gave up on them in 2008 when they equated abortion and poverty issues as being equal life issues. Then claiming it was okay to vote for Obama. Did not renew my subscription at that point.

  • Our Sunday what?

  • Hardest point I had to get across to my baptized-and-abandoned husband– the folk theology he’d been taught made the priests on up a blanket authority.

Bear Growls: Incompetence

Saturday, May 2, AD 2015



St. Corbinian’s Bear is on fire over the coming climate change encyclical:


The Bear is not claiming to diagnose the Pope. Yet, think back on his papacy, and the way Francis bounces from one scandal to another like a pinball, seemingly unaware of the damage he causes and unable to stop himself. Recall how he seems to consider the papacy as his own personal belonging. That is not humility. Even his acts of “humility” often seem to feature the imposition of his will upon tradition.

What about criticism of those who don’t agree with him? Here is a lengthy collection of his insults. “Rosary counter,” and “self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian” are just the start. (Who can forget “Bat Christian?”)

Now here we are waiting on a papal encyclical based on the controversial topic of climate change. Once again, Pope Francis can bask in the spotlight. As the Bear pointed out in his last article, Catholics are required to give “religious assent,” i.e. agreement, to such a document. How this is going to work out in practice the Bear has no idea, but it doesn’t matter. On the possibly fraudulent or misguided science of climate change, “Roma locuta est, causa finita est.”

The Church works when grownups are in charge. Frankly, we could add when people who do not exhibit symptoms of mental illness are in charge. Should there be an odd-ball, the sheep can only be unsettled and mistrustful. Even worse, what does this say about the Church? We are expected to swallow an encyclical on dubious science because we believe the Pope has divine assistance to get it right.

The Pope expects assent to his climate change encyclical. The faithful expect a Pope who is not incompetent. We seem to be at an impasse.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Bear Growls: Incompetence

  • I suppose we will handle it the same way we did when Pope Benedict dealt with climate change in 2011.

  • Kabam. I love it!

  • As long as topical questions are all the rage, perhaps the Pope could give us his pensees on the Kardashians.

  • Too bad that Donald McClarey’s response to Julie cannot be designated with a “like.” Clerics need to focus on the Gospel of conversion and repentance, and stop with the eco-wacko nit-wit nonsense of enviro-nazism. Holiness and righteous, not eco-awareness, are what we need.
    2nd Peter 3
    10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, 12 looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
    To all you eco-wackos out there who place goddess Gaia above the Creator, your goddess is going to go down in flames.

  • The Church has the office of teaching, and the matter of that teaching is the body of doctrine, which the Apostles left behind them as her perpetual possession. “Religious submission of intellect and will” is required to this teaching of the Magisterium. Neither popes nor councils can claim our assent on matters of fact, unconnected with doctrine.

    Thus, the Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus, cited in support of its definition a letter which they ascribe to Pope St Julius, the friend of Athanasius; it is still extant and is an extract from a writing of Timotheus, the Apollinarian, if not of Apollinaris himself. This is a salutary reminder of another point: that councils (and popes) are “not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” (Perrone, Præl. Theol. t. 2)

  • The Church teaches us about God who makes the world go, not about how the world goes.

  • Yes, Julie, Pope Benedict urged care and concern for the environment. He was careful to do so in a way that didn’t invoke the highest level of papal teaching authority aside from infallible definitions.

    Benedict was and is a careful, precise and subtle thinker. He weighed his words carefully, and always in the full context of Catholic teaching. For some reason, people think such features of intellect were automatically passed on to his successor.

    Despite the considerable and building evidence to the contrary.

  • These Chicken Little enviromentalnuts ought to read and put faith in what God told Noah. “All the days of the earth, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, night and day, shall not cease. ” Genesis 8:22.

  • Encyclicals are comparatively modern, dating back to Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758).

    Earlier papal documents are legislative or judicial in character and seldom enter into the grounds or motives of the Pope’s decision. They are, after all, the commands of a sovereign, not arguments or exhortations.

    Consider one of the most famous bulls ever promulgated “Cum Occasione” of May 31, 1653, intended by Pope Innocent X to resolve the Jansenist controversy. Omitting formal parts, it consists of five propositions, to which notes of censure are attached, as follows:-

    1.” Some of God’s precepts are impossible to the just, who wish and strive to keep them, according to the present powers which they have; the grace, by which they are made possible, is also wanting” – Declared and condemned as rash, impious, blasphemous, condemned by anathema, and heretical.

    2. “In the state of fallen nature one never resists interior grace” – Declared and condemned as heretical.

    3. “In order to merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature, freedom from necessity is not required in man, but freedom from external compulsion is sufficient” – Declared and condemned as heretical.

    4. “The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of a prevenient interior grace for each act, even for the beginning of faith; and in this they were heretics, because they wished this grace to be such that the human will could either resist or obey” – Declared and condemned as false and heretical.

    5. “It is Semi- Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception” – Declared and condemned as false, rash, scandalous, and understood in this sense, that Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, contumelious, dishonouring to divine kindness [divinae pietati derogantem], and heretical.

    That is the whole substance of it; certain propositions are condemned, without discussion or explanation.

    It is a style of papal teaching I find rather appealing.

  • Apologies- I linked to the article and read it. According to the Bear- the Pope possesses a Narcisstic Personality.

    I don’t think he does. Someone with this personality is vicious and ill- intentioned and manipulative. And very aware of their actions.

    The more I think about it, the more I get the sense that Pope Francis is extremely insecure in his role. I think the demands are bigger than he is capable of. I don’t think he has bad intentions for the Church. I just don’t think he knows how to handle things in the current climate of Vatican in-fighting, intense social media, a world that is increasingly faithless to the point where I feel uncomfortable to declare my Catholicism at work or amongst non-Catholics (yes I know this is not a good thing- but it is just too difficult).

    All these things make an insecure person more out-of-control- hence the Pope doesn’t know where he is going. I’m sure we have all felt like this one time in our life- I know I feel this currently in my life.

    And all this combined with the fact that he may have manipulative and ill-intentioned advisors (not all- Pell is an example of the exception to the rule), and an equally manipulative media- and you have a difficult situation thrust into the hands of a well-meaning but insecure Pontiff.

    I know God works in mysterious ways and the positives aspects of Pope Francis being- ie. a common touch- has led many to return to the Church.

    Pray for the Pope. It is an enormously difficult job.

    I guess, it is better to wait and see what is in the encyclical before scaring ourselves to death. If there are flaws then deal with them point by point.

    We are currently in a time when the devil is running rampant. From the indivual to the larger global scene. We need God right now. I just don’t know how much longer we can endure.

Latest on the Global Warming Scam

Monday, February 9, AD 2015


It is dismaying to anyone who has been paying attention to the Global Warming Scam that Pope Francis is apparently about to sign on to something that is so replete with fraud. John Hinderaker at the  Powerline blog brings us the latest:

We have written many times about the fact that the scientific agencies which are keepers of the world’s historical temperature data are all, or nearly all, under the control of warmists. These warmists have systematically altered historic temperature records, so that the temperatures they report today for past eras are not the same as what were measured, say, 70 or 80 years ago. The effect of these adjustments is strikingly consistent: they almost always make the past look cooler than it was measured at the time, so that the present looks warmer by comparison. The opposite–an adjustment that results in reporting a historic temperature higher than what was published contemporaneously–never, or almost never, happens. These adjustments may or may not be explained; sometimes, they are kept quiet until someone stumbles across the original data and points out a discrepancy.

A man named Paul Homewood, an accountant by profession, has taken it upon himself to research this issue of unexplained temperature adjustments. He reports on his findings at Not a Lot of People Know That. His site is worth checking out, as he is producing a lot of highly relevant data.

One of the areas that Homewood has looked at is Paraguay. In a post titled All of Paraguay’s temperature record has been tampered with, he found that GISS has systematically altered temperature records to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, and to create an entirely fictitious warming trend.

To show his findings, Homewood created animated GIFs of the data from each weather station in Paraguay, contrasting the “old” data–the data actually recorded by thermometers and reported at the time–with the “new” data, i.e., the massaged numbers that GISS now publishes. Here they are. The deception is obvious:

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Latest on the Global Warming Scam

  • Not sure I’d say ‘scam’, but something has been amiss. I follow on occasion Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, though the discussion is over my head. McIntyre’s interpretation is that the UEA emails indicate that the principles
    have ‘lost control of their data’, are at a loss to process it correctly, and have not sufficiently document how they processed it in the past, and that it is this they’ve been concealing, not frauds per se.

    There is that, there is the corruption of the peer review process (documented in email exchanges), the forgeries meant to defame the Heartland Institute, Michael Mann’s bizarre libel suit, lunatic personal attacks on scientists like Willie Soon who do not toe the line, and Lonnie Thompson going to the ends of the earth to collect ice cores which sit in a warehouse unanalyzed. Their behavior suggests a modest nexus of people whose professional reputations are invested in a research program that has some serious problems. The problem has been wildly exacerbated by government funding of research. See Prof. Phillip Johnson on some of the systematic problems which arise from agencies like NSF and NIH.

  • I do not agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. However, dumping millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere each year is an experiment previously untried in the annals of human history and will have unintended and unforeseen consequences. There is however a way to prevent this. It consists in replacing our need for fossil fuel energy with nuclear. As discussed many time previously, using so-called renewables produces instability in the electric grid when the percentage of electrical energy supplied is greater than 20% due to the intermittent nature of wind and solar, and renewables always require spinning reserve backup to provide energy when there is no sun (e.g., at night, on cloudy days, etc) and no wind or too much wind (which requires wind turbine lock down to prevent damage). Only uranium and thorium can provide the electrical energy we need without pollution for our homes and businesses, and to make hydrogen gas for transportation vehicle fuel by electrolysis of water. Yet ironically all those crying about climate change due to fossil fuel pollution are the same people who oppose nuclear energy. But none of this will be explained to Pope Francis, and he does not have the scientific nor engineering background to understand even were it explained. 🙁

  • The goal of the scam (hatched politically from the one-world UN,) has long been the forceful transference of wealth, (cap and trade etc.) hence power, and the destruction of sovereignty, since climate transcends all borders.
    Since the pope has called for nations to “distribute (redistribute by force?) wealth to the poor, he might well support the climate change issue (hoax) for its goal–not as much for its very corrupt science.
    One has to wonder how to resolve the contradiction between forceful transference of wealth and Pius XI’s admonition about violating the Principle of Subsidiarity as being a “qrave evil.”

  • Don Lond wrote, “One has to wonder how to resolve the contradiction between forceful transference of wealth and Pius XI’s admonition about violating the Principle of Subsidiarity as being a ‘qrave evil’”
    Bl Paul VI addressed the issue in Populorum Progressio
    “77. Nations are the architects of their own development, and they must bear the burden of this work; but they cannot accomplish it if they live in isolation from others. Regional mutual aid agreements among the poorer nations, broader based programs of support for these nations, major alliances between nations to coordinate these activities—these are the road signs that point the way to national development and world peace.
    78. Such international collaboration among the nations of the world certainly calls for institutions that will promote, coordinate and direct it, until a new juridical order is firmly established and fully ratified. We give willing and wholehearted support to those public organizations that have already joined in promoting the development of nations, and We ardently hope that they will enjoy ever growing authority. As We told the United Nations General Assembly in New York: ‘Your vocation is to bring not just some peoples but all peoples together as brothers. . . Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a world authority capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political planes?’”
    If the central power is too weak, the secondary powers will run riot and oppress.

  • Mr. Magoo has done it again.

  • It’s the biggest scam and lie of all time.

    They are cramming it down school children’s throats and they are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

    Send Climate Depot .com to as many friends and relatives and acquaintances as possible (to help in the deprograming of said).

  • Good gif here:
    It has reached the point now that anyone who falls for the AGW hoax is either a mental case or an evil schemer. This is why its so sad, (at least for this weatherman), to see the successor of Peter running with the followers of Satan. I mean, he just can’t be so stupid that he doesn’t know what he’s getting into. I suppose that, like most celebrities, large doses of pride blind him.
    But really, who knows?

  • Folks,
    Having read a great short essay at Utah Thorium Energy, I simply cannot help but reprint a salient portion here which I wish someone would please explain to Pope Francis. I am NO adherent to the false gospel of anthropogenic global warming or earth goddess gaia nonsense, but indiscriminate dumping of billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere each year will have unforeseen and unintended effects. Yet I will wager that none of Pope Francis’ advisers will consider the ONLY viable alternative to fossil fuel for baseload generation of electricity. No, without further delay:
    Let us look at how this works in real life. The North Omaha [coal fired] Power Plant in Omaha, Nebraska, produces 500 megawatts (MW) of electricity, about one-fifth of the power needed to run the city. Every three days, a 110-car unit train arrives, each car is loaded with 125 tons of coal. One car produces twenty minutes of electricity. The plant occupies more than two square miles—much of it needed to store the mountains of coal.
    Each day’s consumption of 4,500 tons of coal at North Omaha will combine with atmospheric oxygen to form 15,000 tons of carbon dioxide…Across the country, America has 600 similar coal plants that provide half our electricity and put 3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year—10 percent of the world’s total. This is the greatest single source of global greenhouse gases on the planet.
    About thirty miles south of Omaha lies the Cooper Nuclear Station on the banks of the Missouri River. The plant occupies two square miles, slightly less than the coal station. Every eighteen months, a single tractor-trailer arrives carrying several dozen bundles of 18-foot nuclear fuel rods. These rods are only mildly radioactive and can be handled safely with gloves. They are loaded into the reactor core, where they will undergo nuclear fission for three years. After the fuel rods are spent, they will be removed from the reactor core looking exactly as they did when they went in, except they will be highly radioactive. They can be stored in a 40-foot-deep, on-site “swimming pool,” where their radioactivity dissipates in six feet of water. There, they can remain for decades. After three years, when the radioactivity has dropped by half, they may be moved to nearby outdoor dry casks. There they may remain for almost a century. The Cooper Station produces no sulfur emissions, no mercury, no soot, no particulate matter, no ash, no slag, and no greenhouse gases. And it does produce more electricity than North Omaha—750 MW.

  • Quote: “—10 percent of the world’s total. This is the greatest single source of global greenhouse gases on the planet.”
    Paul, don’t let people read these falsehoods. Man is an insignificant creature on the planet Earth. He in not capable of producing 3 or 4 percent of so-called GHGs. This 10 % is of man-made products…which amounts to 0.35%…if true.
    brief link:
    Be careful. These are the kind of numbers that deceive readers. A significant tool of the warmists (and Satan).
    P.S. It’s true that these plants eat a lot of coal.
    Rumor is that the AGW scam was first figured by advisors to the Thatcher administration in UK in a fight against mining unions; in favor of nukes. Kinda backfired though.

  • We agree, exNOAAman. My point is this: if all the eco-nuts are really so concerned about carbon pollution, then why do they oppose the only feasible alternative – nuclear?

Global Warming No Doubt Caused This

Tuesday, November 25, AD 2014

4 Responses to Global Warming No Doubt Caused This

A Fitting Secretary of State

Tuesday, January 7, AD 2014

Brain Trust of the Obama Administration

Hattip to Erika Johnson at Hot Air.  I think it is fitting that the increasingly impotent lame duck Obama administration has a complete buffoon like John F. Kerry as Secretary of State.  He is perfect in the role as the global representative of an administration whose every foreign policy initiative has ended, or is in the process of ending, in disaster.  Kerry, being unable to deal with any of the real foreign policy crises confronting this nation, is determined to nail his flag to the country responding to a fake one:

But while the public’s attention has been on his diplomacy in the Middle East, behind the scenes at the State Department Mr. Kerry has initiated a systematic, top-down push to create an agencywide focus on global warming.

His goal is to become the lead broker of a global climate treaty in 2015 that will commit the United States and other nations to historic reductions in fossil fuel pollution.

Whether the secretary of state can have that kind of influence remains an open question, and Mr. Kerry, despite two decades of attention to climate policy, has few concrete accomplishments on the issue. The climate bills he sponsored as a senator failed. At the United Nations climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, Mr. Kerry, then a senator from Massachusetts, labored behind the scenes to help President Obama broker a treaty that yielded pledges from countries to cut their emissions but failed to produce legally binding commitments. …

Shortly after Mr. Kerry was sworn in last February, he issued a directive that all meetings between senior American diplomats and top foreign officials include a discussion of climate change. He put top climate policy specialists on his State Department personal staff. And he is pursuing smaller climate deals in forums like the Group of 20, the countries that make up the world’s largest economies. …

Not only must he handle difficult negotiations with China — the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases — for the 2015 treaty, but the pact must be ratified by a Senate that has a long record of rejecting climate change legislation. “In all candor, I don’t care where he is, nothing is going to happen in the Senate for a long time,” Mr. McCain said.

Continue reading...

28 Responses to A Fitting Secretary of State

  • Climate change initiatives, once approved, will require oversight and regulation by the United Nations and other foreign, super-national entities. It therefore implicitly and explicitly cedes a part of the United States’ sovereignity to the ministrations of this foreign body.

    Does the U.S constitution matter anymore as our politicians compromise our sovereign nation status without requiring the firing of a single shot?

  • A possible irony in all of this panic, er, focus on stopping global warming at all costs is that the Sun is showing clear signs of entering another “grand minimum” of sunspot activity that could last several decades or so — the very type of grand minimum that, in the past, has been associated with global COOLING, including the “Little Ice Age” of the 18th and 19th centuries. (Google “sunspot minimum and global cooling” to find out more)

    If this happens, and it’s still a big if, we may eventually be thankful for man-made global warming as it just might help to mitigate the potentially far more disastrous effects of global cooling such as shortened growing seasons, crop failures, and the resultant increases in starvation, poverty and the general cost of living.

  • Not to mention the fact that overall world temperatures have been flat, i.e., NOT increased since at least the late 1990s. All the AGW alarmist predictions of where world temperatures “should” be by now, 2014, have proven wrong.

  • Another wheel-spinning exercise is the Middle East ‘peace process’.

    You have to hand it to Obama. Just about every other Secretary of State in the last 60 odd years had one or more of the following assets: a previous history as a line administrator, an extensive history of scholarship, or a previous history in diplomatic posts of consequence. Obama has appointed two characters in a row with none of these assets.

    On Kerry’s history in law practice:

  • Sovereignty is like virginity. A person is a virgin or is not, no in between. Former President Clinton, when he was president, said that we would have to surrender “a little bit of sovereignty” That is like being a little bit pregnant. One world government under the world bank with no mention of the human being’s immortal human soul is global totalitarianism. Global warming and greenhouse gas credits are only the weapon.
    We need statesmen, not politicians. A statesman in imbued with the virtue of patriotism. The politicians are steeped headlong into agendas, moral and immoral. The politician fails to fulfill his loyalty to America.

  • Sovereignty is like virginity

    No. Particular parts of the globe have lost and re-acquired sovereignty.

  • What a maroon.

  • “No. Particular parts of the globe have lost and re-acquired sovereignty.”
    God renews the face of the earth through our posterity, innocence and virginity reborn. God renews our spiritual virginity through the Sacrament of Penance. Barbarism, despotism and the like are not sovereignty. Cuba is not a sovereign nation, only a gulag. Sovereignty resides in virtue and virtue in freedom. In fact, there can be no sovereignty without acknowledgment of the Supreme Sovereign Being, the one true God.

  • John FARC Kerry is a golddigger when it comes to money. In all other things he is a fool. The people who have cast votes for him are fools, too.

  • There is significant money to be made in the climate change game as Al Gore will attest, not limited to the potential gains to be realized by investors in global carbon credits and the sustainability industry.

    The University of East Anglia lost much of its professional credibility in the wake of disclosures that its research and findings which confirmed climate change were tainted.

  • The University of East Anglia lost much of its professional credibility in the wake of disclosures that its research and findings which confirmed climate change were tainted.

    Sad to say, probably not. It did provide some good laughs for those of us skeptical of the hype, however.

  • The people who have cast votes for him are fools, too.

    That’s what gets you. He was elected to the Senate after two years in the lieutenant governor sinecure. He was elected lieutenant governor after a half dozen years as a rank-and-file lawyer of no special distinction. His selling point in 1984 was his service record. Then we discover 20 years later (no thanks to our watchdog press) that his record was embellished in many details and that many of his peers and much of his chain of command despised him.

  • John Kerry was a member of Skull and Bones at Yale….enough said.

  • John Kerry….the next Nobel Peace prize recipient.
    ( couldn’t help it…sorry. )

  • Mary DeVoe.

    Mentioning virginity and Bill Clinton in the same sentence caused me indecision whether to laugh or cry 🙂

    I wonder – has Kerry heard of the bunch of scientists from Australia who chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to prove the loss of sea ice in Constituion Bay where the great Antarctic explorer Mawson sailed into in 1913 ?(I think) – and the idiots got trapped in sea ice hundreds of miles from their destination?

    Antarctic sea ice – now you see it, now you don’t. 🙂

  • Correction.
    Douglas Mawson sailed into Commonwealth Bay in 1911.

  • What is so ironic about this is that if anthropogenic global warming is a real threat, then why does the Administration obstruct the only real solution to fossil fuel carbon releases: nuclear energy. Solar and wind have capacity factors of 20 to 30% compared to nuclear’s +90%. Such renewables always require spinning reserve, usually CO2 releasing natural gas. And if solar were so great, then why don’t we bake our bricks in the sun as the ancient Sumerians did? If wind were so great, then why don’t we still use sailing ships to transport merchandise across the ocean? Yet the Administration spends billions on failed renewable energy companies like Solyndra while styming new nuclear build and appointing anti-nuclear NRC chairpersons like Gregory Jackzo ( forced to resign during the last election because his abuse of women employees at the NRC was an embarrassment to the Administation’s feminist policies ) and now Alison MacFarlane ( a geologist who worked against the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository and whose husband is an anthropologist of anti-nuclear activism ). I would like to see a post here at TAC revealing the Administration’s suicidal treatment of the country’s energy needs that deals in particular with nuclear energy and how it has totally screwed up the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission with appointments of anti-nuclear eco-wackoes.

  • The new government is trying to get rid of the economically damaging “Carbon Tax” here in Australia, that the previous socialist government installed. It was meant to make the top pollution causing Corporates pay for their “Carbon” emissions. But in the short time it’s been in operation, all its done is bring the cost of living up, and damage the viability of many Businesses- especially manufacturing.

    It’s interesting that Kerry is deciding to do this at a time when great parts of the US are frozen over.

    Global warming. Righty then.

    Where is Kerry? On holiday in Hawaii with the Obamas?

    I’m of the belief, and Im not a conspiracy theorist, that this is another way to help reduce the population- By continually driving the message that mankind is to blame for the earth’s alleged “rising temperature” (something that is yet to be determined with certainty anyway).

    And the UN wants to chime in. And force nations to “act on Climate Change”. They have to get the science right first, then maybe they can start with China. Good luck.

  • Ez is 100% correct. Concerned about global warming? Then support nuclear energy, the only viable alternative.

  • Every breath we humans exhale contains carbon dioxide and so merely by “being”, we are tied to the alleged depletion of the earth’s resources.

    Of course, if there were really a carbon depletion issue (and there is not), a viable solution would include planting forests with many trees. Trees take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen which is then breathed in by humans in the ordinary cycle of life.

    But this solution is not nearly as lucrative as what Secretary of State Kerry and his colleagues have in mind to resolve the non-existing problem.

    Carbon credits can be traded on global markets for significant sums while also being used as a political vehicle to restrain and control certain nations production capabilities, all in the interest of saving the earth.

    Control and power managed by the few….the great fiction continues.

  • More truth by Slainte. Pay attention, folks. Pay close attention.

  • Just think of it!
    Al Gore John Kerry and Obama limited to four breaths every thirty minutes…all for our Earth God.

    Less is good!

  • Didn’t Al Gore embark on a “world tour” for months on end, in his pollution producing private jet, to preach to the masses his Climate ideology?

    Unfortunately, in Australia, Tim Flannery, our premier advocate for the Climate myth, was awarded the highest of accolades- “Australian of the Year” In 2007. He’s been warning that Australia will be swallowed by a great tidal wave caused by the melting Polar ice caps, for donkey years. In the meantime, he’s bought property that sits right at the shoreline of the Hawksbury River.

  • Haha @ Phillip. It’s not like enough oxygen goes to their brain anyway.

  • Algore became a billionaire playing this uber-scam, which was fabricated by Brit nucular power interests.

    In 1974, the geniuses were quaking over a new ice age; and that we’d completely run out of oil.

    Spain’s “going all-in” for unscientific, vacuous green nonsense (replace fossil fuels with zephyrs, sunbeams and unicorn farts) hastened its economic collapse.

  • Ez.

    Snake oil salesmen have more class and honor than these political bozo’s.
    Pray Pray Pray

  • Hey! We’ve sunk alot of savings into unicorn farts. Please don’t bad mouth the investment.

  • Spain has oodles of money to throw around- the unemployment levels there are tremendous! Their efforts will be but a drop in the ocean.

    It’s China and India that need to address their environmental issues.

    Chinas Three Gorges Dam tilted the axis of the Earth. Their wasteful construction and development of ghost towns (consisting of grande, completely empty shopping malls), and the mis-placement of village people- forcing them into high rise concrete apartment eyesores is the real tragic issues. Along with the random landslide from unresolved, over development projects.

    What does Spain think it will contribute in the grand scheme of the global earth? Not much. It’s all trendy, feel-good, hippy, hullabaloo rubbish. Fix the Spanish economy, and encourage families to have more than one child. Spain, a Catholic country, should be ashamed of itself.

Greenpeace Lies About Santa!

Monday, December 9, AD 2013

5 Responses to Greenpeace Lies About Santa!

  • The ironic thing about Greenpeace is that while they whine, moan and complain about anthropogenic global warming, they condemn the very thing that could obviate anthropogenic global warming: replacing fossil fuel with nuclear energy. Instead, they tout the useless twirling blades of wind mills that kill indiscriminately the avian wildlife they are sworn to protect, and the equally useless shiny mirrors of solar cells. With a capacity factor of less than 30%, such forms of energy (always subject to the vagaries of the weather) require the constant spinning reserve of fossil or nuclear.

    Think about it: if wind energy were so great, then why don’t we still use sailing ships to transport goods across the ocean? If solar were so great, then why don’t we still sun-dry bricks as the ancient Mesopotamians did?

    One other thing: these idiots are invariably liberal progressive Democrats, and as Democrats they care about only one thing: who has power. If they can control the electric supply (as they now do health care), think upon the consequences. Godless, putrid, rancid liberalism and greenie-weenie eco-idiocy. Contempt and disgust and disdain are what they merit, one and all. The proper response to these people is ridicule – open, public humiliation.

  • Saint Nicholas is not that ugly. That guy is all set for scaring people on Halloween.

  • but doesn’t he look like Fidel?

  • Disagree with most everything Greenpeace does … but this is pretty well done!

  • Disagree with most everything Greenpeace does … but this is pretty well done! –
    Dave W. That is the scary part. Indoctrination of every non-thinking person on the planet. Most people conserve and learn thrift by themselves.

Global Warming as a Substitute Religion

Monday, July 11, AD 2011





In these days we are accused of attacking science because we want it to be scientific. Surely there is not any undue disrespect to our doctor in saying that he is our doctor, not our priest, or our wife, or ourself. It is not the business of the doctor to say that we must go to a watering-place; it is his affair to say that certain results of health will follow if we do go to a watering-place. After that, obviously, it is for us to judge. Physical science is like simple addition: it is either infallible or it is false. To mix science up with philosophy is only to produce a philosophy that has lost all its ideal value and a science that has lost all its practical value.

G. K. Chesterton

One of the more pernicious follies of our time is the mixing of politics, science and religion.  The Global Warming scam is a prime example of what a noxious brew can result from this.  Among many of the elites in Western society, environmentalism has taken on all the aspects of a religion.  The religious left has been eager to climb on to this new religion.  Based upon very dubious science, and fired with the faith that has traditionally been given to religion, powerful forces throughout the West are eager  to implement revolutionary changes in our society, most involving a radical expansion of government control over industry.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Global Warming as a Substitute Religion

  • That is exactly what the religion of anthropogenic global warming is all about.

  • Another way in which belief in AGW is like a religion: it (allegedly) explains the problem of evil. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, and even earthquakes and tsunamis (I believe) are all blamed on global warming.

    Plus, people who scoff at the notion that God would send natural disaster as a punishment for sins like abortion (I don’t personally believe that either, but I say this just to make a point) have no trouble embracing the idea that “Nature” or “Mother Earth” sends them as punishment for using the wrong light bulbs, driving old cars, or simply failing to believe in the One True Faith. Case in point: the liberal blogger/commentator who stated a couple of months ago that residents of states affected by recent tornado outbreaks had it coming because they are represented by “climate change deniers.”

  • Plus, a large plurality of AGW adherents are better credentialed than the majority of “Cargo Cult” believers . . . [sigh].

  • Here’s the link to the blog post I referred to earlier:

    In fairness, however, it should be noted that even many liberals thought this sentiment was obscene and uncalled for.

  • Another way it’s a religion: it’s based on faith. Sure, you can postulate scientific theories based on evidence at hand, but in the end you really can’t prove that man is causing global warming. Even if you can demonstrate through data that the Earth’s temperatures are warming, there’s no way to conclusively prove that this is a result of human behavior or that these increased temperatures are beyond what is normal for the planet’s history.

  • “Thank heavens for a rambunctious new media:  talk radio and the internet, where ideological conformity is impossible to enforce.”
    This made me laugh. Ideological diversity from Limbaug to Hannity

  • Oh there are liberal talk show hosts on radio Kevin, but in a free market to gain listeners the vast majority of them are as popular as the plague. Cheer up Kevin, however, you still have National Public Radio which has found ways around that terrible requirement that a radio talk show needs to be entertaining to gain listeners.

  • Why is it that liberals think that anything that sounds like Marxist NPR is an example of diversity to be emulated?

    The fact of the matter is that Limbaugh and Hannity ARE examples of diversity opposed to the liberal Democrat group think of NPR and like-minded pseudo-news outlets, and it is this that liberal Democrats cannot stand.

    Democracy is only for the Democrats who all think the same way – anthropogenic global warming. Right wing conservatives don’t deserve a voice because that’s so diverse as to be opposed to diversity.

    And that is precisely the logic behind liberalism’s AGW.

  • I do not think it is a substitute religion or necessarily invalid as science. Some of the people promoting it are eminent scientists (e.g. Lonnie Thompson). Of course, so are some of the critics (and Dr. Thompson seems to have misplaced his raw data).

    The trouble is that it has decayed into a class and subcultural marker and a trough for organized appetites.

  • Pingback: Global Warming as a Substitute Religion « Avangelista's Blog
  • What??? Now it is global warming. I am going to have to get rid of my train loads of parkas I bought in the 1970s when I was told we were going into the ice age because of human activity . . . maybe I can exchange the parkas for swim suits & sun screen . . .