It’s Moving Day for Santa

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Global warming nuts are at it again, and this time they have attempted to co-opt Christmas, by telling us that Santa is a “Climate Refugee.”

I can think of no better way for radical leftists to celebrate the holiday than to scare the crap out of children. And not just any leftists, but trusted government leftists – because really – if you can’t trust your government to be honest with your kids, who can you trust. Am I right?

“There is no country on the planet that can walk away from the challenge and reality of climate change, And for our part, Canada will continue to fight for the global plan that has a realistic chance of countering it. We have a responsibility to future generations and we will uphold it,” the young and dashing Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, recently, told the United Nations General Assembly.

That September proclamation has now been followed by a warning to the world’s children, as a “Canadian government website claims that Santa Claus is relocating his workshop, elves and reindeer to the South Pole to escape the effects of global warming.” read more

Now Bitcoin Causes Global Warming?

from IBD:

The green movement has found many things in modern life that cause global warming, but the latest really left us scratching our heads: Trading Bitcoins. At this point it might be easier to ask, is there anything that doesn’t cause global warming?

No, it’s not a joke. Just about anything these days (Hat tip: The Daily Caller) even remotely connected to civilization, human flourishing and comfort is, we’re told, a “cause” of global warming. It’s a crucial element of the Global Warming religion, which has only waxed even as real religion has waned. read more

Liberal States to Enact Climate Change Rules

Despite 23 Years of no Warming!

from the American Spectator:

President Donald Trump announced his administration would withdraw the United States from the agreement. These pledges have led four states — Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York — to enact climate and energy policies based on the Obama-era social cost of carbon (SCC) calculations, which attempt to quantify the long-term economic damages associated with emitting one ton of carbon dioxide into the air. The Obama administration concluded for every ton of carbon dioxide released, $36 worth of damage occurs.

The SCC is based on flawed scientific and economic assumptions. As a result, the dozens of regulations imposed on the energy sector that were based on these calculations significantly and needlessly increase the cost of electricity without delivering any measurable environmental benefits. read more

Shattering the Global Warming Myth

from the Daily Caller:

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years

 Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record it showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.” read more

Trump Should Reconsider Ethanol Mandate

This is honest reporting. Many sites on the right do nothing but promote everything Trump. I as well support the President’s policies, but when he makes a wrong decision, he should be called out. This is one of those times and it’s important to point it out.

from IBD:

This is one campaign promise we wish President Trump would break. But alas, he just told his EPA to give up any thought of cutting back on the federal government’s anti-consumer, anti-environment ethanol mandate. Sad.

The story begins in 2005, when President Bush approved the Renewable Fuel Standard program as part of an energy bill, which required oil refiners to blend in predetermined amounts of “biofuels” into their gasoline, starting at 4 billion gallons in 2006.

A revised version of the RFS, which Bush signed in 2007, expanding the program, requiring ethanol levels to climb steadily to 36 billion gallons by 2022. read more

Warmists Lie about the Paris Climate Agreement

from IBD:

For Climate-Change Hypocrites, U.S. Is Too Frackin’ Much

The tut-tutting and tsk-tsking about the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement knows no end. But as yet another news story shows, the Paris deal is an utter fraud and should be considered as such.

As Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian blog recently pointed out, a July 9 New York Times headline couldn’t hide the paper’s disgust and contempt for President Trump for once again telling the G20 group of nations that the U.S. would not fulfill President Obama’s unkeepable climate promises under the Paris accords.

“World Leaders Move Forward On Climate Change, Without U.S.,” the Times headline sneered. read more

No – Pacific Islands are not Disappearing Due to Global Warming

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down For Audio Version

“Rising sea levels are eating away at small Pacific Islands and will eventually turn their inhabitants into climate refugees.” So say the climate “experts.”

Allow me to channel my inner Andy Rooney. Did you ever notice that in order to be a “climate expert,” one must first believe in man-caused global warming. Just an observation.

New Scientist reports  that “Over the past 60 years the sea has risen by around 30 centimeters locally, sparking warnings that the [Funafuti] atoll is set to disappear.

Now may I ask a question? How do sea levels rise “locally?” The experts claim that the ocean rose “locally” by 30 centimeters. These islands, or atolls, sit in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Picture the Pacific as a giant bathtub. There are no walls or barriers in the tub segregating the water. After you finish filling the tub to a certain level, someone asks if you can just raise the level of water by 30 centimeters (about 12 inches) “locally,” at one end and not the other. Please tell me how this is done, save for a local storm or swell, which would of course subside. It defies the laws of fluid dynamics.

But as has been occurring more often of late – actual data doesn’t support the claims that these islands will disappear. Quite the opposite. read more

The Business of Climate Change and the Rise of the Oceans

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

In 2015, Takepart.com posted an article  citing what coastal cities will look like after the sea levels rise.

They write that, “Sea-level rise is coming. Even if we keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above historic norms—the benchmark for avoiding catastrophic climate warming—we may still see oceans creep four feet farther inland by 2100 and rise 20 feet by as soon as 2200.”

I like the hysteric hyperbole – “catastrophic climate warming” and the fact (or non-fact) that we “may” still see oceans rising – which can equally mean that we may not. It’s a trick the warming alarmists always use figuring most will not pick up the “may” and instead hear “will.” And if you buy into this nonsense, this is what you hear.

The article cites a study published in the journal Science, where researchers compared CO2 levels of today with the last time they claim the levels were similar. It was apparently 120,000 years ago when the level was roughly the same as today, at approximately 400ppm.

They claim that, “Back then, the average global temperature was around 1 to 2 degrees higher than it is now, and the sea level was about 20 feet higher.” read more

Limbaugh Gets It – Is it Global Warming, or is it Cooling?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh went off again over the myth of man caused global warming and this bogus Paris Climate Accord. So serious is this, that Rush, a hardcore Trump supporter, said that if Trump signs onto the Paris Climate Agreement, he may dump-Trump.

“It is crucial that the president not only not participate in this, he must actively withdraw from it … this is why the president — if he signs on to this, folks, I don’t know how I can continue to support him in other things.” Ditto for me.

He mentioned as proof that global warming is a hoax, the fact that the leftist media switches every several years between catastrophic warming and cooling. He’s right, although the cycle is actually between 30 and 40 years. And there is a cycle.

In fact, we have been warned of differing catastrophic climate change four times in just the past 120 or so years.

So let’s hop into the way-back machine or maybe Doc’s DeLorean. Let us take a journey in time via the irrefutable written record. Remember, if it’s in print it must be true. I’ll punch in the turn of the century, last century.

From the late 1800’s through the 1920’s Americans were convinced, via the print media, that we were heading for the next ICE AGE. Yes, Global Cooling! In 1895 the New York Times (the paper of record) wrote, “Geologists think the world may be frozen up again”. In 1912 the L.A. Times reported, “The fifth Ice Age is on the way”. Chicago Tribune, 1923: “Scientists say Arctic Ice will wipe out Canada all the way down to the Great Lakes”. 1924, New York Times: “Signs of a new Ice Age”. This reporting continued through the balance of the ’20’s. read more

Climate Fraudsters Demand More Cash

from IBD:

Just when you think the climate change lunacy couldn’t get any worse, the U.N.’s climate-crats up the ante. Meeting in Bonn, Germany, for yet another unneeded climate conference, attendees are now demanding $300 billion a year more to help less-developed nations cope with anticipated climatic warming. Are they kidding?

By the way, that $300 billion is in addition to the $100 billion that the world’s governments have already promised to deliver under the Paris Climate Agreement. So now they’re asking for a total of $400 billion a year in climate welfare for the developing world. No sane government would sign on to such a scam. Which of course means that most of them probably will.

There’s really no end to this insanity. To make it worse, the proposal before the Bonn climate talks calls for the added taxpayer-funded cash to be doled out not by the governments themselves, or even the U.N. No, the money will be channeled through existing nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs.

In other words, left-wing green groups around the world will become the conduits for billions of dollars in money handed out to ethically challenged, nondemocratic governments. Think there might be a tiny temptation for corruption there? read more