California Wildfires Were 100 Years in the Making

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

I think all would agree that the California wildfires have been a tragic loss to life and property. The devastation caused has been

Prescribed Burn

nothing short of catastrophic. Video and pictures of the town of Paradise should cause anyone’s heart to sink.

However, this is not a disaster born of natural causes, but human-caused, and most of these wildfires could have been mitigated if not prevented all together, should the State of California and the federal government have heeded decades old warnings.

The federal government, for a century or so, has been taking various States’ forested lands in order to prevent mining, logging and “urban sprawl.” There goal is to keep these forests as pristine as possible, unaltered by human hands.

In February, 2018, California’s Little Hoover Commission published an 82 page report entitled “Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada.” read more

We’ll be Drowning in Oil!

from Zero Hedge:

Trump Announces Massive Expansion In Offshore Drilling; Environmentalists Outraged

In December 2017, during the twilight days of the previous administration, as one of Barack Obama’s last executive actions the former president formally blocked offshore oil and gas drilling in most of the Atlantic and Arctic Ocean, responding to a call from environmentalists who say the government needs to do more to prevent drilling in environmentally sensitive areas of U.S.-controlled oceans.

The move was not surprising: Obama had been expected to take the action by invoking a provision in a 1953 law that governs Outer Continental Shelf offshore leases, and he did just that to block drilling in federal waters in the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea and most of its Beaufort Sea. He also protected 21 underwater canyons in the Atlantic Ocean from drilling. read more

A Peek Behind the Green Curtain

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I am pro-environment. Yes, I favor a clean environment – an environment of honesty and truth, where useful idiot protesters are told why they are sent out to protest against one industry or another. An environment where their shadowy benefactors come clean about their real intentions. An environment where bogus funds, set up as front groups, are forced to publicly proclaim where their backing really originates. I’m for that clean environment.

Dozens if not hundreds of these sham environmentalist groups have popped up out of nowhere over the years, yet when the curtain is pulled back on any and all, we see that it’s the same cabal of leftist billionaires that fund them. And none of these ultra rich “philanthropists” give to these groups publicly or out of the goodness of their hearts or to “save the planet.”

So what do these rich and powerful people want? Why, more power and more wealth. I guess billions just aren’t enough these days.

Of course, a lot of these so-called grassroots groups are set up solely to advance the push for green energy and thus protest against conventional energy, like coal, oil and gas. Yet very few of the actual protesters know that “green” groups like the Sea Change Foundation are funded by billionaire Wall Street tycoons who are in tight with the Obama administration and benefit financially from his war on conventional energy. read more

Renewable Disaster

I’ll remind you; if you wish to see our future, just gaze across the pond.

It’s not the floods or any other natural disaster.

It’s a self-inflicted disaster, caused by trying to cut CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.

Even Germany is beginning to realize that it can’t continue to support renewable energy.

The accompanying chart shows that the cost of electricity is far higher in Europe than in the United States.

EU vs US costs for electricity and natural gas. From the Economist Magazine

This disparity in the cost of electricity can only get worse if Europe continues with its current low-carbon obsession. The German Association of Energy and Water (BDEW), for example, predicts that electricity prices will increase another 25%. “Thomas Vahlenkamp of McKinsey reckons that the cost of the Energiewende will double over the next decade.1

Continue Reading

Global Warming Causes Everything

By Michelle Malkin

Good news: The Waldo Canyon fire, which forced 32,000 residents (including our family) to flee, claimed two lives and destroyed 347 homes, is now 100 percent contained. Bad news: Radical environmentalists won’t stop blowing hot air about this year’s infernal season across the West.

Al Gore slithered out of the political morgue to bemoan nationwide heat records and pimp his new “Climate Reality Project,” which blames global warming for the wildfire outbreak. NBC meteorologist Doug Kammerer asserted: “If we did not have global warming, we wouldn’t see this.” Agriculture Department Undersecretary Harris Sherman, who oversees the Forest Service, claimed to the Washington Post: “The climate is changing, and these fires are a very strong indicator of that.”

And the Associated Press (or rather, the Activist Press) lit the fear-mongering torch with an eco-propaganda piece titled “U.S. summer is what ‘global warming will look like.'”

The problem is that the actual conclusions of scientists included in AP’s screed don’t back up the apocalyptic headline. As the reporter acknowledges under that panicky banner:

“Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn’t caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen.”

So, this U.S. summer may or may not really look like “what global warming looks like.” Kinda. Sorta. Possibly. Possibly not.

Furthermore, the AP reporter concedes, the “global” nature of the warming and its supposed catastrophic events have “been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren’t having similar disasters now, although they’ve had their own extreme events in recent years.”

A more hedging headline would have been journalistically responsible, but Chicken Little-ism better serves the global warming blame-ologists’ agenda.

More inconvenient truths: As The Washington Times noted, the National Climatic Data Center shows that “Colorado has actually seen its average temperature drop slightly from 1998 to 2011, when data is collected only from rural stations and not those that have been urbanized since 1900.”

Radical green efforts to block logging and timber sales in national forests since the 1990s are the real culprits. Wildlife mitigation experts point to incompetent forest management and militant opposition to thinning the timber fuel supply.

Another symptom of green obstructionism: widespread bark beetle infestations. The U.S. Forest Service itself reported last year:

“During the last part of the 20th century, widespread treatments in lodgepole pine stands that would have created age class diversity, enhanced the vigor of remaining trees, and improved stand resiliency to drought or insect attack — such as timber harvest and thinning — lacked public acceptance. Proposals for such practices were routinely appealed and litigated, constraining the ability of the Forest Service to manage what had become large expanses of even-aged stands susceptible to a bark beetle outbreak.”

Capitulation to lawsuit-happy green thugs, in others, undermined “public acceptance” of common sense, biodiversity-preserving and lifesaving timber harvest and thinning practices.

Local, state and federal officials offered effusive praise for my fellow Colorado Springs residents who engaged in preventive mitigation efforts in their neighborhoods. The government flacks said it made a life-and-death difference. Yet, litigious environmental groups have sabotaged such mitigation efforts at the national level — in effect, creating an explosive tinderbox out of the West.

Stoking global warming alarms may make for titillating headlines and posh Al Gore confabs. But it’s a human blame avoidance strategy rooted in ideological extremism and flaming idiocy.

The Real Political Science

 Even as climate alarmists amplify their call for a worldwide tax on carbon dioxide emissions in the name of preventing global warming – penguins, polar bears, Himalayan glaciers and Arctic sea ice are all thriving.

With dire proclamations of ice free Arctic summers vehemently debunked, the latest data indicates that both wildlife and the environment in earth’s coldest regions has not experienced the catastrophic devastation predicted as a result of man-made climate change.

Forecasts that Canada’s polar bear population would significantly decline due to global warming have been proven completely inaccurate. The latest study shows that the Hudson Bay area polar bear population has remained steady at around 1000 – the same number found by a 2004 study, confounding the “doom-and-gloom” predictions of environmentalists about the demise of the polar bear (which) have failed to come true,” reports the Canadian Press.

“We are not observing these impacts right at this moment in time. And it is not a crisis situation as a lot of people would like the world to believe it is,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management.

Gissing added that their survey of Polar Bear population could yield twice as many as earlier predicted.

Meanwhile, Live Science reports, “A new study using satellite mapping technology reveals there are twice as many emperor penguins in Antarctica than previously thought.”

Using state of the art technology that can single out penguins from other birds, researchers counted almost 600,000 penguins around the coastal regions, almost double the previous estimate of 270,000-350,000.

But it’s not just wildlife that is contradicting the claims of climate change alarmists, the environment itself is not behaving as global warming data models predicted.

Satellite data produced by French researchers shows that glaciers in the western Himalayan region are “putting on mass” rather than melting completely as doomsayers had warned in a 2007 UN IPCC report, which claimed that most of the region would be ice-free by 2035.

Despite the findings, BBC News, an ardent promoter of climate change propaganda, blamed the thickening of the glaciers on man-made global warming. When the earth last showed similar activity back in the 1970′s, the same scientific establishment, which now pushes anthropogenic global warming, blamed the changes on global cooling.

New research from the Arctic’s Bering Sea also found that ice is thickening.

“The amount of floating ice in the Arctic’s Bering Sea – which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-alarmist organizations such as Greenpeace – reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites,” reports The Register.

The article points to a 1999 Greenpeace prediction that sea ice in the area “could vanish altogether,” another piece of alarmist propaganda debunked by reality.

Despite a multitude of data that continually serves to eviscerate the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming, illustrating again that the earth has gone through natural warming and cooling cycles since its very genesis, climate change snake oil salesmen like NASA’s James Hansen, who this week will call for a global tax on CO2 emissions, continue to ignore real science in pursuit of their political agenda to exploit heartfelt environmental concerns for profit and power.

 Attribution: Paul Joseph Watson

How Green Zealots are Destroying the Planet

By: James Delingpole, courtesy, UK Daily Mail

Just imagine a world where you never had to worry about global warming, where the ice caps, the ‘drowning’ Maldives and the polar bears were all doing just fine.

Imagine a world where CO2 was our friend, fossil fuels were a miracle we should cherish, and economic growth made the planet cleaner, healthier, happier and with more open spaces.

Actually, there’s no need to imagine: it already exists. So why do so many people still believe otherwise?

How come, against so much evidence, everyone from the BBC to your kids’ teachers to the Coalition government (though that may change somewhat now Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has resigned), to the President of the Royal Society to the Prince of Wales continues to pump out the message that man-made ‘climate change’ is a major threat?

Why, when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997, are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?

These are some of the questions I set out to answer in my new book — which I can guarantee will not make me popular with environmentalists.

Almost every day, on Twitter or by email, I get violent messages of hate directed not just at me, but even my children. Separately, I’ve been criticised by websites such as the Campaign Against Climate Change (Honorary President: the environmental activist and writer George Monbiot). I’ve had a green activist set up a false website in my name to misdirect my internet traffic. I’ve been vilified everywhere from the Guardian to a BBC Horizon documentary as a wicked ‘denier’ who knows nothing about science.

Not that I’m complaining. Margaret Thatcher once famously said: ‘I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.’

That’s just how I feel about my critics’ ad hominem assaults. They’re born not of strength but out of sheer desperation.

The turning point towards some semblance of sanity in the great climate war came in November 2009 with the leak of the notorious Climategate emails from the University of East Anglia.

What these showed is that the so-called ‘consensus’ science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) — ie the theory that man-made CO2 is causing our planet to heat up in a dangerous, unprecedented fashion — simply cannot be trusted.

The experts had, for years, been twisting the evidence, abusing the scientific process, breaching Freedom of Information requests (by illegally hiding or deleting emails and taxpayer-funded research) and silencing dissent in a way which removes all credibility from the scaremongering reports they write for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

(The IPCC is the heavily politicised but supposedly neutral UN advisory body which has been described by President Obama as the ‘gold standard’ of international climate science.)

Since Climategate, the scientific case against AGW theory has hardened still further. Experiments at the CERN laboratory in Geneva have supported the theory of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark that the sun — not man-made CO2 — is the biggest driver of climate change.

The latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000 measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15 years.
Now, with sunspot activity (solar flares caused by magnetic activity) at its lowest since the days of the 17th-century frost fairs on the Thames, it seems increasingly likely we are about to enter a new mini Ice Age. Should we be bothered by this? Of course we should. Not only does it mean that for the rest of our lives we’re likely to be doomed to experience colder winters and duller summers, but it also makes us victims of perhaps the most expensive fraud in history.

Over the past 20 years, across the Western world, billions of pounds, dollars and euros have been squandered by governments on hare-brained schemes to ‘combat climate change’.

Taxes have been raised, regulations increased, flights made more expensive, incandescent light bulbs banned, landscapes despoiled by ugly, bird-chomping wind farms, economic growth curtailed — all to deal with what now turns out to have been a non-existent problem: man-made CO2.

But if anthropogenic warming is not the threat environmentalists would have us believe, why do so many people believe it is? And how come so many disparate groups — from the hair-shirt anti-capitalist activists of Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth to the executives of big corporations, to politicians of every hue from Gordon Brown to David Cameron to scientists at NASA and the UEA — are working together to promote this pernicious myth?

The short answer is ‘follow the money’.

Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA which was at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal, for example, was given £13.7 million in grants for his department’s research work; the environmental non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace came on board because scaremongering helps them raise revenue.

You’re not going to give money to the charity’s Project Thin Ice if you think the polar bear is good for another 10,000 years, but you might if you’re told it’s seriously endangered.

Politicians were attracted because it was a good way of being seen to be addressing an issue of popular concern, and a handy excuse to put up taxes.

Big corporations joined in the scam as a) it enabled them to ‘greenwash’ their image through campaigns like BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and b) it meant all that extra environmental regulation would be a handy way of pricing their smaller competitors out of the market place.

But money isn’t the only reason. If you read the private emails of the Climategate scientists, what you discover is that most of them genuinely believe in the climate change peril.

That’s why they lied about the evidence and why they tried to destroy the careers of those scientists who disagreed with them: because they wanted to scare politicians into action before time ran out. This was not science, in other words, but political activism.

A similar ‘end justifies the means’ mentality seems to prevail among all those environmental lobby groups. They don’t exaggerate or misrepresent because they’re bad people. They do it, as a former head of Greenpeace once charmingly put it when accused of having overstated the decline in Arctic sea ice, to ‘emotionalise the issue’; because they want to make the rest of the world care about these issues as much as they do.
Powerful feelings, though, are hardly the most sensible basis for global policy. Especially not when, as it turns out, they are based on a misreading of the facts.

One of the grimmest ironies of the modern environmental movement is just how much damage it has done to the planet in the name of ‘saving’ it. Green biofuels (crops such as palm oil grown for fuel) have not only led to the destruction of millions of acres of rainforest in Asia, Africa and South America, but are now known to produce four times more CO2 pollution than fossil fuels.

Wind farms, besides blighting views, destroying topsoil and causing massive noise pollution, kill around 400,000 birds a year in the U.S. alone. Environmentalists, in fact, have a disastrous track record when it comes to predictions and policy recommendations. Rachel Carson’s 1962 bestseller Silent Spring — which promised a cancer epidemic from pesticides — led to a near worldwide ban on the malarial pesticide DDT, thus condemning millions in the Third World to die from malaria.

Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb, meanwhile, rehearsed another of the green movement’s favourite themes: overpopulation. By the Seventies and Eighties, he warned, hundreds of millions of us would be dying like flies because there wouldn’t be enough food.

Why did Ehrlich’s prediction never come to pass? Because, like most of the greenies’ doomsday scenarios, it overlooked one vital factor: progress.

Because the green movement has for years been ideologically wedded to the notion that mankind is an ecological curse (‘The Earth has a cancer. The cancer is man’, as a global think tank called The Club of Rome, which includes several current and former heads of state, puts it), it fails to understand the role which technology, human ingenuity and adaption play in our species’ survival.
Ehrlich’s population disaster was averted thanks to a brilliant American scientist called Norman Borlaug who devised new mutant strains of wheat which managed to triple cereal production on the starving Indian subcontinent.

Of course, there is still widespread concern over the use of genetically modified crops, but scientists argue that with proper safeguards in place they can actually be more environmentally friendly than conventional crops, using less water and fewer pesticides.

Similar technological advances in the field of energy make a nonsense of environmentalists’ claims that we are running out of fuel: long before coal ran out came the petroleum revolution; and, though we still have plenty of oil left, we now have the miracle of shale gas which lies in abundance everywhere from Blackpool to the North Sea, and is released using blasts of high-pressure liquid to open pockets of gas in rock.

When, many decades hence, that runs out we will start to harvest clathrates (solid methane deposits) buried on the ocean floor.

Economic progress is not our enemy but our friend. It is an historical fact that the richer nations are, the more money they have to spare on ensuring a cleaner environment: compare the relatively clean air in London to the choking smog that envelops Beijing and Delhi; look at where the worst ecological disasters happened in the last century — under impoverished Communist regimes, from the Aral Sea to Chernobyl.

But the greens refuse to accept this because, according to their quasi-religious doctrine, industrial civilisation is a curse and economic growth a disease which can only be cured by rationing and self-sacrifice, higher taxes and greater state control.

That’s why I call my new book Watermelons — because it’s about zealots who are green on the outside, but in political terms, red on the inside. If only their views weren’t so influential, in schools, universities, in the media, in the corridors of power, the global economy wouldn’t be nearly in the mess it’s in today.

As someone who loves long walks in unspoilt countryside and who wants a brighter future for his children, I’m sickened by the way environmental activists tar anyone who disagrees with them as a selfish, polluting, anti-science ‘denier’.

The real deniers are those ideological greens who refuse to look at hard evidence (not just pie-in-the-sky computer models which are no more accurate than the suspect data fed into them) and won’t accept that their well-intentioned schemes to make our world a better place are in fact making it uglier, poorer and less free.

Another Green President, Perhaps

With the recent shakeup in the republican primary, Mitt Romney can no longer be considered the prohibitve favorite. I still think he is favored, but it’s getting very interesting.

With that said, do we really want or need another global warming advocate in the White House? Is Mitt a greenie or a flip flopper? You decide.

I guess I wouldn’t classify Mitt Romney’s positions on Global Warming, Flip Flops. I would say it’s more of a slow climb over a fence, climbing from the left to the right side of the fence.

First you’re on one side. Then you climb up, you straddle said fence while you inspect the lay of the land on the other side and then climb down. Voilà, you have changed your position.

As recently as his 2010 book, No Apology, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring. … I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

In June of 2011 he said, “I think the earth is getting warmer. … I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”

During a campaign stop back in October 2011 Mitt Romney stated, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,”

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said recently, “Governor Romney has been consistent in his statements on global warming.”

However, EPA Abuse reports:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has had numerous positions on climate change, carbon dioxide and global warming over the years.
His most recent views seem conservative, but as governor of Massachusetts, his views were in line with Al Gore’s views.

Human Events columnist Deroy Murdock recently outlined some of these “hot and cold” positions on global warming from the man who wishes to be President of the United States.

Murdock notes:
In 2004, Romney launched the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, “a coordinated statewide response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate,” as his office described it.

Romney’s December 7, 2005 press release announced, “Strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.”

“These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” Romney said. This red tape, the communiqué noted, is designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from power plant smokestacks.” Furthermore, the experts whom Romney consulted “include John Holdren [sic]…at Harvard University.”

“Romney (or his staff) was misled by John ‘Holdren’ [sic], a rabid environmentalist and collaborator of the notorious Paul Ehrlich.

John Holdren is now Obama’s science adviser,” says Dr. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a University of Virginia professor emeritus of physics and environmental science and the U.S. Weather Satellite Service’s founding director. “They consider CO2 a pollutant and mention it along with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury — all real pollutants, injurious to human health. Clearly, they had no clue about the science.”

“No one would choose such a green course, enlist such advisors, and then suddenly reverse himself,” the Cato Institute’s Dr. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., tells me. “As president, Romney will revert to his more familiar green self.”

Now, let’s juxtapose Rick Santorum’s (you know, the real conservative) view on the subject:

“There is no such thing as global warming,” he told a smiling Glenn Beck on Fox News in June 2011. That same month, he told Rush Limbaugh that climate change is a liberal conspiracy: “It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Santorum accused the EPA of acting on a philosophy of “We hate carbon, we hate fossil fuels, we hate blue-collar Americans who work in those areas.”

“Drill everywhere” is his philosophy when it comes to oil, he told Beck.

Santorum doesn’t see what the big fuss is about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline traversing the Ogallala Aquifer. “Has anybody looked at the number of pipelines that go through that aquifer now? I mean, you can’t even see the aquifer if you look at a schematic of how many pipelines are there,” he told Iowans at a Dec. 31 rally. Opposition to the pipeline is just “pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” he continued. “… It has to do with an ideology, a religion of its own that’s being pushed on the American public.”

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Attribution: UK Guardian, CBS News

The EPA Must Just Hate Us All

This may cause blood to shoot out of your eyes. As Glenn Beck says; this is a true “Duct Tape” moment.

These people have to go!!

From EPAabuse.com:

The EPA has brought surface mining to a halt in Appalachia, allegedly to protect the Mayfly. In surface mining, the miners put the rock and dirt in the surrounding areas or valleys. When water flows through these areas, it can become saltier. The salt may be harmful to Mayflies. It is not harmful to humans.

What’s a Mayfly? It’s a tiny insect that lives in a larvae stage in water for as long as three years. As an adult, it has no usable mouth and usually lives no longer than three hours. The females reproduce during that brief time and then die. In short, these are essentially worthless insects.

To the EPA and the environmentalists, however, the existence of the Mayfly is excuse enough to shut down coal mining in one area of our nation. Lisa Jackson and Obama are willing to sacrifice an abundant source of energy to protect a bug that lives only three hours to lay more eggs.

Ah, but there’s more.

In Nebraska, environmentalists are busy protecting the American burying beetle from the evils of the Keystone XL pipeline. The burying beetle (Nicorphorus americanus) in Nebraska makes its home in the Sand Hills – a route contemplated by the TransCanada corporation for the pipeline.

Because of the beetle, the TransCanada corp. is overhauling its plans so it can avoid the beetle habitat. The company had originally agreed to pledge $2 million to encourage ranching practices that protected the beetles or to purchase land that would be managed for the beetles.
Wyatt Hoback, a University of Nebraska biology professor was actually hired by TransCanada to work with his students to trap and move 2,400 beetles from the original pipeline path, which cut across 100 miles of the Sand Hills.

Hoback’s relocation project for burying beetles was covered on “Dirty Jobs” on the Discovery Channel.

Imagine this: Three environmental groups actually filed a federal lawsuit challenging the relocation program for these endangered beetles! Apparently, it’s not even permissible to move a bug from where they live to a safe location where they won’t be crushed by bulldozers.

The burying beetle’s Sand Hills home is safe from the evil pipeline.
Once TransCanada locates another route through Nebraska, rest assured that some bug-loving lunatic will find yet another bug, mouse, tic, plant or endangered rock formation to protect from the wicked energy producers.

And, you can expect that the EPA will jump on whatever excuse it can find to stop energy production in the U.S. It is clear that Lisa Jackson and her radical allies love bugs more than humans.