<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Climate Change</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/climate-change/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Kerry: Global Warming World&#8217;s &#8216;Most Fearsome&#8217; Threat</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/kerry-global-warming-worlds-most-fearsome-threat/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=kerry-global-warming-worlds-most-fearsome-threat</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/kerry-global-warming-worlds-most-fearsome-threat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2014 04:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ebola]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISIS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[threat]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=243005</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the face of Ebola and ISIS, the Obama administration reveals its real priorities. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/132156075_21n1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-243007" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/132156075_21n1-402x350.jpg" alt="132156075_21n" width="291" height="253" /></a>Speaking at the Wind Technology Testing Center in Boston Massachusetts on October 9<sup>th</sup>, the windsurfer and windbag-in-chief himself, Secretary of State John Kerry, pronounced that climate change, if left unaddressed, will result in the end of times: “Life as you know it on Earth ends,” Kerry said. Last February, Kerry claimed that climate change was the world’s &#8220;most fearsome&#8221; weapon of mass destruction. Not nuclear arms in the hands of the terrorist sponsoring regime of Iran or in the hands of ISIS or al Qaeda. Climate change is the real number #1 national security threat, according to Kerry.</p>
<p>Perhaps Kerry should take his head out of the clouds and take a hard look at the stark reality on earth that we are facing today. Think Ebola and global jihad for starts.</p>
<p>The World Health Organization called the Ebola outbreak &#8220;the most severe, acute health emergency seen in modern times.&#8221; The Ebola epidemic has already killed more than 4,000 people, mostly in the West Africa. But the Ebola virus has spread to other parts of the world, including the United States. A Liberian man who had traveled to the U.S. has already died of Ebola in a Texas hospital. Now we learn that a nurse who treated him at the hospital is infected herself with the virus.</p>
<p>As usual, the Obama administration is scrambling to deal with the crisis by holding lots of meetings and taking half-hearted measures. It has refused to heed calls by an increasing number of people, including a leading epidemiologist, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/06/epidemiologist-stop-the-flights-now/"><span style="color: #0463c1;">David Dausey</span></a>, who works on controlling pandemics and said that we must do “whatever it takes to keep infected people from coming here.” This should include an immediate ban on travel from the countries with the largest rates of infection to the United States. A majority of Americans agree, according to an NBC News online survey. Instead, the Obama administration is more worried about such bans being seen as racist and disrupting the economies of the affected countries in West Africa than protecting the American people and easing their fears.</p>
<p>“We don&#8217;t want to isolate parts of the world,” said Dr. Tom Frieden, the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, earlier this month. John Kerry said that “we need borders to remain open,” while calling as usual for multilateral action by African nations to deal with the crisis. They are wrong. Except for vital medical supplies transported on military aircraft to help stem the further spread of the disease in West Africa, the borders should be closed. The breeding ground in West Africa for Ebola must be fully isolated lest the deadly disease turn into a global pandemic. To paraphrase John Kerry, an unchecked Ebola contagion will bring an end to many lives including possibly in the United States &#8211; a lot sooner than climate change.</p>
<p>ISIS is on the outskirts of Baghdad. It is also on the verge of capturing the key city of Kobani near the Turkish border. While apoplectic and apocalyptic all at the same time about climate change, Kerry sees the jihadist conquests as just part of the “ups” and “downs” there are “in any kind of conflict.” He has talked about so-called &#8220;climate refugees.&#8221; However, despite the threat of imminent ISIS conquest of Kobani and the flood of real refugees attempting to escape slaughter at the hands of the jihadists in Syria, Kerry said that the U.S. has other strategic objectives. “As horrific as it is to watch in real time what is happening in Kobani, you have to step back and understand the strategic objective,” he remarked. Exactly what that strategic objective is, neither Kerry nor President Obama have been able to clearly explain.</p>
<p>Last month at the United Nations headquarters in New York, Kerry told reporters that the U.S. was getting all that it needed in the way of support from Turkey. But that was not true. Turkey has been dragging its feet ever since Kerry made that remark. Only in just the last several days has Turkey finally agreed to allow the use of its bases by coalition forces fighting against ISIS. Turkey still is preventing Kurds living in Turkey from joining their besieged Kurdish colleagues in Syria to save Kobani. And although Turkey is the NATO member most directly threatened on its border by ISIS, its Islamist government has not been willing to date to contribute any of its own ground troops to fight ISIS and prevent an invasion across its border. If Turkey is invaded by ISIS, will it expect the U.S. and other NATO members to come to its aid with air and ground combat forces under the collective security provisions of the NATO treaty?  What good is Turkey as a member of NATO and purported “ally” of the United States anyway so long as it is led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who shares ISIS’s supremacist Islamist ideology, if not its methods, and has his own caliphate ambitions?</p>
<p>As for what is happening in Iraq – a direct consequence of the Obama administration’s decision to pull all U.S. troops out of the country in 2011 against the advice of military and policy advisers – Kerry said that it is up to the Iraqis to deal with what Kerry himself acknowledged was “an existential threat” to their country. U.S. airstrikes remain too little too late. And military supplies for the Kurds in Iraq to use in serving as the boots in the ground against ISIS in Iraq continue to be supplied through Baghdad rather than directly to the Kurds themselves.</p>
<p>During this past week’s international donor conference in Cairo concerning Gaza reconstruction, Kerry said casually that “There will be ups and there will be downs over the next days as there are in any kind of conflict.” But the conflict with ISIS is not just “any kind of conflict.” And ISIS and its jihadist cohorts are no ordinary combatants with local territorial, political or economic grievances. They are the carriers of the global ideology of Islamic supremacism that threatens, again to paraphrase Kerry, to end life as we know it in a civilized world.</p>
<p>Next to the immediate threats posed by Ebola and global jihad, climate change pales by comparison.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/kerry-global-warming-worlds-most-fearsome-threat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Was the Koran Caused by Global Warming?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/was-the-koran-caused-by-global-warming/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=was-the-koran-caused-by-global-warming</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/was-the-koran-caused-by-global-warming/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 04:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmentalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISIS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=242029</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Covering up Islamic terrorism for fun and profit.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bookofdeath.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242101" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bookofdeath.jpg" alt="bookofdeath" width="302" height="242" /></a>If the weather is too hot or too cold, if there is a natural disaster, if a plane crashes, if crime increases, if crime decreases, if the Ebola virus rampages across of Africa or stays home to read a good book instead, if the price of coffee goes up or if a war breaks out… it will eventually be connected to Global Warming</p>
<p>Even the rise of ISIS has been blamed not on the Koran, but on Global Warming.</p>
<p>Meanwhile a Muslim terrorist can blow himself up at Ground Zero on September 11 while screaming, “I am doing this because I am a Muslim and I hate you all” and those same experts will tell us that it had nothing to do with Islam, but it was caused by the impact of Global Warming on the molecules of his brain.</p>
<p>It’s all a matter of how you connect the dots.</p>
<p>Democrats think that Global Warming is a bigger threat to America than Al Qaeda. That’s the profitable notion that Al Gore has been selling for some time. When ISIS began making headlines, lefty publications scurried to explain how ISIS had been caused by Global Warming. If you can’t get rid of ISIS, you can always promise to make it go away with another few billion for Bay Area Green Tech liberal donors.</p>
<p>That’s why Homeland Security is focusing on Global Warming. Why bother with Islam when the root cause of Islamic terrorism turns out to be neither Islam nor terrorism, but your failure to buy recycled toilet paper and pay much higher prices for energy. Instead of droning ISIS, we will drone on about sustainable sustainability and how eagles would rather be killed by wind turbines than by oil spills.</p>
<p>Ideas are roads to conclusion and conclusions lead to policies. If you want to control the policy, you have to control where the roads go. The media narratives are roads. If you take them, you can never reach the right conclusions because they just don’t go there. The media’s map of America has highways going from climate change to marriage equality to death panels. The policies we end up with are based on that map and the policies determine where all the money and the power end up.</p>
<p>If Islamic terrorism is a major threat then the money will go to defense contractors and security consultants, to building more drones and bombs. That means guys named Earl and Amos who wear sunglasses and have a background in the Agency and the Mossad are suddenly in demand. Transguys named Meaghan and Tad who wear retro eyeglasses ironically and did their thesis on using non-linear histrionic narratives to educate inner city children about climate change suddenly have to get real jobs.</p>
<p>But if Global Warming is a major threat, then money goes to environmental consultancies and non-profits, to propaganda for education and the arts, to Green Tech companies and Wall Street. And the consultants, bureaucrats and regulators gain a vast suite of expanded domestic and international powers. Meaghan and Tad are back and running every aspect of your life through their gigs at some non-profit you never heard of funded by a family foundation with Ford or Rockefeller in its name.</p>
<p>The War on Terror expanded the powers of domestic law enforcement, but it’s nothing compared to what the War for the Environment has done to the power of every bureaucrat large and small to raise your heating bill, outlaw your washing machine, eliminate your water supply and root through your trash. If you thought the TSA was bad, the carbon regime puts a carbon footprint value on everything you do from driving to the grocery store to buying a beer to viewing this website.</p>
<p>And then it decides which of your behaviors have to be changed and how.</p>
<p>Global Warming and the War on Terror empower different parts of the government and the assorted consultants and contractors who plug into them. Those people not only have political differences, but also major cultural differences. It’s no wonder that the media, whose writers, producers and talent are culturally a lot closer to Meaghan and Tad than to Earl and Amos, favors their narrative.</p>
<p>The Warmist side of government is also the more liberal side. The side that bombs ISIS doesn’t even understand why anyone would stand on line for two hours to buy fair trade artisanal pancakes.</p>
<p>A shift to the terror side of the dial means restrictions on immigration, more strong male role models and more domestic oil drilling. Tilt to the Warmist side and the emphasis is on letting Meaghan and Tad decide what you can buy, where you can live and whether you can live.</p>
<p>However only one of these crises is real and it isn’t the one that involves the planet burning up, the polar bears riding surfboards to San Francisco and Al Gore revealing that he was sent as a messenger from a distant alien civilization to convince us to change our ways. But that has never mattered before.</p>
<p>The left has a long history of diverting attention from real problems by inventing urgent crises. Liberals rarely go two decades without declaring a major crisis in education. They were doing it throughout the twentieth century with invariably disastrous results. Common Core is only their latest effort at imposing a reviled educational reform plan funded by corporate giants and opposed by parents and teachers.</p>
<p>Liberals did their best to divert attention from the Cold War with a poverty crisis. The Cold War was won, while the War on Poverty made a lot of sociologists very rich and enabled the transformation of the country without actually ever being won. That war has morphed into the obesity crisis, the equality crisis and a dozen other smaller crises which all add up to power and wealth tilting to the left.</p>
<p>Then there was the crisis of the uninsured which couldn’t wait to be solved until someone in Congress actually read the bill meant to solve the problem or until anyone at HHS learned how to write code. It still isn’t solved, but ObamaCare has driven a lot of money and power to all the right parts of Maryland.</p>
<p>The Global Warming crisis is only the latest incarnation of a range of environmental alarmism about everything from a coming ice age to worldwide famines. Eventually another term and another threat will replace Climate Change, but schoolchildren will still be coloring in posters crying out, “Save the Planet.”</p>
<p>These crises divert attention from a real crisis that would weaken the power base of the left while inflating an imaginary crisis that will put cash and power in their pockets. The left accused the right of inventing foreign enemies to justify wars of profit. But Communism and Islam were and are real threats. It’s the left that invents phony threats and fights phony wars for money and power.</p>
<p>We aren’t being allowed to recognize the threat of Islamic terrorism because the left wouldn’t profit from it. At least not until someone finally proves that the Koran was caused by Global Warming.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><em>Don&#8217;t miss Shillman Journalism Fellow <strong>Daniel Greenfield</strong> on The Glazov Gang discussing <strong>&#8220;ISIS Rising&#8221;</strong>:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9E8gGysQZzU" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/was-the-koran-caused-by-global-warming/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>58</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A President&#8217;s Global Warming Treaty Tyranny</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/a-presidents-global-warming-treaty-tyranny/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-presidents-global-warming-treaty-tyranny</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/a-presidents-global-warming-treaty-tyranny/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2014 04:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=239679</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Submitting the U.S. to the international community's will -- without the consent of Congress. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #232323;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Politics_1114_Obama_ClimateChange_480x360.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-239682" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Politics_1114_Obama_ClimateChange_480x360-450x337.jpg" alt="Politics_1114_Obama_ClimateChange_480x360" width="312" height="234" /></a>In yet another demonstration of contempt for the Constitution, President Obama and his administration are pursuing what the <i>New York Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0"><span style="color: #1255cc;">characterizes</span></a> as a &#8220;sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions” &#8212; absent any input from Congress.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority approval by the Senate to ratify any legally binding treaty. The Obama administration plans to sidestep that requirement by calling the agreement a “politically binding” deal that would substitute for an actual treaty. It would consist of voluntary pledges, combined with obligations from a 1992 U.N. treaty known as the <a href="https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&amp;src=TREATY&amp;mtdsg_no=XXVII~7&amp;chapter=27&amp;Temp=mtdsg3&amp;lang=en"><span style="color: #1255cc;">United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control</span></a>. That 22-year-old agreement was reached at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The U.S. Senate <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=j57VaLBSGogC&amp;pg=PA58&amp;lpg=PA58&amp;dq=climate+change+treaty+1992,+Senate+ratification&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=I3UtYpHb3n&amp;sig=5YqN6K8eGpJTNZ_tEyG202v7vfM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=l_r9U4DJHtTmoAS574GwBA&amp;ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&amp;q=climate%20change%20treaty%201992,%20Senate%20ratification&amp;f=false"><span style="color: #1255cc;">ratified</span></a> the agreement on October 7, 1992, and President Bush Sr. signed it six days later, making it legally binding.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">The Obama administration contends that simply adding the additional voluntary pledges to the agreement obviates the need for another ratification process. “There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">Natural Resources Defense Council</span></a>, a leftist advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold.”</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Not magic. Just another attempt by the Obama administration to kick Congress to the curb in pursuit of an agenda that has absolutely no chance of getting majority approval in Congress, much less a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate. In 1997, the Kyoto climate control treaty was rocketed into oblivion with a 96-0 bipartisan vote. Another effort was undertaken in Copenhagen in 2009, but once again the attempt to forge a legally binding agreement failed. Obama attended that conference, hoping to put America in alignment with the global community, but he did so with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/weekinreview/13broder.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">no support</span></a> whatsoever from Republicans, along with opposition from several Democrats representing states that rely heavily on coal power for energy and jobs. Democrats made it clear they wouldn’t accept any treaty or agreement threatening that status quo. In 2010, “cap and trade” legislation <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/henninger-obamas-troublesome-congress-1404342045"><span style="color: #1255cc;">failed</span></a> in the Senate for the same reason.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">The Obama administration is undeterred by such inconvenient realities. In June, once again absent any input from Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/dem-senator-epa-will-come-for-natural-gas-next.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">proposed</span></a> regulations aimed at cutting existing greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants 30 percent by 2030. The move has <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-epa-lawsuit-20140805-story.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">engendered</span></a> lawsuits in the in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia from at least a dozen coal-reliant states. It has also engendered a <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/209186-heitkamp-to-gas-industry-when-coal-is-dead-they-will-come-for-you"><span style="color: #1255cc;">warning</span></a> from North Dakota Democrat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, whose state relies on coal-generated electricity for a whopping 80 percent of its power needs. &#8220;When that is done, and the stake is through the heart of coal, they will come for you next,” Heitkamp told representatives from the natural gas industry. She also added a dose of reality to the mix. &#8220;In my lifetime we will not transition away from coal,” she contended.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">That remains to be seen, given the Obama administration’s penchant for “transitioning” away from the rule of law. Yet even this patchwork quilt of an agreement will suffer the same affliction that bedevils many of the administration’s efforts, as in a disconnect from geopolitical reality. The premise behind this pact is to “name and shame” countries who do not meet their reduction requirements. Thus the administration is relying on the idea that “embarrassed” nations will fall back in line, regardless of the economic consequences for doing so.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">It’s not going to happen. As the <i>Washington Times</i> correctly <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/26/obama-seeks-bypass-congress-un-climate-change-deal/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS"><span style="color: #1255cc;">explains</span></a>, &#8220;China and India, each with more than a billion people and swathes of horrific poverty of a sort not seen in the West, have been particularly outspoken in their refusal to agree to any mandatory carbon-emission cuts, which would limit their development and prosperity.”</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">In addition, the poorer nations of the world are also unlikely to abide by any agreement that does not bind richer nations to a massive wealth transfer aimed at assisting their development of dams and levees to guard against coastal flooding from rising seas, or provide food aid during droughts that are invariably attributed to global warming.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Global warming itself has been subjected to a series of “readjustments” in recent years. In 2009, there was the “Climategate” scandal in which the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit was found to have <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/18555-global-warming-hoax-unraveling-someone-tell-obama"><span style="color: #1255cc;">suppressed</span></a> data contradicting their assessment of global warming. Last year, a series of leaked emails revealed that scientists working on a U.N. climate change report were <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/20/warming-lull-since-18-haunts-climate-change-authors/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">struggling</span></a> to explain why global warming has decreased over the last 15 years, even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising. That same year, a paper asserting that there was a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming<b> </b>was revealed to have been <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">doctored</span></a> by warming alarmists and their media allies. In June, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) quietly <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">reinstated</span></a> data showing July 1936 as the hottest month on record, after insisting in 2012 that July of that year was the &#8220;all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.” And last week in Australia, scientists with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) were <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/australian-met-office-accused-of-manipulating-temperature-records/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">accused</span></a> of manipulating data to create an artificial warming trend, using a process called “homogenization” that ostensibly corrects anomalies in raw temperature data. The BOM insisted that it was “very unlikely” that such homogenization affected overall outlooks.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Countering such realities requires a certain level of hysteria. The so-called paper of record was more than up to the task. &#8220;The strategy comes as scientists warn that the earth is already experiencing the first signs of human-caused global warming — more severe drought and stronger wildfires, rising sea levels and more devastating storms — and the United Nations heads toward what many say is the body’s last chance to avert more catastrophic results in the coming century,” the <i>New York Times</i> reports.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">A U.N. report to be released in early November is equally dire, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/science/earth/greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-growing-and-growing-more-dangerous-draft-of-un-report-says.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">noting</span></a> that the world is on the cusp of “irreversible change” due to global warming.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Hence the “last chance” efforts continue. Last year, dozens of countries <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/191264-climate-negotiators-strike-last-minute-deal"><span style="color: #1255cc;">reached</span></a> a deal in Warsaw that allow them to make “contributions” to reducing global warming, as opposed to “commitments&#8221; for doing so. Thus countries like China and India won more lenient guidelines for reducing emissions than desired by the United States and Europe. This deal was seen as a springboard for the upcoming one, to be hammered out next year in Paris, following a December meeting in Lima, Peru to draft the agreement.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Republicans have little use for a pact that ignores the rule of law and tramples the concept of national sovereignty in the process. “Unfortunately, this would be just another of many examples of the Obama administration’s tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard laws it doesn’t like&#8211;and to ignore the elected representatives of the people when they don’t agree,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in a statement.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">When there’s a planet to save—and an American economy to ruin in the process—such “banal&#8221; considerations must be cast aside. Obama and his administration are determined to fulfill his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?Source=GovD&amp;v=CNSZ62xiD4M"><span style="color: #1255cc;">promise</span></a> of “skyrocketing” electricity prices, along with his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4"><span style="color: #1255cc;">one</span></a> to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Delivering the nation into the clutches of UN bureaucrats, while kicking Congress and the Constitution to the curb, is the latest effort to fulfill that agenda. It won’t be the last.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/a-presidents-global-warming-treaty-tyranny/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The VA Sacrificed Vets for Solar Panels</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-va-sacrificed-vets-for-solar-panels-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-va-sacrificed-vets-for-solar-panels-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-va-sacrificed-vets-for-solar-panels-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2014 04:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solar panels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VA scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veterans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=233833</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why invest $20 million in dying vets when you can outfit their cemeteries with green energy? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/052014_ff_vets_6401.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-233836" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/052014_ff_vets_6401-445x350.jpg" alt="052014_ff_vets_640" width="313" height="246" /></a>The VA Scandal began at <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/23/health/veterans-dying-health-care-delays/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">the Phoenix VA Health Care System</span></a> where administrators earned promotions and bonuses by shunting patients who needed treatment into fake waiting lists.</p>
<p>As many as 40 veterans had died while waiting for care and <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2014/06/09/va-scandal-audit-veterans-delayed-care/10234881/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">1,715 veterans in the Phoenix VA Health </span></a>Care System had waited more than 90 days for an appointment. A retired Navy serviceman died of bladder cancer after <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2611866/Dont-let-die-Veterans-tearful-plea-succumbed-cancer-without-receiving-treatment-emerges-Phoenix-VA-kept-1-600-patients-secret-wait-list.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">being put on a 7-month waiting list </span></a>after blood was found in his urine. He finally received an appointment a week after his death.</p>
<p>But each and every year, from 2009 to 2011, the Phoenix VA Health Care System put in solar panels. The solar panels at the Carl T. Hayden VA in Phoenix cost $20 million.</p>
<p>That $20 million could have saved the lives of dying veterans. Instead it went to Green Energy.</p>
<p>The situation at the Phoenix VA wasn&#8217;t unique. In 2009, <a href="http://freebeacon.com/issues/va-spent-tens-of-millions-on-ad-campaigns-audits-green-energy/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Obama had signed a Green Energy executive order. </span></a>Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric <a href="http://www.green.va.gov/docs/VA_PolicyStatementOnClimateChangeAdaptation201106.pdf"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Shinseki announced</span></a> that &#8220;in order to continue providing Veterans with the best health care and benefit services, VA must adapt to climate change.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not only did Global Warming have nothing to do with serving veterans, but it got in the way of the VA&#8217;s central mission. While Shinseki was focused on building solar panels so the sky wouldn&#8217;t fall, veterans were waiting months to see a doctor.</p>
<p>At <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/10/va-relocation-by-texas-vets-a-reason-for-wait/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS"><span style="color: #0433ff;">some South Texas facilities</span></a> vets had to wait 85 days for a primary care appointment and 55 days for a mental health appointment with &#8220;a worst-in-the-nation, 145-day average wait for new patients seeking specialist care.”</p>
<p>One of the vets waiting for a mental health appointment, who suffered from waiting list cheating, committed suicide.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the South Texas Veterans Health Care System installed a 1.7 MW solar PV system.</p>
<p>The Amarillo VA Health Care System had the third longest wait times for mental health appointments in the country. Its Thomas E. Creek office complained of a lack of resources. Meanwhile $10 million was spent on solar panels for a facility that sees 25,000 patients a year.</p>
<p><span style="color: #0433ff;"><a href="http://www.kitv.com/health/hawaii-has-longest-wait-for-new-veteran-patients/26404830">Hawaii has the longest waiting</a></span> list for veterans with an average of 145 days for an appointment at the Spark M. Matsunaga VA Medical Center.</p>
<p>Meanwhile it was spending <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&amp;mode=form&amp;tab=core&amp;id=52d9de1433714856374a462248f89024"><span style="color: #0433ff;">between $1 and $2 million</span></a> on a 119 KW Solar PV System.</p>
<p>Veterans at Kansas VAs had to wait more than 90 days. 977 never had appointments scheduled. There were 104 vets on the waiting list at the Robert J. Dole VA Medical Center in Wichita.</p>
<p>But while the Dole Center may not have had time for vets, it did have time to set up solar panels.</p>
<p><span style="color: #0433ff;"><a href="http://www.ocala.com/article/20140515/ARTICLES/140519797">Three mental health administrators</a></span> at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida were suspended for keeping a waiting list for over 200 vets. Meanwhile the facility had blown between<a href="https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&amp;mode=form&amp;tab=core&amp;id=0a2de6393cc764b7e206933f1d0bd06c"><span style="color: #0433ff;"> $5 and $10 million on a solar</span></a> panel system.</p>
<p>The Raymond G. Murphy VA Medical Center <a href="http://www.abqjournal.com/412514/news/va-checking-status-of-3000-patients-on-phantom-wait-list.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">put 3,000 vets on a phantom</span></a> waiting list to see a doctor who doesn&#8217;t see patients.</p>
<p>Unfortunately its $20.3 million solar setup was all too real.</p>
<p>The average wait time for new patients at the Carl Vinson VA Medical Center was about 57 days to see a primary care doctor.  But that just gave vets more time to admire its new $1.1 million solar setup.</p>
<p>The Bay Pines VA Health Care System didn&#8217;t schedule appointments for 1,000 vets. But it did find the time and money to put in solar panels. The Cheyenne VA Medical Center, which was caught removing vets from the waiting list, had not one, but two, million-dollar solar setups.</p>
<p>The Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, which was one of three flagged facilities, was part of a $50 million VA solar panel contract.</p>
<p>In life the vets couldn&#8217;t get an appointment while resources were being squandered on Green Energy and when they died, they still couldn&#8217;t escape Green Energy.</p>
<p>Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki, who had ignored the abuse of veterans, turned his attention to something truly important. He began seeing to it that all the cemeteries had wind or solar power.</p>
<p>The Massachusetts National Cemetery got a 50 kW wind turbine so the dead veterans would have all the sustainable energy they needed.</p>
<p>A VA press release about the cemetery turbine boasted that &#8220;under the leadership of Secretary Eric K. Shinseki&#8230; VA is transitioning into a 21st century organization that better serves America’s Veterans.&#8221;</p>
<p>Shinseki <a href="http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=2081"><span style="color: #0433ff;">arrived in person at the dedication</span></a> ceremony to flip the switch on the cemetery wind turbine. Resting in their graves were men who had died because of his policies.</p>
<p>“Nationally, VA continues to expand its investment in renewable sources of energy to promote our Nation’s energy independence, save taxpayer dollars, and improve care for our Veterans and their families,” he said.</p>
<p>The cemetery turbine cost $533,000. Veterans were dying to save the VA a few hundred dollars. Shinseki had made his order of priorities clear. Green energy boondoggles came first. Improving veteran care came last.</p>
<p>Acting Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs Steve Muro told the audience, &#8220;With one of VA’s first wind turbine projects, the Massachusetts National Cemetery is leading the way in the use of renewable energy while providing the burial benefits that New England Veterans and their families have earned.&#8221;</p>
<p>With those words, Muro made the entire horrifying spectacle worthy of a Joseph Heller novel.</p>
<p>The wind turbine of the dead was only an aberration because the VA was more focused on installing solar panels at cemeteries to better serve dead veterans.</p>
<p>The Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery’s solar panels cost $787,308. According to the press release, the <a href="http://www.green.va.gov/GREEN/pressreleases/news_20111004.asp"><span style="color: #0433ff;">solar panels in the cemetery</span></a> would &#8220;reduce greenhouse gas emissions.&#8221;</p>
<p>$742,034 worth of solar panels was put in at the Calverton National Cemetery. The San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery got <a href="http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/08/04/1518422/veterans-affairs-announces-800000.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">an $800,000 solar panel system</span></a>. The <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&amp;mode=form&amp;tab=core&amp;id=6c49413476199adfba4da3a038b4372f&amp;_cview=1"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Riverside National Cemetery</span></a> got a $1.3 million solar setup.</p>
<p>“We are investing in clean energy and renewable energy projects at our national cemeteries to reduce our environmental footprint,” Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. <a href="http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/docs/Environ_Calverton%20NC%20NR.pdf"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Shinseki declared</span></a>.</p>
<p>&#8220;The transition toward these renewable energy sources helps VA continue to be a leading example of going green in the federal government.”</p>
<p>Vets might be dying at VA facilities, but they would have solar panels and wind turbines over their graves so that Shineski could provide Obama with a leading example of “greenness.”</p>
<p>Meanwhile in Southeast Texas, the former associate chief of staff at the VA said that <a href="http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/whistleblower-says-veterans-affairs-cost-cutting-led-to-denials-delays-in-life-saving-cancer-tests/article/2548327"><span style="color: #0433ff;">a cost-cutting policy had been implemented</span></a> under which colonoscopies would only be approved if the patient tested positive in three successive screenings for bloody stools.</p>
<p>“By the time that you do the colonoscopies on these patients, you went from a stage 1 to a stage 4, which is basically inoperable,” Dr. Richard Krugman said.&#8221;That was done because of dollars and cents. For the VA, they have to be bleeding out of their rectum before they would authorize a colonoscopy.&#8221;</p>
<p>Everyone has their priorities. Benghazi and the VA scandal happened because the men who died were a low priority compared to solar panels and buying bad art for embassies. The State Department spent millions on art for embassies and mansion renovations, but begrudged the security that would have saved four American lives. Fortunes were spent on solar panels and wind turbines for VA facilities, but veterans died of cancer to save money on a colonoscopy.</p>
<p>The corrupt obsession with Green Energy doesn&#8217;t just waste money, it costs lives. The fanaticism of the Global Warmists in the White House led them to disregard the lives of vets because they thought that saving the world with solar panels and wind turbines was more important.</p>
<p>While they were putting in wind and solar at VA facilities and cemeteries, they forgot about the veterans who had served their country and deserved better than to be sacrificed for a solar panel.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-va-sacrificed-vets-for-solar-panels-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>84</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Andrew Klavan: The Fake Crisis of Global Warming</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/andrew-klavan-the-fake-crisis-of-global-warming/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=andrew-klavan-the-fake-crisis-of-global-warming</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/andrew-klavan-the-fake-crisis-of-global-warming/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2014 04:45:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TruthRevolt.org]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Klavan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polar bears]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sea levels]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=233399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Truth Revolt video. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qldJRY5aGaA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p style="color: #000000;">
<p style="color: #000000;">TRANSCRIPT:</p>
<blockquote style="font-style: italic; color: #8f8f8f;"><p>I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth.</p>
<p>It’s time to take an hysterical and panicky look at fake global warming.  Fake global warming is one of the most serious fake problems not actually facing our nation today.  According to smarmy billionaire Al Gore, we must take useless and expensive actions immediately or the polar ice caps will be completely melted by two thousand and thirteen&#8230; which will be catastrophic when last year arrives.</p>
<p>And the polar bears — oh, the polar bears!  Studies reveal that over the last twenty years, as computer models of the climate have progressively damaged computer models of their habitat, the polar bear population has steadily increased.  But that’s only in real life! In the computer models, the poor creatures are dropping like flies.</p>
<p>Let’s examine the distorted facts. Between the years 1950 and 2000, the earth’s temperature increased approximately nine tenths of a degree Centigrade. Over the exact same period, the price of butter in Morris County New Jersey rose from 77 cents a pound to nearly four dollars.  According to climate change logic, this means that if we give government the power to lower the price of butter in Morris County, the temperature should once again sink back to the levels of the 1950’s.  And weren’t the 50‘s a fine old time!  Who wouldn’t want those temperatures back again?</p>
<p>I realize there are some superstitious troglodytes who don’t believe in science.  They insist we have to go on powering our country with oil and gas instead of using sustainable energy from the holy Vitraya Ramunong tree from that great, great movie Avatar.  We’ve explained to them that 97 percent of scientists believe in global warming, but it means nothing to them, even though the number 97 percent has been scientifically selected as the most panic-inducing random number available.</p>
<p>But fake global warming is not just a fake problem for a computer generated future. Even as we speak, it’s creating a pervasive and irritating whining noise that sounds almost exactly like the President of the United States. This must be stopped.</p>
<p>I’m Andrew Klavan with the Revolting Truth.</p></blockquote>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/andrew-klavan-the-fake-crisis-of-global-warming/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>109</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Environmentalist Attack on America</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obamas-environmentalist-attack-on-america/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-environmentalist-attack-on-america</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obamas-environmentalist-attack-on-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2014 04:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmentalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The devastating consequences of the president's unilateral enactment of cap-and-trade. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #232323;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/obama-speaking-angry.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-226849" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/obama-speaking-angry-443x350.jpg" alt="obama-speaking-angry" width="294" height="232" /></a>Apparently the reality that America’s economic output <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/05/29/u-s-gdp-dropped-1-in-the-first-quarter-2014-down-from-first-estimate/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">declined</span></a> by 1 percent in the first quarter, retail and home sales are <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-30/has-next-recession-already-begun-americas-middle-class"><span style="color: #1255cc;">plummeting</span></a>, and a record-setting <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1-8-american-men-between-ages-25-54-are-not-working_793938.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">1 in 8</span></a> (or 10 million) American men in their prime working years between ages 25–54 aren&#8217;t working or looking for work will be no impediment for a president determined to impose a radical environmentalist agenda on the nation. On Monday, the Obama administration <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">announced</span></a> the first-of-their-kind national limits on carbon emissions from the nation’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants. The proposed regulation, implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will demand a 30 percent cut in emissions by 2030.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">At a Feb. 11, 2014 hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations related to the status of clean coal programs, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/Hearings/OI/20140211/HHRG-113-IF02-MState-M001151-20140211.pdf"><span style="color: #1255cc;">spelled out</span></a> the real-world consequences of such a plan, explaining that Americans could expect an increase in electricity costs ranging from 40 percent at a coal gasification facility, to as much as 80 percent at a pulverized coal power plant, according to the Department of Energy’s own documentation. The reliably leftist <i>New York Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/politics/epa-to-seek-30-percent-cut-in-carbon-emissions.html?emc=edit_na_20140601&amp;nlid=62431058&amp;_r=0"><span style="color: #1255cc;">illuminates</span></a> the implications, noting that the regulations could lead to the closing of “hundreds” of such facilities.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Unsurprisingly, the effort completely bypasses Congress, undoubtedly because it would be as DOA as it was when the Democratically-controlled legislative branch <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/cap-and-trade-failure-aided-u-s-to-cut-carbon-emissions.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">failed</span></a> to pass such cap-and-trade legislation in 2010. Thus our constitutionally-comtemptuous president has rendered members of Congress superfluous, even as the EPA becomes their de facto replacement.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">The administration offers a degree of flexibility in achieving these goals. They include allowing states to reduce emissions by installing solar, wind or other energy-efficiency technology, and by creating or joining cap-and-trade programs at the state or regional level that allow such entities to cap emissions, and then buy and sell permits that allow plants to continue to emit greenhouse gases—as long as they pay a suitable fee for doing so. That fee that will inevitably be passed down to consumers. Yet in keeping with the administration’s imperialist impulses, if such state- or regionally-imposed rules do not satisfy the EPA’s guidelines the agency will act unilaterally to <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/01/Obama-to-Slam-Power-Plants-With-More-Stifling-Regulations"><span style="color: #1255cc;">force</span></a> such entities into compliance.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Those affected are planning to sue. “Clearly, it is designed to materially damage the ability of conventional energy sources to provide reliable and affordable power, which in turn can inflict serious damage on everything from household budgets to industrial jobs,” said Scott Segal, a lawyer with Bracewell &amp; Giuliani, a firm representing coal companies in anticipated litigation. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt also plans to <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/29/ag-epas-cap-and-trade-scheme-would-violate-the-clean-air-act/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">challenge</span></a> the regulations in court. “The Clean Air Act clearly sets out a role for EPA to suggest guidelines, while granting states authority to develop and implement specific proposals to achieve the goals of the Clean Air Act,” he told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Should the EPA’s proposed regulation force states to adopt a ‘cap and trade’ scheme or any other specific proposal, it would violate the law and likely be challenged in court.”</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Such challenges, as well as litigation anticipated by other industry groups and other states such as West Virginia, North Dakota, Alaska and Texas <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/epas-approach-on-carbon-limits-to-spark-court-challenges-1401406854"><span style="color: #1255cc;">revolve</span></a> around the EPA’s use of a little-used section of the Clean Air Act to create its new regulations. The implementation of section 111 (d) of the Act is necessitated by the reality that carbon dioxide isn&#8217;t regulated under major Clean Air Act programs that address air pollutants. The EPA claims it has used that section to previously regulate five sources of air pollutants, but none of those approach the magnitude of their attempt to regulate carbon dioxide.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">As the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> explains, the relatively rare instances in which section 111 (d) has been invoked, creates the &#8220;unusual circumstance in which potential challengers to the carbon rules would be litigating largely on a blank slate against the EPA,” thus testing &#8220;how far a president can go in using the long-standing air-pollution law to try to address climate change.” The paper further notes that such a blank slate accrues to the EPA’s advantage, because courts generally give deference to administrative agencies, provided they are not imposing regulations in an &#8220;arbitrary and capricious manner.”</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Moreover, the courts have an already-established track record of siding with the EPA. Recent decisions include the Supreme Court’s ruling last month that allowed the EPA to curb power-plant emissions blowing across state lines, while appeals courts have upheld the right of the EPA to regulate mercury emissions from power plants, rules on auto emissions, and the agency’s 2009 contention that CO2 and other greenhouse gases posed a threat to public health. Washington environmental lawyer Sean Donahue spelled out the implications. &#8220;There&#8217;s more room to make legal arguments because the courts haven&#8217;t specified what the statute means and doesn&#8217;t mean, but it also leaves more room for the agency&#8217;s judgment,” he explained.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">It is a judgement completely aligned with global warming alarmism, irrespective of two realities. First, even if one buys the notion of global warming, the key word is “global.” According to the International Energy Agency, by 2012 the United States had cut CO2 emissions <a href="http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/may/name,27216,en.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">more than</span></a> any nation on earth since 2006, due in large part to the already occurring shift from coal to gas in the nation’s power sector. The world&#8217;s leading polluter is now China, which <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obamas-carbon-curbs-nullified-by-expanding-china-india-20140602-zrumd.html"><span style="color: #1255cc;">emitted</span></a> 9.0 billion tons in 2012, compared to only 5.3 billion metric tons released by the U.S. By 2020 that total is expected to top 11.5 billion metric tons, while we remain flat, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Moreover, China and India will be constructing three-quarters of the 1,200 coal-fired plants being proposed globally, according to the World Resources Institute in Washington. As Robert Stavins, director of Harvard University&#8217;s Environmental Economics Program explained to Bloomberg News, even if America reduced its carbon emissions to <i>zero</i>, &#8220;global emissions would continue to increase. So, the direct impacts of the new power plant rules on atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations will be small.”</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">The reasons for the increases are blindingly obvious: underdeveloped nations wish to raise their standard of living, and no amount of hectoring by the nation with one of the highest standard of living on the planet is likely to alter those ambitions in any substantial way. Nonetheless the administration remains tethered to the notion that cutting emissions will give American climate change negotiators a stronger hand at the United Nations General Assembly next fall, when governments engage in the attempt to hammer out a worldwide treaty by 2015. “I fully expect action by the United States to spur others in taking concrete action,” said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">In the meantime, such &#8220;concrete action&#8221; by the United States will do serious damage to an already damaged economy. &#8220;The administration has set out to kill coal and its 800,000 jobs,&#8221; Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) <a href="http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/epa-seeks-cuts-in-power-plant-carbon-emissions/26281348"><span style="color: #1255cc;">said</span></a> in the GOP weekly address Saturday. &#8220;If it succeeds in death by regulation, we&#8217;ll all be paying a lot more money for electricity &#8212; if we can get it.” The Chamber of Commerce <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/energy-institute-report-finds-potential-new-epa-carbon-regulations-will-damage-us"><span style="color: #1255cc;">contends</span></a> the new regulations will cost the economy $50 billion per year, and the loss of 3.5 million jobs over 15 years, while the National Center for Public Policy Research asserts that they will &#8220;disproportionately hurt lower income people and minorities.”</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">The EPA counters that the cost will be “only&#8221; $8.8 billion annually in 2030, but &#8220;will lead to climate and health benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion per year in 2030.” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/02/politics/epa-carbon-emissions/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">dismissed</span></a> the jobs losses as a &#8220;doomsday scenario,&#8221; and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy claimed the nation will need &#8220;thousands of American workers in construction, transmission and more to make cleaner power a reality.” President Obama asserted that carbon-dioxide emissions—which humans exhale with every breath&#8211;are a national health crisis. “We don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children,” Obama said in his weekly address Saturday. “As president and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">So who’s right? As always, progressives ignore real world evidence that doesn’t accrue to their agenda. In Spain 2.2 jobs were <a href="http://www.aei.org/outlook/energy-and-the-environment/the-myth-of-green-energy-jobs-the-european-experience/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">destroyed</span></a> for every green job created. In Italy, the capital needed to create one green job could create five in the general economy. In Denmark, the commitment to wind power generated the highest electricity rates in the EU. And in Germany, the green energy job creation myth is currently <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/germanys-green-jobs-miracle-collapses/"><span style="color: #1255cc;">collapsing</span></a>, as seven-out-of-ten green jobs will be lost without continuing government subsidies. Oliver Krischer, deputy leader of the Greens in the Bundestag, acknowledged inconvenient reality. &#8220;A few years ago the renewable sector was the job miracle in Germany, now nothing is left of all of that,” he conceded.</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">Nothing is a relative term, and the real agenda here may be a familiar one: the Obama administration’s desire to have government determine the nation’s “winners” and “losers” by executive fiat. &#8220;Given the facts, we must consider the possibility that this is not about global warming at all but is instead simply another tax, and a relatively large one, that will be used to underwrite favors for Democratic interest groups while creating corporate subsidies for politically connected businesses — namely, those liberal financiers who have large financial positions in so-called clean-energy technologies and stand to make a hefty profit from government mandates for renewables,” <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379293/epa-super-legislature-editors"><span style="color: #1255cc;">writes</span></a> the editors of the National Review. &#8220;Come for the feel-good greenwashing, stay for the corporate welfare.”</p>
<p style="color: #232323;">The EPA plan is slated to go into effect in June 2016, following a one-year comment period—and a likely plethora of lawsuits. In the meantime, Americans already beset by the weakest recovery since the Great Depression can anticipate what they will shortly endure as the result of what the <i>Times</i> characterizes as Obama&#8217;s &#8220;legacy-making global deal.” <i>America’s</i> legacy, which now <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/the-middle-class-is-steadily-eroding-just-ask-the-business-world.html?hp&amp;_r=1"><span style="color: #1255cc;">includes</span></a> the reality that the middle class may be headed for <a href="http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/28-signs-that-the-middle-class-is-heading-toward-extinction"><span style="color: #1255cc;">extinction</span></a>, is somehow lost in the mix. For progressives, destroying the economy is a small price to pay for “saving the planet.&#8221;</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/obamas-environmentalist-attack-on-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>58</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Climate Change Fundamentalists</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/the-climate-change-fundamentalists-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-climate-change-fundamentalists-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/the-climate-change-fundamentalists-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2014 04:13:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In our new brave world, heretics must be punished.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/end-is-near.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-225849" alt="end-is-near" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/end-is-near.jpg" width="282" height="211" /></a>Climate change fundamentalists are predicting an apocalypse. Human depredation in the form of unbridled materialism is the cause. Any dissent from the fundamentalists’ doomsday prophesies if their radical prescriptions to save humanity and Mother Earth are not followed is regarded as heresy. </span></p>
<p>Charge the well-funded climate change “deniers” with committing “criminal negligence” for “their willful disregard for human life,&#8221; says Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology. After all, heretics must be punished.</p>
<p>Stop job-creating energy independence initiatives such as the Keystone XL pipeline, says the former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, which he called the &#8220;fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.&#8221; Hansen was arrested during the course of a civil disobedience protest against the pipeline as he sat in front of a banner proclaiming, &#8220;Witness for Climate and Creation.&#8221; Who knew that a pipeline transporting oil to the United States, which would otherwise travel by rail or be shipped elsewhere such as to China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon gases, would upset God’s plan of creation?</p>
<p>Hansen co-authored with other like-minded scientists and economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia’s Earth Institute and adviser to the United Nations, a scare-mongering paper entitled “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature.” The paper, published in December 2013, predicted “mass extinctions” of species and demanded “urgent change to our energy and carbon pathway to avoid dangerous consequences for young people and other life on Earth.” The authors moralized that human-caused climate change is on par with the evil of slavery. It represented inter-generational injustice, they said, for which they recommended there be legal remedies.</p>
<p>James Gustave Speth, formerly dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality from 1979 to 1981, wrote an indignant letter to the New York Times on May 13, 2014 complaining that the “United States’ response to the climate crisis has been beyond pathetic. It is probably the greatest dereliction of civic responsibility in the history of the Republic.” What is Speth’s solution? Ideally, as he described in his book <i>Red Sky at Morning</i>, he would like to see “a world environment agency entrusted with setting international standards and enforcing them against laggard countries.”</p>
<p>Even some scientists who agree that human-induced greenhouse gas buildup is a real problem policymakers should address believe that the climate change fundamentalists are going too far. For example, Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science&#8217;s Department of Global Ecology, discussing his reaction to the Hansen-Sachs paper, said he was  &#8220;concerned about the presentation of such a prescriptive and value-laden work&#8221; in a piece that wasn&#8217;t marked as an opinion. Caldeira has also said, regarding the Keystone pipeline, that “I don’t believe that whether the pipeline is built or not will have any detectable climate effect.”</p>
<p>Rather than providing balanced scientific data and reasoned analysis to persuade lay people of the potential adverse environmental consequences of human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases with recommendations for practical incremental approaches to dealing with these consequences, the climate change fundamentalists reject any notion of a gradualist approach. As Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords and professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University, explained: “Climate change is a fact. But apocalyptic thinking distorts the scientific debate and makes it harder to explain the causes and consequences of this fact, which in turn makes it harder to know how to deal with it.  The danger is that we become so infected with the apocalyptic virus that we end up creating a real catastrophe — the meltdown of our economies and lifestyles — in order to avoid an imaginary one.”</p>
<p>The doom merchants aim to shove radical economy-wrecking prescriptions down our throats by parading before us their version of the plagues &#8211; draught, intense rain storms, floods, fires, pestilence, very warm temperatures and very cold temperatures, all of which they attribute to human-caused climate change. The idea that some natural events may be random occurrences in a universe that far transcends human activity is foreign to the climate change fundamentalists who believe that Mother Earth itself is anthropomorphic.</p>
<p>One problem that the climate change fundamentalists have in persuading the rest of us the sky is falling is that they keep changing their explanations.  For example, the catchphrase “global warming” was rebranded as “climate change” when their computer models could not account for the fact that average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998.</p>
<p>There are intellectually honest scientists in climatology who are willing to admit something is going on that the computer models may have missed.  “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” said Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. “Now it’s something to explain.”</p>
<p>However, the climate change fundamentalists rationalize that looking at ten or fifteen year trend lines is a waste of time. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” said Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. Nevertheless, the fundamentalists want it both ways.  Now they tell us that every unusual day-to-day weather phenomenon is a result of human-caused climate change.</p>
<p>Another problem for the climate change fundamentalists is that many of their prior doomsday predictions have not come true. In 1972, for example, Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen was reported in the Christian Science Monitor as predicting that a general warming trend over the North Pole “may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2,000.”</p>
<p>Al Gore, one of the original climate change prophets of doom, predicted in 2008 that the entire North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years.</p>
<p>While the Arctic Sea ice extent has declined, it has far from disappeared. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, “Arctic sea ice extent for April 2014 was 14.14 million square kilometers (5.46 million square miles). This is 610,000 square kilometers (236,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) above the record April monthly low, which occurred in 2007.”</p>
<p>Here is another dire prediction that did not quite come to pass. Michael Oppenheimer, the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University, predicted in a book of his published in 1990: “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.”</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.weather.com/sports-rec/weather-ventures/lightning-time-lapse-photo-platte-river-20140513">Platte River in Nebraska has not dried up</a>, and the continent-wide black blizzard and computer shut downs have not materialized.</p>
<p>Moreover, the hyperbolic rhetoric we hear from climate change fundamentalists does not correspond with what we observe around us ourselves, nor with some relevant empirical data.</p>
<p>For example, the Obama administration recently released its National Climate Assessment. It gave several examples of what it claimed to be the drastically worsening effects of human- caused climate change during the last fifty years, stating that “Americans are noticing changes all around them.” Two such examples we are purportedly seeing play out in extreme weather aberrations right now according to the Obama administration’s Assessment:  “Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours…large increases in heavy precipitation have occurred in the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains where heavy downpours have frequently led to runoff that exceeded the capacity of storm drains and levees, and caused flooding events and accelerated erosion.”</p>
<p>People who shivered in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, during one of the ten coldest winters in those states since records were kept, would probably not agree with the Obama administration’s description of shorter, warmer winters. Indeed, large parts of the United States just experienced one of the longest and coldest winters in forty years. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that overall, for the winter period from December 2013 through February 2014, the “contiguous U.S. experienced much drier and colder than average winter that ranked ninth driest and 34th coldest on record.”  Those records go back to 1895.</p>
<p>As for rainfall, we are certainly experiencing heavy downpours of rain. But this is not a phenomenon that has sprung up only in the last fifty years.</p>
<p>Anecdotally, the most destructive river flood in the history of the United States, which began with extremely heavy rains in the central basin of the Mississippi in the summer of 1926, was the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. This occurred more than seventy-five years ago, well outside the most recent fifty year period in which human activity supposedly created the weather conditions of very heavy precipitation and floods cited by the Obama administration’s National Climate Assessment as evidence of accelerating human-caused climate change here and now.  If the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 is not considered far enough back in time to put the Obama administration’s Assessment findings in perspective, then consider the Johnstown Flood Of 1889. More than eight inches of rain fell in less than a one day period, resulting in a flood that took more than 2000 lives.</p>
<p>As for empirical data, the following is a chart prepared by NOAA which shows the percentage of the land area of the contiguous 48 states that experienced much greater than normal precipitation in any given year starting with 1895, which means it scored 2.0 or above on the annual Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). The thicker orange line shows a nine-year weighted average that smoothes out some of the year-to-year fluctuations.</p>
<p>The biggest spike was in 1940. The years 1910 and 2000 were nearly equal in terms of the percentage of land area of the contiguous 48 states that experienced much greater than normal precipitation. There is no discernible accelerating upward trend line in the last fifty years.</p>
<div id="attachment_225848" style="width: 460px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/figure2.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-225848 " alt="figure2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/figure2-450x324.png" width="450" height="324" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Data source: NOAA, 2013</p></div>
<p>None of this is to deny that human activity worldwide contributes to climate change via the cumulative impact of human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. The questions to be debated are the extent and imminence of the problem, as well as the best measures to deal with the problem without wrecking our economy in the process. This is where the climate change fundamentalists become unglued. They do not want a policy debate. They want immediate action on their terms. Anyone questioning their dogma is blackballed.</p>
<p>For example, a paper written by an eminent climate change researcher Professor Lennart Bengtsson and four other scientists, which challenged the basis for predictions regarding the speed of global warming, was recently rejected for publication in a scientific journal because it was said to be “less than helpful.” Professor Bengtsson, an author of over 200 papers and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology which has contributed to United Nations reports on climate change, was harassed for daring to question the received dogma. He said: &#8220;I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.”</p>
<p>Through their excommunication of serious-minded scientists who dare to raise questions and their increasingly strident and dogmatic proclamations, the climate change fundamentalists are turning into Cassandras whose prophesies are being tuned out by the public. Sadly, they drown out more reasonable voices who can contribute positively to the public’s understanding of the multiple dimensions of climate change and sensible solutions.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/the-climate-change-fundamentalists-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>102</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First &#8220;Global Warming&#8221;, Then it&#8217;s &#8220;Climate Change&#8221;, Now it&#8217;s &#8220;Global Climate Disruption&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/first-global-warming-then-its-climate-change-now-its-global-climate-disruption/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=first-global-warming-then-its-climate-change-now-its-global-climate-disruption</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/first-global-warming-then-its-climate-change-now-its-global-climate-disruption/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2014 15:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecoscam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Holdren]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=224864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Global Warming has more aliases than mob bosses in witness protection. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/disguise_crop380w.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-224867" alt="disguise_crop380w" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/disguise_crop380w.jpg" width="380" height="250" /></a></p>
<p>Global Warming has more aliases than most mob bosses in witness protection.</p>
<p><a href="http://weaselzippers.us/185090-obamas-science-adviser-calls-for-dumping-term-climate-change-and-replacing-it-with-global-climate-disruption/">Apparently the problem is with the name</a>. Once they figure out the perfect brand for it, then everyone will finally hop on their bikes made out of recycled aluminum cans and pedal back to their artisinal caves.</p>
<blockquote><p>First there was “global warming.” Then many researchers suggested “climate change” was a better term. Now, White House science adviser John Holdren is renewing his call for a new nomenclature to describe the end result of dumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into Earth’s atmosphere: “global climate disruption.”</p>
<p>“I’ve always thought that the phrase ‘global warming’ was something of a misnomer because it suggests that the phenomenon is something that is uniform around the world, that it’s all about temperature, and that it’s gradual,” Holdren said yesterday.</p></blockquote>
<p>Okay guys, forget all that stuff we said about temperatures gradually rising around the world. We fudged the numbers and it&#8217;s still not happening.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s spin it like it&#8217;s an action movie. We need a splashy title that suggests that any second now the world could freeze or catch on fire.</p>
<p>How about &#8220;Man-Caused Disasters?&#8221; Sorry. That&#8217;s Islamophobic. Okay then, Global Climate Disruption. That sounds scary? Right?</p>
<blockquote><p>Holdren has made similar calls before, apparently with limited effect on the public’s vocabulary. This time, the remarks came in the context of a brief preview Holdren gave of a new climate report that the Obama administration is scheduled to release next week.</p></blockquote>
<p>Come on guys, let&#8217;s help Holdren find a new name for his scam.</p>
<p>Man-Caused Massive Climate Global Disaster</p>
<p>Super-Mega Climate Catastrophe</p>
<p>Give Al Gore Money or the World Blows Up</p>
<p>Climatenado</p>
<p>Attack of the Temperatures that Sometimes Rise and then Fall</p>
<p>If You Make Fun of Our Name, You&#8217;re Racist</p>
<p>&#8230;one of these has got to work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/first-global-warming-then-its-climate-change-now-its-global-climate-disruption/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the Left Will Never Abandon &#8216;Global Warming’</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jack-kerwick/why-the-left-will-never-abandon-global-warming/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-the-left-will-never-abandon-global-warming</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jack-kerwick/why-the-left-will-never-abandon-global-warming/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jack Kerwick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Big Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intergovernmental panel on climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=224033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A look at the mother of all issues for the lovers of Big Government.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ClimateChange.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-224037" alt="ClimateChange" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ClimateChange-450x318.jpg" width="315" height="223" /></a>It won’t surprise readers of this column to learn that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCG) insists that unless “global warming” is addressed, the planet promises to suffer all manner of evil.   Courtesy of “coastal flooding” and “storm surges,” “urban populations” especially are susceptible to “the risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods [.]”</p>
<p>To a <i>far </i>greater extent than any other issue, that of Global Warming reveals what makes the leftist mind tick.</p>
<p>That the leftist aches from the very marrow of his being for the consolidation of power and authority in a central government is a no-brainer.  While there are <i>ways</i> in which governments <i>use</i> their power to which he objects, the leftist has never known a limit on <i>the amount</i> of power at a government’s disposal with which he could rest comfortably.</p>
<p>So, the leftist has always wanted Big Government.  And this insatiable lust for unlimited government is inseparable from his disdain for the nation-state and its concomitant “nationalism”: national boundaries impose a <i>limit </i>on the extent to which government can expand.  The logic of Big Government has a life all of its own, pointing beyond the nations in which it takes root toward the rest of the planet.  It is self-perpetuating, much like a disease that can’t desist from moving from host to host until it dies.</p>
<p>There is no issue short of a conflict with an extraterrestrial race that better serves the global aspirations of Big Government than that of Global Warming.</p>
<p>The conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott contrasts two fundamentally different models of a modern (“nation”) state.  On the one hand, modern states have been looked upon as “civil associations,” associations of human beings doing their own thing and bound together by nothing more or less than the law.  The latter, in turn, doesn’t tell associates <i>what </i>they must do, but only <i>how </i>they must do, or refrain from doing, whatever it is that they <i>choose </i>to do.  Since laws are not policies designed to bring to fruition some grand master plan or vision for the nation, government, from this perspective, is not visionary or activist.</p>
<p>Rather, government serves the function of an umpire or a referee: it exists solely to ensure that the rules (laws) of the association are observed by all of its members.</p>
<p>Modern states have also been thought of as “<i>enterprise</i> associations.”  The government of an enterprise association is visionary, activist.  It <i>leads</i> by <i>policy; </i>it doesn’t <i>rule </i>by <i>law.  </i>The members of an enterprise association are not related to one another as one law-abider to another, but as “joint-enterprisers,” comrades-in-arms, fellow-travelers.</p>
<p>“Global Warming” is made for the idea of the state-as-enterprise association.</p>
<p>Even <i>war</i>, the stuff of which collectivist dreams are made, isn’t quite as amenable to the lover of Big Government as is Global Warming.  War insures the centralization of power and the transformation of government into an agent of activism.  However, from the perspective of the leftist, the zealot of Big Government, war—because it always pits one actor <i>against</i> another—exacerbates “nationalism” and, thus, actually <i>limits </i>the growth of government.</p>
<p>Global Warming is another proposition altogether.  The term “Global Warming,” far from being descriptive, is chock-full of imagery of death and destruction of epic proportions.  The term is what logicians since Aristotle have referred to as an “appeal to force,” a rhetorical device designed to at once circumvent rational argumentation and <i>coerce</i> people into bending to the will of its apologists.  It is the secular equivalent of Hell or Armageddon in both the images that it calls to mind as well as the uses (i.e. the instillation of fear and the consolidation of power) to which it is put.  Like Hell or Armageddon, there is no one that is safe from its clutches—unless they turn to, not Almighty <i>God, </i>but Almighty <i>Government. </i></p>
<p>And since Global Warming is, well, global, it provides the golden opportunity for the governments of the world to either join forces or synthesize with one another.</p>
<p>In the process, national sovereignty and individual liberty will be relegated to the dustbin of history.</p>
<p>Global Warming is the gift that keeps on giving to the leftist.  This is why he will never give it up.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jack-kerwick/why-the-left-will-never-abandon-global-warming/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>87</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Environmentalist World War</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-environmentalist-world-war/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-environmentalist-world-war</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-environmentalist-world-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2014 04:50:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saudi Arabia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221746</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How environmentalism causes war with Russia, China and Islam.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/173042068.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-221792" alt="173042068" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/173042068-450x255.jpg" width="270" height="153" /></a>The Saudi Monarchy and Putin aren’t afraid of Barack Obama or even of an F-35; they’re afraid of fracking.</p>
<p>Saudi Arabia&#8217;s <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/saudi-billionaire-prince-fracking-competitively-threatens-any-oil">Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal</a> said that &#8220;North American shale gas production is an inevitable threat.” <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/26/why-putin-hates-fracking.html">And Putin suddenly turned into an</a> environmentalist when it came to fracking warning that it makes “black stuff comes out of the tap.”</p>
<p>The Russians and the Saudis are both threatened by American energy production for economic reasons and political reasons. America’s import of oil turned Saudi Arabia from a backward country of goat herders not that much more advanced than Afghanistan into a world power whose armies are the legions of Muslim settlers and terrorists spreading across the world.</p>
<p>Without Saudi oil, the Clash of Civilizations with Islam might not even be happening. Energy also allowed Putin to shore up a flailing government and put it back on the path to becoming an expanding empire. But it wasn’t really the KGB oligarchy or the Saudi monarchy that made those things happen.</p>
<p>It was our own environmentalists.</p>
<p>Islam is spreading terror worldwide fueled by oil and dreams of a global Caliphate. Asian countries face a war with China over oil in the South China Sea. Russia is rebuilding the Soviet Union at gunpoint and gaspoint. As Russia, China and Islamic groups gain more confidence; the scale of their conquests will only increase. And all three have become serious threats because of environmentalism.</p>
<p>Environmentalism drove Western nations to export dirty jobs and industries abroad. China gobbled up American manufacturing while Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE took up American energy production.  Putin arrived late to the party, but still managed to do to Europe what the Saudis had done to the US. Europe won’t do anything about Russia’s expansionism because it has come to depend on it.</p>
<p>US imports of crude oil quadrupled between 1970 and 1980 while domestic crude oil production continued to fall. Not that long ago the United States was importing <a href="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_liquidfuels.cfm">60 percent of its petroleum</a>.  Among other economic and social factors, the rise in crude oil imports aligned neatly with the rise of the environmental movement. By the seventies, environmental fanaticism was written into Federal law.</p>
<p>The Saudi GDP went from 4.2 billion in 1968 to over a hundred billion by 1980 and to over half a trillion today. Some of that money went to yachts, prostitutes and palaces, but much of it went into the expansion of Saudi soft power through international Islamic institutions and equally international terror.</p>
<p>This period would also become known as the dawn of modern international terrorism.</p>
<p>Between 1978 and 1991, the Saudis gave Arafat’s terrorists almost a billion dollars. They couldn’t have been that generous in 1968, but by 1980, they could easily spare the money.</p>
<p>Saudi Arabia today is listed as the principal funder of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, but it started small by funding the PLO, which helped pioneer many of the tactics that groups such as Al Qaeda make use of, before moving on to funding them. Even more significantly, the Saudis helped set up the cultural and political framework for the Islamization of the West.</p>
<p>Putin’s power and threat level likewise grew with the rising tide of environmentalism.  Production of European renewables increased by 70% from 2002 to 2010 while production of crude oil fell 40% and natural gas production fell by 24.9%. The only way to make up the shortfall between Green Energy and real energy without increasing domestic “dirty” energy production was through dirtier foreign imports.</p>
<p>Between 2000 and 2010, the UK went from an energy exporter to an energy importer. Europe went from importing less than half of its natural gas to importing 62 percent of it. While the Russian overall share dropped, the low production rates left Europe more dependent than ever. And the difference was made up by Qatar; another top funder of Islamic terrorism worldwide, responsible for, among other things, the Syrian Civil War.</p>
<p>Reagan had opposed the Trans-Siberian pipeline using everything from sanctions to sabotaged equipment to stop the Soviet Union from gaining energy leverage over Western Europe. His larger solution to the Soviet energy threat however was to rely on the Saudis and now Western Europe, faced with the threat of Putin, is repeating that mistake by turning to Qatar, which has become an even bigger terror state than Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>There is some muted talk about nuclear power, but even though nuclear power has been endorsed by environmentalists from Gaia theorist <a href="http://www.jameslovelock.org/page12.html">James Lovelock</a> to the late <a href="http://atomicinsights.com/nuclear-energy-loses-a-spokesman-paul-newman-dies-at-83/">Paul Newman</a>, the safer political option, is to throw more money at “renewables” while filling energy needs from some convenient enemy state.</p>
<p>The Trans-Siberian pipeline that allows the Greens to play at self-righteous ecology with renewables while their actual needs are taken care of by Russia and Qatar <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1983/10/15/the-bitter-fruits-of-slave-labor/">was built with slave labor</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.csce.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.Download&amp;FileStore_id=236">The Sakharov Committee&#8217;s hearing</a>, chaired by a former assistant prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trials, reported that prisoners in pipeline labor camps went hungry and experienced outbreaks of disease; women were forced to work on the pipeline and were sexually assaulted by guards.</p>
<p>The workers, some of them political dissidents, ate lichens out of hunger. The writer Julia Vosnessenskaya testified that due to the lack of nutrition, &#8220;most of us left the camps infertile.&#8221;</p>
<p>This was the pipeline that Reagan tried to stop, that European countries financed and fought for and are now chained by.  Europe can choose Qatar over Russia, but Qatar also bases its economy on slave labor.</p>
<p>Europe is desperately searching for a moral energy policy, but the only truly moral energy policy is domestic production. Environmentalists have made that impossible by hijacking domestic energy production into the so-called renewables which are expensive, unreliable and whose worthlessness creates a dependency on foreign energy.</p>
<p>And even Green Energy often directly relies on equipment from China or investments from Qatar.</p>
<p>Green Energy only means that actual energy has to come from countries less finicky about pollution and human rights leading to slave labor, repression, terror and war. Environmentalism has brought us to the edge of world war by turning over manufacturing to China and energy to Russia and Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>China and Islam became major threats due to policies that took hold in the sixties and seventies. Russia became a major threat because of policies from the nineties and oughts. It may take a decade for the consequences of environmental policies to begin kicking in, but when they do, they are horrific.</p>
<p>Energy and manufacturing outsourcing don’t make the world cleaner. China and Russia are fantastically dirty. The Gulf War and various other conflicts involving oil countries have spewed more pollution into the atmosphere than all the cars of Los Angeles.</p>
<p>Nor can it be said that they make the world a better place when Islam, Russia and China are dragging the world into war.</p>
<p>Green Energy doesn’t lead to energy independence. Instead it puts money into the pockets of tyrants and terrorists. A new century has become clotted with wars because of the environmental activists perversely campaigning for a cleaner world.</p>
<p>Instead of a greener world, they have given us a Green World War.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><b>Make sure to </b><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang">Facebook.</a></b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-environmentalist-world-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Common Core&#8217;s Little Green Soldiers</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mary-grabar/common-cores-little-green-soldiers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=common-cores-little-green-soldiers</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mary-grabar/common-cores-little-green-soldiers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mary Grabar]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classroom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Core]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indoctrination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[math]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=220193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shrinking hard science to make room for indoctrination. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/climateeducation-a9117b32fbeba1efc3ce45c4e9d8a2a2a390927b-s6-c30.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-220195" alt="climateeducation-a9117b32fbeba1efc3ce45c4e9d8a2a2a390927b-s6-c30" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/climateeducation-a9117b32fbeba1efc3ce45c4e9d8a2a2a390927b-s6-c30-450x337.jpg" width="270" height="202" /></a>Remember the children singing praise songs to Obama back in 2008?  Remember young teenage boys marching in formation and shouting out thanks to Obama for their promising futures?</span></p>
<p>The appointment of <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/no-more-carrots-lots-more-stick_756487.html">Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education</a> initially was seen as a savvy bipartisan move.  But under his watch the Department of Education has become a propaganda arm used to influence the next generation to accept the idea of catastrophic man-made climate change as per the UN, the Environmental Protection Agency, and such groups as the National Wildlife Federation.</p>
<p>In a multi-pronged approach, the Department is teaming up with various non-profit and government organizations and curriculum companies to promote “fun” contests and activities for students, while promoting the next phase of Common Core “State Standards”—in science.</p>
<p>For example, the Department’s latest Green Strides newsletter (February 28) announced three contests for K-12 students who display their agreement with the government&#8217;s position on climate change.</p>
<p>In that newsletter, the Department of Education announced that another federal agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and its National Environmental Education Foundation, have “launched an exciting video challenge for middle school students called <a href="http://epa.gov/climatestudents/contest.html">Climate Change in Focus</a>.”  In this contest, <i>middle school</i> students are asked to make a video that “expresses why they care about climate change and what they are doing to reduce emissions or to prepare for its impacts.”  To win loyalty to the EPA, it is announced that winning videos will be highlighted on the EPA website.  The effort sounds like the kids’ cereal box promotions of yore: the top three entries will receive “cool prizes like a solar charging backpack,” winning class projects will receive special recognition for their school, and the first 100 entrants will receive a year’s subscription to <i>National Geographic Kids Magazine</i>.</p>
<p>Another contest, National Wildlife Federation&#8217;s <a href="http://www.nwf.org/Young-Reporters-for-the-Environment.aspx">Young Reporters for the Environment</a>, invites students “between the ages of 13-21 to report on an environmental issue in their community in an article, photo or photo essay, or short video.”  Entries should “reflect firsthand investigation of topics related to the environment and sustainability in the students&#8217; own communities, draw connections between local and global perspectives, and propose solutions.”</p>
<p>Students are also encouraged to make nominations for “<a href="http://www.unep.org/champions/">Champions of the Earth</a>,” a “UN-sponsored award for environment, Green Economy, and sustainability.”  Among the 2013 laureates are Martha Isabel Ruiz Corzo, who orchestrated a public-private biosphere reserve status for a region in Mexico, and <a href="http://www.unep.org/champions/laureates/2013/McClendon.asp">Brian McLendon</a>, of Google Earth.</p>
<p>Students already get exposed to climate change and sustainability in textbooks which are bought with taxpayer funds, as well as in videos and online materials produced by taxpayer-supported <a href="http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/search/?q=climate+change">Public Broadcasting</a>.  Many students, of course, have had to sit through Al Gore’s documentary, <i>An Inconvenient Truth.</i></p>
<p>Quite obviously, a middle school student does not have the necessary scientific knowledge to make videos about climate change—a particularly challenging scientific problem.</p>
<p>The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)—the next phase of Common Core—will make the situation worse, however.  Students will be even less capable of distinguishing science from propaganda.  These standards, like those for math and English Language Arts, were produced by Achieve, a nonprofit education group started by corporate leaders and some governors.</p>
<p>As in the standards for English Language Arts and math, the NGSS are intended to be transformative, or as Appendix A states, “to reflect a new vision for American science education.”  They call for new “performance expectations” that “focus on understanding and applications as opposed to memorization of facts devoid of context.”</p>
<p>It is precisely such short shrift to knowledge (dismissively referred to as “memorization”) to which science professors Lawrence S. Lerner and Paul Gross object.  The standards bypass essential math skills in favor of “process,” they asserted last fall at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation <a href="http://edexcellence.net/next-generation-science-and-college-readiness">blog</a>.</p>
<p>Common Core standards, in all disciplines, are written with a lot of fluff to conceal their emptiness.</p>
<p>Lerner and Gross discovered “inconsistency between strong NGSS (and Appendix C) assertions and what was actually found by the mathematicians, among others, of our reviewing group.”</p>
<p>(The Common Core math standards themselves have garnered much criticism among teachers, parents, and students; focusing so much on “process,” they make simple problems bizarrely confusing, as a collection of <a href="http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/03/01/how-10-troubling-homework-assignments-reveal-the-truth-about-common-core/?singlepage=true">examples</a> illustrates.)</p>
<p>Lerner and Gross condemn the “Slighting of mathematics,” which does “increasing mischief as grade level rises, especially in the physical sciences.”  Physics is “effectively absent” at the high school level.</p>
<p>“Several devout declarations” appear, however, the authors sardonically point out, as they note this one from Appendix C:</p>
<blockquote><p>In particular, the best science education seems to be one based on integrating rigorous content with the practices that scientists and engineers routinely use in their work—including application of mathematics.</p></blockquote>
<p>Lerner and Gross attack the “practices” strategy, as an extension of the “inquiry learning” of the early 1990s, which had “no notable effect on the (mediocre) performance of American students in national and international science assessments.”</p>
<p>With some sarcasm, they write, “It is charming to say ‘. . . students learn science effectively when they actively engage in the practices of science.’”  However,</p>
<blockquote><p>Students will not learn best if they practice science exactly as do real scientists.  A firm conclusion in cognitive science contradicts that claim.  Beginners don’t and can’t ‘practice’ as do experts.  The practices of experts exploit prior experience and extensive build-up in long-term memory of scaffolding: facts, procedures, technical know-how, solutions to standard problems in the field, vocabularies—of knowledge in short.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not only do the <a href="http://www.nextgenscience.org/">Next Generation Science Standards</a> shirk the necessary foundations in math and science knowledge, but they explicitly call for including ideological lessons, such as “Human impacts on Earth systems.”  For grades K-2, students are to understand, “Things people do can affect the environment but they can make choices to reduce their impact.” In grades 3 through 5, students will learn “Societal activities have had major effects on the land, ocean, atmosphere, and even outer space.  Societal activities can also help protect Earth’s resources and environments.”  This is from part ESS3.C of the NGSS standards.</p>
<p>“Human impacts on Earth systems” are huge topics, when approached legitimately.  They present quandaries to scientists at the top levels.  Yet NGSS imposes them on kindergartners.  The objective, of course, is not teaching legitimate science, but indoctrination.</p>
<p>Amazingly, ten states have already voluntarily adopted the Standards.</p>
<p>Such efforts, coordinated by the Department of Education, threaten the future of science itself.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mary-grabar/common-cores-little-green-soldiers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Progressive Insanity and the Global Warming Cult</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/progressive-insanity-and-the-global-warming-cult/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=progressive-insanity-and-the-global-warming-cult</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/progressive-insanity-and-the-global-warming-cult/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 05:53:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indonesia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weapon of mass destruction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=219356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What explains the Left escalating its outlandish claims and scaremongering? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/140216191222-kerry-jakarta-story-top.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-219358" alt="140216191222-kerry-jakarta-story-top" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/140216191222-kerry-jakarta-story-top-440x350.jpg" width="264" height="210" /></a>Progressives will do virtually anything to advance their agenda. In the arena of global warming, they have resorted to hysteria and angry denunciation of those who dare to question their infallible “wisdom.” And as it is with every aspect of their agenda, such wisdom must be imposed at the expense of liberty.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Leading the charge is Secretary of State John Kerry, who </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/indonesia-kerry-urges-action-climate-change-22537484">epitomized</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the above approach in a speech to Indonesian students, civic leaders and government officials in Jakarta, Indonesia. First he laced into one the left&#8217;s favorite punching bags, namely the coal and oil industries he accused of &#8220;hijacking&#8221; the conversation. &#8220;We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,&#8221; he declared. &#8220;Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don&#8217;t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Possibly suspecting that his presentation might be insufficient to galvanize the unwashed masses, Kerry added a dash of fear to the mix. &#8220;This city, this country, this region, is really on the front lines of climate change,&#8221; Kerry warned. &#8220;It&#8217;s not an exaggeration to say that your entire way of life here is at risk. In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world&#8217;s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world&#8217;s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,&#8221; he added.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Kerry is taking his cues from President Obama, who went to California, where he promptly </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17659-obama-ludicrously-links-california-drought-to-climate-change">explained</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> that state&#8217;s worst drought in a century is linked to global climate change and greenhouse gases. &#8220;We have to be clear. A changing climate means that weather-related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms [and] floods are potentially going to be costlier and they’re going to be harsher,&#8221; he explained.</span></p>
<p>That was apparently too much even for the <i>New York Times</i>, who <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?ref=politics&amp;_r=0">contended</a> that the president and his aides &#8220;were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought.&#8221; Even worse, the so-called paper of record was forced to admit that the much-vaunted computer models the &#8220;consensus&#8221; scientists having been using to promote their global warming agenda &#8220;suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.&#8221; That included an assessment by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which noted that the drought “resulted mostly from natural variations in weather.”</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">White House science adviser John P. Holdren, who co-authored a book describing government forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water as legitimate population control measures, rode to the president&#8217;s rescue. While agreeing that no single episode of extreme weather can be linked to climate change, &#8220;the global climate has now been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change.”</span></p>
<p>The <i>Los Angeles Times</i> brought another angle to the mix, one that <a href="http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-crime-20140219,0,2765136.story#axzz2tsG4mML8">plumbs</a> the depths of climate change hysteria. It cites a study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a Massachusetts research and consulting firm, that contends climate change &#8220;can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft,&#8221; between 2010 and 2099.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In a </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Wall Street Journal</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> article, authors Richard McNider and John Christy </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266">underscored</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the irony of Kerry comparing global warming skeptics to flat-earthers of ancient times. It was the flat-earthers who maintained something similar to the 97 percent &#8220;consensus&#8221; Kerry used to justify his rant. It was a tiny minority of scientists who posited that the earth was round. With regard to the actual science leftists accuse skeptics of ignoring, the McNider and Christy acknowledge that &#8220;carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.&#8221; Yet what remains unknown is the level of warming that will occur. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">They then address the aforementioned computer models, rightly noting that those created to explain the phenomenon were built &#8220;almost entirely&#8221; by scientists heavily invested in the idea of &#8220;catastrophic&#8221; global warming. Unsurprisingly, those investments have tainted the science behind them, which explains why many of the dire predictions they engendered have turned out to be &#8220;spectacularly wrong.&#8221; </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">That wrongness is invariably followed by a litany of excuses. One was the idea that an increased use of aerosols by human beings that ostensibly &#8220;skewed&#8221; the results. Moreover, the &#8220;consensus&#8221; scientists continue to ignore data that does not accrue to their political convictions.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Far more devastating, climate change promoters virtually ignore the disastrous economic effects their policies would engender. As Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a nonprofit group focused on cost-effective solutions to global problems </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/the-poor-need-cheap-fossil-fuels.html">explains</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, 81 percent of the world&#8217;s energy needs are provided by fossil fuels, with billions of people depending on them for </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">survival.</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> &#8220;For many parts of the world, fossil fuels are still vital and will be for the next few decades, because they are the only means to lift people out of the smoke and darkness of energy poverty,&#8221; he writes. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">That necessity explains much of the developing world&#8217;s resistance to the Obama administration&#8217;s initiatives. At this moment in time, they prefer </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-kerry-indonesia-climate-20140216,0,3657404.story#axzz2tsG4mML8">raising</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> their citizens out of poverty than kowtowing to an agenda they see as a First World problem created by wealthier countries that use the most energy. Despite this reality, the president quietly </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/27/the-u-s-will-stop-subsidizing-coal-plants-overseas-is-the-world-bank-next/">announced</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> a major policy shift last June, whereby the U.S. would place severe restrictions on federal financing of coal plants in foreign countries. &#8220;This new policy sends a message that coal is not an acceptable fuel source for the 21st century,&#8221; said Justin Guay, international climate and energy representative of the Sierra Club at the time.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">That such a message condemns billions of people around the world to a life of subsistence survival &#8212; when they survive at all &#8212; is of little consequence. Apparently for progressives, &#8220;saving the planet&#8221; has little to do with saving the people who inhabit it.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">While such an agenda has fewer life and death consequences in the United States, the administration is determined to pursue the same economy-ravaging policies here. And once again a president who has made a mockery of the rule of law and the constitutionally-mandated separation of power is determined to advance those policies &#8220;with our without&#8221; Congress.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Whether he can actually do so remains to be seen. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/us/politics/in-emissions-case-supreme-court-to-consider-the-limits-of-obamas-authority.html">scheduled</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to hear a case on greenhouse gas emissions that could determine if Obama has so broadly interpreted the parameters of the Clean Air Act that he has rendered Congress irrelevant. Briefs filed by business groups and Republicans paint the president&#8217;s effort as another overreach by the Executive branch. A </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/12-1268_pet_slf.authcheckdam.pdf">brief</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> filed by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) contends the president is attempting “an intolerable invasion of Congress’s domain that threatens to obliterate the line dividing executive from legislative power,” and that regulation imposed under the auspices of the EPA were “perhaps the most audacious seizure of pure legislative power over domestic economic matters attempted by the executive branch” since President Truman&#8217;s attempt to nationalize America&#8217;s steel mills during the Korean War. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. countered with the administration’s argument. “The E.P.A. determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare in ways that may prove to be more widespread, longer lasting and graver than the effects of any other pollutant regulated under the act,” he wrote in his brief. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The case is a challenge to a 5-4 decision made in 2007, when the Supreme Court required the EPA to regulate the emission of greenhouse gasses from motor vehicles if they endangered the public&#8217;s health and welfare. The administration wants to extend that decision to cover stationary power plants, as well as all sources that can annually emit 100 or 250 tons of relevant pollutants. That would give them the potential to regulate millions of pollution sources absent congressional authority to do so. Obama used the same rationale when he </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/us/politics/obama-to-request-new-rules-for-cutting-truck-pollution.html?hp">ordered</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> the development of new standards for the nation&#8217;s heavy-duty trucks earlier this week.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Amanda C. Leiter, a law professor at American University believes a loss by the administration would not have a great impact, since they have other regulatory tools at their disposal. But the political damage could be significant because “it would be painted as another situation in which the Obama administration has overreached against the public will.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Regardless of the decision, the administration will undoubtedly continue to overreach, aided an abetted by what authors David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin term the &#8220;New Leviathan.&#8221; They are progressive moneyed interests whose contributions dwarf those of their conservative counterparts, and who are determined to impose their agenda on the nation, regardless of the consequences. In the environmental arena, they are being </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/us/politics/financier-plans-big-ad-campaign-on-environment.html?hpw&amp;rref=us&amp;_r=1">led</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> by billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer, whose political organization, NextGen Climate Action, aims to raise $100 million to support politicians who champion the man-made climate change agenda. Like so many leftist elitists, he is against the Keystone pipeline that would go a long way towards creating jobs and putting the nation further down the road towards energy independence. He considers climate change the &#8220;generational challenge of the world.”</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The real generational challenge, in America at least, is figuring out how to prevent progressives in general, and the Obama administration in particular, from fundamentally transforming the United States into a nation where liberty, freedom and free-market capitalism are regulated out of existence. Make no mistake: those who would employ questionable science to impose what amounts to a death penalty on millions of Third-World residents struggling for their very existence don&#8217;t think twice about imposing untold economic hardship on their fellow Americans, </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/index.html">76 percent</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> of whom live &#8220;paycheck to paycheck,&#8221; for the same reason. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">And its not about the environment. As a </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/state_by_state.pdf">study</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> by the Science and Public Policy Institute reveals, if Americans </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">completely stopped</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> emitting all carbon immediately &#8212; stopped driving, stopped cooling and heating our homes, shut down all the power plants, and even stopped </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">talking </i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">&#8211; the global temperature would decrease by only 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">As Bjorn Lomborg explains, the United States is already &#8220;showing the way&#8221; towards a future with cleaner fuel sources. That the Obama administration would sacrifice the well-being of millions of Americans and billions of impoverished people to force-feed that future is precisely what they did to the nation when they force-fed it ObamaCare based on the same litany of hysteria, lies and smears they are using here. One can only wonder when Americans will tire of the progressive lust for power wrapping itself as noble intentions.</span></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/progressive-insanity-and-the-global-warming-cult/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>156</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leftists Love Global Warming Because They Hate the Middle Class</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/leftists-love-global-warming-because-they-hate-the-middle-class/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=leftists-love-global-warming-because-they-hate-the-middle-class</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/leftists-love-global-warming-because-they-hate-the-middle-class/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 05:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[middle class]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noah]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=219387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why Hollywood turned the story of Noah into a warning against carbon sin. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/flooded_ny.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-219393" alt="flooded_ny" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/flooded_ny-432x350.jpg" width="302" height="245" /></a>This week, Secretary of State John Kerry announced to a group of Indonesian students that global warming was &#8220;perhaps the world&#8217;s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.&#8221; He added, &#8220;Because of climate change, it&#8217;s no secret that today Indonesia is &#8230; one of the most vulnerable countries on Earth. It&#8217;s not an exaggeration to say that the entire way of life that you live and love is at risk.&#8221;</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Hollywood prepared to drop a new blockbuster based on the biblical story of Noah. The film, directed by Darren Aronofsky, centers on the story of the biblical character who built an ark after God warned him that humanity would be destroyed thanks to its sexual immorality and violent transgressions. The Hollywood version of the story, however, has God punishing humanity not for actual sin, but for overpopulation and global warming &#8212; an odd set of sins, given God&#8217;s express commandments in Genesis 1:28 to &#8220;be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.&#8221;</p>
<p>This weird perspective on sin &#8212; the notion that true sin is not sin, but that consumerism is &#8212; is actually nothing new. In the 1920s, the left warned of empty consumerism with the fire and brimstone of Jonathan Edwards; Sinclair Lewis famously labeled the American middle class &#8220;Babbitts&#8221; &#8212; characters who cared too much about buying things.</p>
<p>In his novel of the same name, Lewis sneered of his bourgeois antihero, &#8220;He had enormous and poetic admiration, though very little understanding, of all mechanical devices. They were his symbols of truth and beauty.&#8221; Lewis wrote, through the voice of his radical character Doane, that consumerism has created &#8220;standardization of thought, and of course, the traditions of competition. The real villains of the piece are the clean, kind, industrious Family Men who use every known brand of trickery and cruelty to insure the prosperity of their cubs. The worst thing about these fellows it that they&#8217;re so good and, in their work at least, so intelligent.&#8221;</p>
<p>Lewis, of course, was a socialist. So were anti-consumerism compatriots like H.G. Wells, H.L. Mencken and Herbert Croly. And their brand of leftism was destined to infuse the entire American left over the course of the 20th century. As Fred Siegel writes in his new book, &#8220;The Revolt Against The Masses,&#8221; this general feeling pervaded the left during the 1950s, even as more Americans were attending symphony concerts than ballgames, with 50,000 Americans per year buying paperback version of classics. That&#8217;s because if the left were to recognize the great power of consumerism in bettering lives and enriching culture, the left would have to become the right.</p>
<p>Of course, consumerism is not an unalloyed virtue. Consumerism can be utilized for hedonism. But it can also be utilized to make lives better, offering more opportunity for spiritual development. It&#8217;s precisely this latter combination that the left fears, because if consumerism and virtue are allied, there is no place left for the Marxist critique of capitalism &#8212; namely that capitalism makes people less compassionate, more selfish, and ethically meager. And so consumerism must be severed from virtue (very few leftists critique Americans&#8217; propensity for spending cash on Lady Gaga concerts) so that it can be castigated as sin more broadly.</p>
<p>In a world in which consumerism is the greatest of all sins, America is the greatest of all sinners. Which, of course, is the point of the anti-consumerist critique from the left: to target America. Global warming represents the latest apocalyptic consequence threatened by the leftist gods for the great iniquity of buying things, developing products, and competing in the global marketplace. And America must be called to heel by the great preachers in Washington, D.C., and Hollywood.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/leftists-love-global-warming-because-they-hate-the-middle-class/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Killing Frost for Green Bosses</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/a-killing-frost-for-green-bosses/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-killing-frost-for-green-bosses</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/a-killing-frost-for-green-bosses/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 05:51:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmentalist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Funding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nonprofit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polar vortex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214871</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What explains the sudden wave of retirements among enviro elites?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pq.png"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-214872" alt="pq" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pq-450x335.png" width="315" height="234" /></a>Does a record-setting cold wave have anything to do with massive upheaval among the fear-mongering elite of professional left-wing environmentalism?</p>
<p>As the endlessly referenced Polar Vortex of Doom keeps the fruited plain in a deep freeze, it turns out several major environmentalist lobbies are <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/new-year-ushers-in-changing-of-the-guard-for-green-groups-20140104">shedding</a> their current leadership.</p>
<p>This is happening despite the media&#8217;s nonstop, years-long, global warming propaganda assault, the presence of a radical, lawless left-winger in the White House and a Democratic stranglehold over the Senate. The voters can&#8217;t be bothered to care about this silly global warming issue.</p>
<p>In an amazing non-coincidence, Maggie Fox, CEO for Al Gore&#8217;s Climate Reality Project, is leaving her organization in the spring. Formerly known as the Alliance for Climate Protection, the group changed its name after a hard-fought push to enact cap-and-trade legislation fizzled.</p>
<p>National Wildlife Federation CEO Larry Schweiger, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) President Frances Beinecke, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) President Eileen Claussen, and Greenpeace USA&#8217;s youthful Executive Director Phil Radford are also decamping from their respective posts this year. (The Pew Center on Climate Change was relaunched as the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions in 2011.)</p>
<p>Could it be that the career eco-extremists, con artists, and meteorological Machiavellians selling global warming doom and gloom are finally beginning to realize that their current approach isn&#8217;t working?</p>
<p>Evidence abounds that whatever the environmentalists are doing to try to scare the bejeezus out of the citizenry, it is failing to hit the mark. Environmentalism remains a low priority for voters.</p>
<p>Although many Americans are convinced that global warming is real, they don&#8217;t believe it is enough of a problem to justify spending cold, hard cash on a supposed solution, <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/">according</a> to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. &#8220;The American public routinely ranks dealing with global warming low on its list of priorities for the president and Congress.&#8221; In 2013 &#8220;it ranked at the bottom of the 21 [issues] tested.&#8221;</p>
<p>Global warming skepticism abounds &#8212; and not just in America. Last year a poll by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09/poll-appears-to-show-growth-in-climate-skepticism-but-what-kind-is-it/">suggested</a> &#8220;the proportion of people in the UK who don&#8217;t think the world&#8217;s climate is changing has more than quadrupled since 2005.&#8221;</p>
<p>The problem can&#8217;t be a lack of money on the enviro Left.</p>
<p>As David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/irs-targeting-of-conservatives-indisputably-political/">reported</a> in their recent book, <i>The New Leviathan</i>, in the world of environmental activism, there are 32 major conservative groups that “promote market-friendly solutions” and 552 progressive groups that “promote radical views that are anti-business.”</p>
<p>Collectively, the conservative groups have net assets of $38.24 million, a figure that seems insignificant compared to the $9.31 billion figure representing the progressive groups’ combined net assets. The progressive environmental groups enjoy a 37 to 1 advantage over conservative environmental groups in revenues ($3.56 billion compared to $96.17 million).</p>
<p>While many global warmists sincerely believe that science supports their theory of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, they are lying when they claim to be outgunned by <i>eeevil</i> corporations in the fight over this issue.</p>
<p>These green groups allege that &#8220;vast amounts of untraceable special interest money fund[s] global warming skeptics and give[s] skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate,&#8221; writes James Taylor at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/">Forbes</a>.</p>
<p>But the &#8220;undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money – including far more untraceable special interest &#8216;dark money&#8217; – than global warming skeptics.&#8221;</p>
<p>Big businesses that stand to benefit from carbon controls or other greenhouse gas mitigation strategies are among the green movement&#8217;s biggest funders.</p>
<p>The Environment Defense Fund, for example, goes out of its way to work with mega-corporations.</p>
<p>EDF, by the way, has the blood of millions of dead malaria victims on its hands. EDF boasts that it was instrumental in banning the highly effective insecticide DDT in 1972, an act that has since led to the <a href="http://junkscience.com/2012/03/09/it-was-a-mistake-to-ban-ddt-in-1972/">deaths</a> of as many as 60 million people &#8212; largely children in poor tropical countries. EDT and others, egged on by works of paranoid fiction like <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1866">Rachel Carson</a>&#8216;s 1962 book, <i>Silent Spring</i>, grossly exaggerated the dangers of DDT and helped to create the mass hysteria that was necessary to achieve an international DDT ban.</p>
<p>Environmentalists groups are drowning in oceans of money. As Forbes reports,</p>
<p>&#8220;Two environmental activist groups – Greenpeace and The Nature Conservancy – raise more than $1 billion cumulatively per year. These two groups raise more money than the combined funding of &#8230; 91 conservative think tanks &#8230; Just as importantly, these two groups raise money solely for environmental causes and frequently advocate for global warming restrictions. Their $1 billion is not diluted addressing issues such as economic policy, health care policy, foreign policy, etc.</p>
<p>Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions.&#8221;</p>
<p>As scientific evidence continues to mount that global warming is a colossus-sized nothing burger for the ages, those bad people who want to use the weather and climate to attack capitalism and the American way of life, and those pathetic people who are in it only for the corporate and government money, aren&#8217;t giving up.</p>
<p>In recent years alarmists of both species have been trying to move the goalposts in what reasonable people can only pray is a doomed, eleventh-hour effort to remain relevant. Now many of these tireless, annoying do-gooders speak of <i>climate change</i> and its hazards instead of merely squawking about the more specific phenomenon <i>global warming</i>.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a slippery move because the climate is by its nature always changing. The definition of <i>climate</i> is hugely important. Climate is different than weather. Weather refers merely to the short-term conditions of variables in a specific area.</p>
<p>Nature is constantly adjusting weather patterns and its future actions are often difficult to predict. Water levels rise and fall. Deserts come and go. The wind blows and then it doesn&#8217;t. Sometimes there is much precipitation; other times, hardly any. The ways in which the various elements interact with each other is always changing, sometimes by a lot, sometimes by only a little.</p>
<p>Climate is &#8220;weather writ large,&#8221; according to the <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=dqIBqiNoB9wC&amp;pg=PA1&amp;lpg=PA1&amp;dq=Climate+is+weather+writ+large&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=uyH0g37R5Q&amp;sig=OmamGJeMeOh_rFMpaV6nKlMMEss&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=BtHMUtziH4j-2gWl34CwBw&amp;ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ">most useful definition</a> of the term this writer could find online. &#8220;Climate is determined by a complex combination of geographic conditions and latitude. It is weather writ large, which is to say, weather patterns considered over a long time &#8212; years, decades, even centuries.&#8221;</p>
<p>How can one argue against a truism called <i>climate change</i>? Climate change is a fact. That and two and a half bucks will get you a ride on New York City&#8217;s subway.</p>
<p>Weather is always changing, has always been changing, and will always be changing. By the same token climate is always changing, has always been changing, and will always be changing. Change is perhaps the only constant in the study of climate and changes in climate are not always bad.</p>
<p>Moving from the specific to the general by making a political issue out of climate change, instead of global warming, affords alarmists infinite flexibility to keep spinning, misdirecting, and changing the parameters of the debate.</p>
<p>It is an irrevocable license for bloviators, demagogues, science-hating misanthropes, and enemies of freedom.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/a-killing-frost-for-green-bosses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Al Gore&#8217;s Global Warming Desperation</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/tom-blumer/al-gores-global-warming-desperation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=al-gores-global-warming-desperation</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/tom-blumer/al-gores-global-warming-desperation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom Blumer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmentalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ipcc]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=202419</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Devastating news on the horizon for the climate change cult. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/3-7-13-Al-Gore_full_600.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-202420" alt="3-7-13-Al-Gore_full_600" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/3-7-13-Al-Gore_full_600-450x342.jpg" width="270" height="205" /></a>Those who are wondering why Al Gore chose to publicly resurface in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/21/al-gore-explains-why-hes-optimistic-about-stopping-global-warming/">a Washington Post interview </a>last Thursday with that paper&#8217;s ever-pliable <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/25/the-fix-was-in-journolist-e-mails-reveal-how-the-liberal-media-shaped-the-2008-election/">Journolist founder </a>Ezra Klein only need to look in three places.</p>
<p>First, there&#8217;s the recently revealed empirical evidence that the &#8220;global warming&#8221; movement&#8217;s claim that climate change is causing increased extreme weather events isn&#8217;t true. Second, there&#8217;s a new summary of historical research which blows up the movement&#8217;s infamous core &#8220;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-graph-ipcc-report">hockey stick</a>&#8221; chart forecasting unprecedented, accelerating warming. Finally, there&#8217;s a new report due to arrive in a month from an increasingly desperate United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.</p>
<p>In late September, the IPCC, laughably described <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/will-ipcc-reclaim-climate-change-agenda/story-e6frgcjx-1226704485194">by the wire service AFP </a>as &#8220;an expert body set up in 1988 to provide neutral advice on global warming and its impacts,&#8221; will release its next set of &#8220;scientific data&#8221; to advocate for a worldwide carbon-tax regime. Gore&#8217;s mission is clearly to start greasing the skids for the IPCC&#8217;s next round of hysteria.</p>
<p>Gore told WaPo&#8217;s Klein that the earth is already suffering the negative consequences of failing to act against &#8220;global warming.&#8221; He claims that &#8220;every extreme weather event now has a component of global warming in it,&#8221; and that &#8220;the appearance of more extreme and more frequent weather events has had a very profound impact on public opinion in countries throughout the world.&#8221;</p>
<p>There&#8217;s no doubt that the worldwide press&#8217;s emphasis on &#8220;extreme weather events&#8221; has been greater. Virtually every such occurrence will cause one or more journalists, politicians or both to claim it as definitive or presumptive &#8220;proof&#8221; of the existence of &#8220;global warming&#8221; and the urgent need to combat it.</p>
<p>The trouble is, the actual occurrences of &#8220;extreme weather events&#8221; has not increased.</p>
<p>In mid-July, University of Colorado environmental scientist Roger Pielke <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/18/scientist-tells-senators-global-warming-not-causing-extreme-weather/">testified </a>before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. What he had to say surely did not please Democrats and socialists <a href="http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Members.Home">on the committee</a>, including California&#8217;s Barbara Boxer, Rhode Island&#8217;s Sheldon Whitehouse, and Vermont&#8217;s Bernie Sanders:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900,” Pielke added. “The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970.”</p>
<p>&#8230; (He also noted) that U.S. floods have not increased in “frequency or intensity” since 1950 and economic losses from floods have dropped by 75 percent as a percentage of GDP since 1940. Tornado frequency, intensity, and normalized damages have also not increased since 1950, and Pielke even notes that there is some evidence that this has declined.</p>
<p>&#8230; droughts have been shorter, less frequent, and have covered a smaller portion of the U.S over the last century. Globally, there has been very little change in the last 60 years, he said.</p></blockquote>
<p>Based on <a href="http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/">his bio </a>and credentials, leftists tempted to trash Pielke&#8217;s reputation would be well advised to pick a different target.</p>
<p>Now, let&#8217;s get to that &#8220;<a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/?_r=0">hockey stick</a>.&#8221;</p>
<p>In an <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Medieval+Warm+Period+(Arctic)+--+Summary&amp;oq=Medieval+Warm+Period+(Arctic)+--+Summary&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57.435j0&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8">August 14 post </a>at <a href="http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwparctic.php">CO2Science.org</a>, the website of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Craig Idso, the <a href="http://www.co2science.org/about/chairman.php">organization&#8217;s chairman </a>and past president, posted a lengthy summary of others&#8217; research dating back 15 years relating to what happened during the Medieval Warm Period in the Arctic.</p>
<p>Those who have followed the work of &#8220;global warming&#8221; advocates disguised as scientists for some time may recall that Penn State&#8217;s Michael Mann and his cohort <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/">were determined</a>, as seen in the leaked &#8220;Climategate&#8221; emails, to &#8220;get rid of&#8221; the Medieval Warm Period, so that their beloved &#8220;hockey stick&#8221; would remain nearly straight before turning up sharply during the past few decades and into the future.</p>
<p>Idso, who has a Ph.D. in Geography and has authored several peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate-related topics, painstakingly ran down the results of 17 studies attempting to reconstruct surface temperatures in Greenland and other Arctic areas during the past millennium.</p>
<p>Every study he reviewed supports Idso&#8217;s conclusion (italics are his):</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]he Arctic &#8211; which climate models suggest should be super-sensitive to greenhouse-gas-induced warming &#8211; is <em>still</em> not even as warm as it was several centuries ago during portions of the Medieval Warm Period, when there was <em>much</em> less CO2 and methane in the air than there is today, which facts further suggest that the planet&#8217;s more modest current warmth need not be the result of historical increases in these two trace greenhouse gases.</p></blockquote>
<p>Eight of those studies predate the thousand-year global extension of Mann&#8217;s &#8220;hockey stick&#8221; graph of 2003, meaning that he had to deliberately ignore a huge swath of scientific evidence, which, if honestly considered, would have caused him to throw it into the trash. Instead, he and others associated with the IPCC essentially pretended that no other meaningful contradictory information existed.</p>
<p>In other words, Mann&#8217;s &#8220;hockey stick&#8221; is a bunch of what <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhagzSEXzic">Colonel Potter </a>of the TV series M*A*S*H used to call &#8220;<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=horse%20hockey">horse hockey</a>.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s hard to see how the IPCC can regain the momentum for taking action against something that clearly isn&#8217;t happening. There has been no warming <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/20/leaked-draft-climate-report-struggles-with-drop-in-warming/">for 15 years</a>, and some evidence <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing-global-cooling-since-2002-climate-scientist-dr-judith-curry-attention-in-the-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/">of slight cooling </a>since 2002.</p>
<p>I suspect that IPCC and its supporters will have no choice but to resort to leftists&#8217; traditional fallback tactics. That is, they&#8217;ll try to act as if damning contradictory information doesn&#8217;t exist or is unimportant, and they&#8217;ll ramp up their demonization of so-called &#8220;deniers.&#8221;</p>
<p>That act is wearing very thin. I&#8217;d like to believe that it won&#8217;t be effective, but that belief depends heavily on continued vigilance on the part of those who insist on following the science where it takes them, instead of making up &#8220;science&#8221; to fit a statist agenda.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/tom-blumer/al-gores-global-warming-desperation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>61</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul Ingrassia vs. The Green Inquisition</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/paul-ingrassia-vs-the-green-inquisition/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=paul-ingrassia-vs-the-green-inquisition</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/paul-ingrassia-vs-the-green-inquisition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 04:58:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ingrassia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reuters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skepticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199192</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A global warming heretic is discovered at Reuters -- now the Left demands his head.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/257858063_640.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-199196" alt="257858063_640" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/257858063_640-450x337.jpg" width="270" height="202" /></a>As interest in the alleged warming of the planet wanes, the global warming inquisition is hoping to make an example of a heretical reporter whose only sin is healthy skepticism.</p>
<p>The enviro-Left is busy attempting to subject London-based Paul Ingrassia, an American journalist brought in by Reuters to beef up its worldwide news operation, to a digital auto-da-fé for insisting that the 2,800 journalists at the news agency at least try to provide fair and balanced accounts of the events of the day.</p>
<p>Ingrassia, by the way, won a Pulitzer Prize and a Gerald Loeb Award in 1993 for his news coverage of management turmoil at General Motors.</p>
<p>This newfound interest in objectivity at Reuters, where the word <i>militant</i> is still preferred over <i>terrorist</i>, appears to mean the agency is running fewer stories about climate change.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s <i>fewer</i>, not <i>none</i>. Reuters still diligently covers climate-related issues.</p>
<p>But that&#8217;s not good enough for those who embrace the increasingly shaky theory of anthropogenic global warming with religious zeal.</p>
<p>&#8220;It is just not responsible in our opinion to be cutting back on an issue that is having such a profound impact on every sector of the economy,&#8221; <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/26/reuters-climate-change-scepticism-coverage">emoted</a> Mindy Lubber, who runs the Ceres sustainable business network, which represents companies and investors worth more than $11 trillion in assets. &#8220;This is a financial risk that needs to be looked at and addressed.&#8221;</p>
<p>ThinkProgress, a hard-left blog run by John Podesta&#8217;s <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6709">Center for American Progress </a>Action Fund, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/16/2307291/reuters-exposed-publication-openly-hostile-to-climate-coverage-top-editor-doubts-climate-science/">referred</a> to Ingrassia in a headline as &#8220;Openly Hostile to Climate Coverage.&#8221;</p>
<p>As Steven Hayward <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/media-notes-climate-campaign-in-a-snit.php">writes</a> at Powerline, a slew of media outlets &#8220;are all on the chase, proving 1) the dependence of the climate campaign on a media monopoly, and 2) that the environmental version of the Brezhnev Doctrine lives—what’s there is theirs, and don’t dare change your news coverage.&#8221;</p>
<p>The mainstream media freakout began when a disgruntled former Reuters reporter who had covered the global warming beat threw an online temper tantrum after leaving the company. Singapore-based David Fogarty blogged about the editorial direction Reuters took after it hired journalism industry heavyweight Ingrassia, an experienced business reporter and editor, in 2011 to overhaul the company&#8217;s approach to news gathering.</p>
<p>Fogarty said he met Ingrassia at a work-related event in 2012 at which the veteran journalist allegedly acknowledged being a climate change skeptic. &#8220;Not a rabid skeptic, just someone who wanted to see more evidence mankind was changing the global climate,” Fogarty wrote.</p>
<p>&#8220;From very early in 2012, I was repeatedly told that climate and environment stories were no longer a top priority for Reuters and I was asked to look at other areas. Being stubborn, and passionate about my climate change beat, I largely ignored the directive.</p>
<p>&#8220;By mid-October, I was informed that climate change just wasn’t a big story for the present, but that it would be if there was a significant shift in global policy, such as the US introducing an emissions cap-and-trade system.&#8221;</p>
<p>Fogarty left the company in December, two months after his climate beat was excised. Although two full-time environment beat reporters now cover the subject area for Reuters, Fogarty resorted to conspiracy theorizing.</p>
<p>He <a href="http://thestar.blogs.com/worlddaily/2013/07/is-reuters-hostile-to-climate-change-reporting-so-says-former-reporter.html">claimed</a> there is a growing “climate of fear” within Reuters that makes reporters reluctant to write about climate change.</p>
<p>Smelling blood, the George Soros-funded slander shop Media Matters for America promptly <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/23/reuters-climate-change-coverage-declined-signif/195015">hopped</a> on the anti-Ingrassia bandwagon, hastily beatifying Fogarty by calling him a &#8220;whistleblower&#8221; in a headline.</p>
<p>MMfA claimed that &#8220;Reuters&#8217; coverage of climate change declined by nearly 50 percent under the regime of the current managing editor, lending credence to a former reporter&#8217;s claim that a &#8216;climate of fear&#8217; has gripped the agency.&#8221;</p>
<p>But the facts suggest what happened was more akin to an outbreak of journalistic rigor, something disgraced ex-journalist David Brock&#8217;s cherry-picking character assassins at Media Matters would have difficulty recognizing.</p>
<p>The so-called study by the Democratic Party&#8217;s leading public relations agency examined how many climate change or global warming stories Reuters ran in two distinct periods. The first period was Oct. 19, 2010 to April 19, 2011, before Ingrassia worked at Reuters, and April 19, 2012 to Oct. 19, 2012, after he joined the company.</p>
<p>In the latter period &#8220;Reuters filed 48 percent fewer articles on climate change under the new regime, despite the fact that the latter period featured the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, a continuing fight over the European Union&#8217;s proposal to impose a carbon tax on international flights, record heat in the U.S. and other noteworthy developments,&#8221; according to Media Matters.</p>
<p>Of course none of those events would be of much interest to ordinary news consumers. Only climate change zealots, hardcore leftists, and unusually adventurous investors would consider most of those events to be highly newsworthy.</p>
<p>What else was happening in the world from mid-April to mid-October of last year?</p>
<p>It turns out there were plenty of exigent, newsworthy events that Reuters might have considered to be more worthy of coverage than an old, scientifically dubious doom-and-gloom theory embraced by an affective former U.S. vice president but cared about by few people outside of the green movement.</p>
<p>As the U.S. economy sputtered along and the national debt continued to balloon, there was an unusually nasty, bruising presidential election cycle that happened to be the most expensive and media-saturated in history. Terrorists attacked a U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans including a sitting U.S. ambassador, whom they may have sexually tortured. Before the Obama administration eventually admitted that the incident in Libya was a coordinated Islamic terrorist attack, it blamed an obscure anti-Islam filmmaker for the sacking of the mission and made him a real-life political prisoner. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionally questionable Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare.</p>
<p>Facebook&#8217;s hyped-to-the-endth-degree public stock offering floundered. France elected dogmatic socialist Francois Hollande who promptly launched a new reign of terror against that nation&#8217;s long-suffering taxpayers leading prominent citizens like actor Gerard Depardieu to flee.</p>
<p>The Middle East and North Africa continued to be rocked by fallout from the so-called Arab Spring. The Eurozone crisis, festering since 2009, continued to bring misery to those living in or investing in countries bound by the Maastricht Treaty. London hosted the summer Olympics. A psychopathic dictator who succeeded his father, another psychopathic dictator, made great strides in solidifying his reign in reportedly nuclear North Korea. Gay marriage became legal in several countries.</p>
<p>In short, there was no shortage of interesting, important things to write about.</p>
<p>And naturally, as the scientific case for global warming continues to fall apart the likelihood of the formation of huge markets for trading carbon also declines commensurately. This means the possibility of high-dollar carbon trading will get less media attention.</p>
<p>Strangely, even the ever-watchful guardians of liberal journalism at the venerable <i>Columbia Journalism Review</i> dismiss the green-generated hype. <i>CJR</i> writer Alexis Sobel Fitts <a href="http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/reuterss_global_warming_about-.php?page=all">volunteers</a> that most U.S. newsrooms have scaled back their climate change coverage since 2010:</p>
<blockquote><p>In 2011, Environment &amp; Energy Publishing, which produces Greenwire, ClimateWire, and four other news services, estimated they reduced climate coverage by about 13 percent. According to an assessment published by The Daily Climate, The New York Times cut its global warming article count by 15 percent, and the Guardian slashed coverage by 21 percent that same year.</p></blockquote>
<p>Fitts adds parenthetically that &#8220;Reuters, too, dropped its climate coverage by 27 percent in 2011, before Ingrassia came aboard.&#8221;</p>
<p>Fitts writes that several unidentified Reuters reporters spoke to her on background about a change in the news agency&#8217;s editorial stance. Since Ingrassia came aboard &#8220;they’ve felt pressure from management to add &#8216;balance&#8217; to climate change stories by including the views of global-warming skeptics.&#8221;</p>
<p>“I’m really glad someone outside the company is looking into this,” she quoted one staffer saying. “I think this is the most worrying thing any of us have seen here.”</p>
<p>How <i>dare</i> Reuters strive to tell more than one side of the story.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, it is worth pointing out that the warming trend <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/">ended</a> 15 years ago and since then global temperatures have held steady, if not decreased, while carbon dioxide emissions worldwide have skyrocketed.</p>
<p>“The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750,” the <i>Economist</i> reported in the spring.</p>
<p>The attacks on Ingrassia come as fresh evidence of panic emanates from the environmentalist Left. Activists seem to be realizing that they are losing the battle over this speculative phenomenon known as anthropogenic global warming.</p>
<p>To boost their sagging fortunes, desperate environmentalists are making particularly outrageous claims.</p>
<p>A new &#8220;metastudy&#8221; spoon-fed to incurious media outlets <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/0801/Global-warming-more-wars-Climate-could-spark-more-conflict-study-says">purports</a> to show a clear link between rising temperatures and violence, especially on the African continent.</p>
<p>President Obama declared war on the coal industry and its workers a few weeks ago. Ignoring the science, the Alarmist-in-Chief declared that climate change was having &#8220;profound impacts&#8221; on the planet and must be dealt with.</p>
<p>Obama called for America to take the lead in a &#8220;coordinated assault&#8221; on the perceived problem and snarled, &#8220;We don&#8217;t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Obama administration is also attempting to stifle climate change skeptics who work for the federal government.</p>
<p>Interior Secretary Sally Jewell <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/07/31/climate-change-deniers-not-welcome-at-interior-secy-jewell/">told</a> Interior Department staffers this week that fighting climate change is a “privilege” and a “moral imperative.”</p>
<p>“I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said. Labeling climate change skeptics &#8220;deniers&#8221; is a crude but oft-used smear used by global warming true believers to blacken the names of their adversaries by associating them with anti-Semitic fanatics who deny the Holocaust happened during World War Two.</p>
<p>Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute opined that &#8220;[s]uch moralizing would be funny were it not for the chilling effect it is bound to have in an agency already mired in group think.&#8221;</p>
<p>The British-born Jewell, who was packaged throughout her confirmation process earlier this year as a reasonable environmental activist, started her career as an oil industry engineer. Before taking up her post in Obama&#8217;s cabinet, she was CEO of Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI).</p>
<p>Under Ingrassia&#8217;s able leadership Reuters may even cover the Jewell story.</p>
<p>Climate change heretics at the Interior Department and elsewhere in the U.S. government would be well advised to hold their tongues &#8212; or lose their jobs.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/paul-ingrassia-vs-the-green-inquisition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Lame-Brain Oil Divestment Campaign</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/the-lame-brain-oil-divestment-campaign/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-lame-brain-oil-divestment-campaign</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/the-lame-brain-oil-divestment-campaign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 04:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Hendrickson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill McKibben]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divestment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmentalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIL]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=196960</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The disturbing growth of an up-and-coming movement leading America to ruin. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Tufts-student-activists-divestment-CC-James-Ennis2013-628x314.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-196963" alt="Tufts-student-activists-divestment-CC-James-Ennis2013-628x314" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Tufts-student-activists-divestment-CC-James-Ennis2013-628x314.jpg" width="247" height="188" /></a>Perhaps you have heard that there is a small but growing campaign calling for colleges, other institutions, and individuals to divest themselves of any investments in fossil fuel companies.</p>
<p>When I first heard of it, I thought, “How extraordinary! Surely no moderately intelligent person (which, presumably, would include college populations) could be ignorant of the indispensable role that fossil fuels have played in enabling and continue to play in sustaining modern standards of living.” But then two incidents prompted me to take a closer look at this phenomenon.</p>
<p>First, I received an email from a Vassar student, asking me to sign a petition requesting American colleges to “educate students about fossil fuels.” At Vassar, guest speakers about the benefits of fossil fuels are <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344684/whats-matter-vassar-stanley-kurtz">persona non grata</a>. Then, a dear cousin of mine, still a political activist in his 70s, forwarded an email to me, urging me to “start or join a local divestment effort.”</p>
<p>The email from my cousin contained a link to a May 17 radio interview with Bill McKibben, who hatched the fossil fuel divestment movement, so I checked it out. What I found was embarrassingly inane. Upon reflection, though, rather than simply dismissing the divestment campaign as a tiresome nuisance or the latest crackpot fad, it can be helpful to view it as an object lesson illustrating the mindset of contemporary liberalism.</p>
<p>Indeed, the fossil fuels divestment campaign is imbued with the liberal ideology of its ringleader. In the <a href="http://act.350.org/signup/This_American_Life/?akid=3192.212959.Dia3ug&amp;rd=1&amp;t=1">radio interview</a> my cousin forwarded to me, McKibben and his campaign come across as textbook, stereotypically liberal:</p>
<p>&#8212;Feigning a disarming humility, he candidly admitted that he has been trying to change other people for at least three decades. This is the essence of liberalism: a primary focus on changing others—no getting the beam out of one’s own eye before attempting to remove the mote from the eyes of others.</p>
<p>&#8212;Liberals love to flatter themselves as nobly free of parochial prejudices by taking digs at the USA. McKibben showed his anti-American bona fides by saying (wink, wink, ha ha!), “<i>Even</i> the United States signed [the UN document at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Meeting agreeing to cut future CO2 emissions]” (emphasis added). This snide aspersion is particularly uncalled for, since US emissions of CO2 have been falling, while the emissions of a number of the other signatories have continued to rise.</p>
<p>&#8212;In addition to America-bashing, a distinguishing characteristic of liberals is their habitual denunciation of society’s economic benefactors. A decent, appropriate response to fossil fuel corporations would be to respect them, and perhaps even be grateful to them, for having supplied the abundant, cheap energy that lifted us from the historical norm of mass poverty to the modern norm of widespread prosperity. Indeed, in the words of energy expert Daniel Yergin, today, “Abundant low-cost energy is stimulating a revival of manufacturing in the U.S. as well as increased American competitiveness.” Yet, in the best anti-capitalist tradition, McKibben insists on portraying oil corporations as rotten malefactors rather than benefactors. In his own words, his goal is to “turn oil and gas and coal companies into pariahs.” In short, oil disinvestment is nothing more than good old-fashioned anti-capitalism. Another generation of college students is being conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to react reflexively with loathing and disgust whenever they hear the words “oil corporation.”</p>
<p>&#8212;Like so many other liberal schemes, the fossil fuel divestment campaign manifests an irrational disregard of costs. A verbal trick I once encountered in the environmentalist movement is this: Someone dares to ask, “Can we afford what you propose?” The green replies, “We can’t afford not to.” That is a copout, an evasion of reality. In this world of finite time and wealth, we can’t have or do it all, and so we prioritize on the basis of price—that is, we economize—for in this way only can we rationally calculate how much we can afford. The ostensible purpose of this campaign is to save the world from the catastrophic global warming allegedly caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel consumption. I have addressed the politicized science and dubious assumptions of the climate change crowd multiple times (including <a href="http://www.visionandvalues.org/2009/10/cap-and-trade-update/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.visionandvalues.org/2010/01/climategate-copenhagen-and-cap-trade/">here</a>, <a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markhendrickson/2012/08/01/a_book_review_of_brian_sussmans_ecotyranny/page/full">here</a>, <a href="http://www.visionandvalues.org/2009/05/a-closer-look-at-the-ipcc/">here,</a> and <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/">here</a>). What should astound and alarm us all is that the proponents of anthropogenic global warming assert that a 50% reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions by 2050 would lessen warming by all of 0.07<sup>o</sup>C. Estimates vary about the cost of reducing our fossil fuel consumption so drastically, but I once read a UN study that put the price tag in the tens of trillions of dollars. Even by liberal standards, to pay so much for so little is breath-taking in its audacity. The oil divestment movement is essentially asking Americans to opt for a certain economic catastrophe in the near term over a hypothetical and highly uncertain economic devastation in the future.</p>
<p>&#8212;Blindness to costs is one aspect of the appalling ignorance of economics that permeates liberal reformers. Another is the apparent cluelessness about how divestment actually would affect ExxonMobil <i>et al.</i> Let’s say the campaign succeeds beyond McKibben’s wildest dreams, and American institutional investors dump their conventional energy stocks en masse. The major effect would be to knock down the price of these profitable enterprises to bargain basement levels, where opportunistic investors&#8211;the Chinese, perhaps—would gladly snap them up. Like so many liberal plans, divestment is just another hare-brained scheme that would redistribute wealth, in this case, from foolish investors to competent investors.</p>
<p>&#8212;Liberal economic ignorance continued: If the pro-divestment crowd really wanted to hurt Big Oil, they would have to find a way to slash corporate revenues and profits, not just crash the stock price. The only way to accomplish that would be to convince large numbers of people to quit using fossil fuels. How many of those jumping on the divestment bandwagon are reducing their own fossil fuel consumption in half? Don’t hold your breath. As mentioned above, liberals like to change others more than themselves. Hypocritically, they blame the producers of fossil fuel energy rather than themselves for consuming it.</p>
<p>This brings us to the bottom line of typical liberal schemes like the fossil fuel divestment campaign. It’s dishonest. McKibben doesn’t tell his recruits that the change they want depends on them accepting reductions in their standard of living. Instead, he manipulates them into believing that they are the good guys, energy companies are the bad guys, and that the only way to save the world is for the good guys to smash the bad guys. It’s all very heady stuff. Too bad it’s bunk. McKibben is a liberal pied piper who promises to lead his followers on the path to salvation—all the while taking them down the road to ruin. That destructiveness masquerading as salvation is liberalism in a nutshell.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-hendrickson/the-lame-brain-oil-divestment-campaign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Climate Change&#8217; and the &#8216;Fundamental Transformation of America&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/climate-change-and-the-fundamental-transformation-of-america/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=climate-change-and-the-fundamental-transformation-of-america</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/climate-change-and-the-fundamental-transformation-of-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 04:30:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jack Kerwick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmentalist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgetown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war on coal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=194646</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama's desperate need of a war without end. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/dnews-files-2013-06-obama-climate-plan-130625-670x440-jpg.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-194647 alignleft" alt="dnews-files-2013-06-obama-climate-plan-130625-670x440-jpg" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/dnews-files-2013-06-obama-climate-plan-130625-670x440-jpg-450x350.jpg" width="252" height="196" /></a>While speaking before an audience at Georgetown University on Tuesday, President Obama unveiled an ambitious agenda to combat “climate change.”</p>
<p>This agenda includes a “war on coal.”  Or so his opponents charge.</p>
<p>In actuality, though, the so-called “war” on coal is just a battle in the left’s war against “climate change.”</p>
<p>Everyone who hasn’t been living in a cave is aware of the fact that what is now called “climate change” was known, not all that long ago, as “global warming.”  That the latter label has largely been displaced by the former is a turn of events that sheds much light into the dark recesses of the leftist’s psyche.</p>
<p>In spite of the fact that, at least for a while, “global warming” was quite the buzzword in the popular culture, it—along with the leftists who spared no occasion to invoke it—experienced a decisive reversal of fortunes a few years back when “Climategate” came to the public’s attention.  Many distinguished scientists, it was revealed, conspired with one another to conceal that evidence which contradicted the idea of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.  Over 1,000 emails and an assortment of other documentation confirmed the doubts of skeptics who long insisted that the notion of global warming was an invaluable fiction to those who sought to annex ever greater amounts of power to the central government.</p>
<p>Of course, this wasn’t the only obstacle that “global warming”  had to surmount.  Regardless of what the experts say, the average person is much more disposed to trust his own senses than testimony that militates against it.  And the average person can see that for all of the hype over so-called global warming, in many parts of the country—and the planet—it still gets very, very cold.</p>
<p>So, global warming has had bad press <i>and </i>it is all too easily refuted by the daily experiences of millions, and maybe even billions, of people all over the globe.  Thus, the time was ripe to substitute for “global warming” a label that hadn’t yet been scandalized.  More importantly, it would have to be a label that was vague enough to defy empirical confirmation (and falsification) while <i>conforming </i>to the experiences of everyday life.</p>
<p>With the greatest of ease, “climate change” satisfies both of these conditions.</p>
<p>Yet it is precisely because “climate change” works so well in these respects that this seemingly innocuous term is the stuff of which the ideologue’s fantasy is made.</p>
<p>Obama and his ideological ilk know all too well that the “war” against “climate change” promises to be a war <i>without end.</i></p>
<p>Change is a fundamental fact of life.  There is nothing in this world that isn’t susceptible to change, nothing that isn’t in a state of <i>constant </i>flux.  The climate is no exception to this rule. Since, then, the climate will always change, the war against climate change, in principle, can continue <i>forever.</i></p>
<p>In other words, “climate change” supplies environmentalists—or, more appropriately, <i>governmentalists</i>—with the proverbial blank check, an interminably open-ended pretext for growing government indefinitely.</p>
<p>A society devoted to liberty is most in danger of undergoing just the sort of “fundamental transformation” that Obama wishes for America, it is most in danger of losing its character as a free society, when it is waging <i>war. </i>War is the emblem of all crises, and as Rahm Emmanuel infamously, but truthfully, said, “a good crisis” must never be permitted “to go to waste,” for it is in times of crisis when the government is not only allowed, but expected, to engage in activities that it wouldn’t ordinarily be able to pursue.</p>
<p>When a society is at war, the government becomes the agent par excellence of activism.  Politicians become “leaders” and citizens become servants to the war effort as their resources in time, energy, and labor are conscripted in the service of achieving “victory” over the enemy.</p>
<p>In this case, the case of the war on climate change, the enemy is intractable, for the enemy is <i>us.  </i>What’s worse is that given the amorphous concept of “change,” we have no definitive way to gauge progress, for there are <i>no </i>benchmarks, no place from which to begin and certainly no destination in sight.</p>
<p>Make no mistakes about it, Obama and his fellow travelers who ache to further consolidate the power of the national government care about “climate change” only inasmuch as it serves governmentalism, not environmentalism.  <i> </i></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/climate-change-and-the-fundamental-transformation-of-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>50</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Eco-Assault on America</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-eco-assault-on-america/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-eco-assault-on-america</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-eco-assault-on-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:50:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmentalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgetown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=194698</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the poor and middle class will suffer from Obama's sop to wealthy enviro-radicals. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/r.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-194702 alignleft" alt="Obama speaks at the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/r.jpg" width="270" height="180" /></a>On Tuesday, President Obama <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10142279/Barack-Obama-to-cut-emissions-in-vow-to-save-planet.html">announced</a> a sweeping series of initiatives, including the use of executive powers, to combat global warming. The plan will involve federal funding for renewable energy technology, and spending for areas hit by storms and droughts aggravated by an allegedly changing climate. Yet the most ambitious part of his agenda is an effort to force a reduction in so-called greenhouse gases from the nation&#8217;s coal-fired power plants. Prior to the speech, Daniel P. Schrag, a White House environmentalism adviser and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-climate-adviser-war-coal-exactly-what-s-needed_737807.html">got</a> to the nub of that agenda: &#8220;Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal,&#8221; he explained. &#8220;On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) explained the consequences of such a war. “Declaring a ‘War on Coal’ is tantamount to declaring a war on jobs,” he  said. “It’s tantamount to kicking the ladder out from beneath the feet of many Americans struggling in today’s economy.”</p>
<p>McConnell is exactly right. While the percentage has been declining, coal-fired power plants are still responsible for <a href="http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/06/24/4970925/governors-across-us-voice-opposition.html">producing</a> 40 percent of the nation&#8217;s electricity. Yet that is an overall number. Some states are far more dependent, including West Virginia, which garners 97 of its electrical needs from coal. Curtailing coal usage for generating electricity will invariably drive up the cost of purchasing electricity for households and businesses.</p>
<p>The president couldn&#8217;t care less. Like so many leftists, he has bought into the idea that <i>any</i> challenge to the global warming agenda is tantamount to heresy. &#8220;We don&#8217;t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,&#8221; Obama <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307655-obama-we-dont-have-time-for-a-meeting-of-the-flat-earth-society#ixzz2XFsQ5mgH">said.</a> &#8220;Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it&#8217;s not going to protect you from the coming storm.&#8221;</p>
<p>The so-called coming storm may take a while to get here. A report released by Spiegel science journal <a href="http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/15/scientists-baffled-as-report-proves-global-warming-has-stopped/">reveals</a> that global warming has stopped. “[Fifteen] years without warming are now behind us&#8221; writes Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski. &#8220;The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large.&#8221; Moreover, despite a <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/">report</a> in March by <i>The Economist</i> noting that the world has added &#8220;roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010,&#8221; comprising &#8220;about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750,” no global warming occurred during that time frame. In fact, some scientists are actually predicting that we may be on the verge of another Little Ice Age similar to the one that occurred from 1275 to 1300 A.D., due in large part to an unexplainable collapse in sunspot activity.</p>
<p>Which scientific camp is right? That is something the scientific community must determine, based on scientific evidence &#8212; not the political coercion that far too often accompanies government-funded studies. Yet the president has staked out his position irrespective of science. He is directing the EPA to draft rules on the allowable levels of carbon emissions by existing coal plants, rules he expects to be completed by 2015. Obama intends to reduce Americans&#8217;s greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. Under current law, the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, due to a 2007 Supreme Court decision. However, under the provisions of that Clean Air Act, the EPA <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/25/obama-will-reportedly-introduce-new-carbon-emissions-rules-in-climate-change/">cannot</a> do so on its own, but must develop standards in accordance with the states.</p>
<p>Congress is another story. As far as the president is concerned, congressional input is completely unnecessary. “This is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock,” Obama contended.</p>
<p>Ironically, partisan gridlock on this particular issue is nowhere to be found. No Congress, controlled by either party, has been able to approve <i>anything</i> resembling the kind of carbon reduction scheme being proposed by the president. That includes a cap-and-trade plan that <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/obama-executive-orders-climate-change/66568/">died</a> in 2010, when Democrats had unassailable control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.</p>
<p>House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) directly addressed that reality, and the economic one as well. “These policies, rejected even by the last Democratic-controlled Congress, will shutter power plants, destroy good-paying American jobs and raise electricity bills,” he said in a statement. Scott H. Segal, who represents utilities at the law firm Bracewell &amp; Giuliani was even more direct. “The administration needs to explain why it needs old-style, command-and-control regulation when the market is moving in that direction anyway,” he said, referring to the reality that both falling prices of natural gas and increased use of it is already moving the nation away from coal.</p>
<p>The president&#8217;s plan would dramatically alter that trajectory. According to the Heritage Foundation, the artificial shrinkage of coal supplies would drive up the cost of natural gas by as much as 42 percent by 2030. Furthermore, as Heritage’s Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow Nicolas Loris <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/24/previewing-president-obamas-climate-change-speech/">notes</a>, even measures far more radical than those proposed by the president will be of little consequence:</p>
<blockquote><p>But let’s pretend we were able to stop emitting all carbon immediately. Forget the electricity to cool our homes in the summer months. Shut down the power plants. Stop driving our cars. No talking. The Science and Public Policy Institute found that the global temperature would decrease by 0.17 degrees Celsius&#8211;by 2100. These regulations are all pain no gain.</p></blockquote>
<p>They are also completely anathema to emerging nations like India, China, and a host of other countries who aren&#8217;t about to reduce their standards of living to accommodate Obama&#8217;s pie-in-the-sky priorities.</p>
<p>Those priorities more than likely include killing the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The president insisted it can only be approved if it would not &#8220;significantly exacerbate&#8221; greenhouse gas emissions. Russell K. Girling, the chief executive of TransCanada, the company seeking a permit to build Keystone, contends the project meets the president&#8217;s proposed standard, even as he warned that substitute transpiration for Canadian oil, such as trucking or rail, poses significant environmental problems as well.</p>
<p>Even more disastrous is the president&#8217;s call for massive investment in &#8220;renewable electricity generation,&#8221; meaning large-scale wind- and solar-generated electrical facilities. Because the wind doesn&#8217;t always blow and the sun doesn&#8217;t always shine, such facilities would <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2013/06/26/obamas-climate-obsession/1">require</a> conventional backup systems. As the Energy Information Agency reveals such inefficient and costly systems only become feasible &#8220;in response to federal tax credits, state-level policies, and federal requirements to use more biomass-based transportation fuels.”  In other words, without government coercion, no one would build an electrical generating facility requiring backup &#8212; or use food food fuel &#8212; simply to assuage environmentalist sensibilities.</p>
<p>Or is that the sensibilities of the so-called one-percenters? It is truly remarkable how many wealthy individuals are dedicated environmentalists, as long as that dedication only applies to &#8220;other people.&#8221; Perhaps the ultimate personification of such overt hypocrisy is Al Gore, who has made millions promoting the cataclysmic effects of climate change, even as he rides around in private jets and limousines, maintains a 20-room home and pool house that <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888#.UcsNcesjH1w">used</a> more than 20 times the national average of electricity usage in 2006, and recently <a href="http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2013/washington-post-writer-rips-environmentalist-al-gore-for-sale-to-oil-backed-al-jazeera/">sold</a> his media network to an oil-funded company for $500 million.</p>
<p>Gore is far from alone. As a 2007 <i>Wall Street Journal</i> column by Robert Frank <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118791212669107260.html">reveals</a>, the rich long ago reconciled the disconnect between their environmentalist sensibilities and lavish lifestyles. Their purchases of &#8220;carbon offsets&#8221; ostensibly atone for the sin of living large, and frees them to pressure &#8220;lesser mortals&#8221; to embrace a more &#8220;environmentally correct&#8221; lifestyle, also known as a lower standard of living. It&#8217;s a nice racket if you can afford it. Not so nice if you are poor or middle class and the radical one-percenters expect you to make do with less or do without.</p>
<p>Whether the president himself embraces such overt hypocrisy is irrelevant. There will never be a single moment in which he or any member of his family will be forced to &#8220;walk the environmentalist walk&#8221; he would readily impose on the American public, whether they want it, or not. That would be the same American public who will bear the brunt of higher costs for virtually everything, which means higher standards of living will be even more difficult to obtain for the less (and least) well-off.</p>
<p>Americans will also bear the brunt of unintended and unforeseen consequences, best described by the <i>Washington Times&#8217;</i> Paul Driessen. He explains the EPS&#8217;s heavy-handedness will lead to &#8220;unprecedented sleep deprivation, lower economic and educational status, and soaring anxiety and stress&#8230;likely to lead to greater risk of strokes and heart attacks; higher incidences of depression, alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse; more suicides; and declining overall life expectancy.&#8221; He further notes the government&#8217;s push with regard to fuel-efficient cars &#8220;will force more people into smaller, lighter, less-safe cars&#8211;causing thousands of needless additional serious injuries and deaths every year.&#8221;</p>
<p>Driessen then illuminates the Obama administration&#8217;s modus operandi, explaining that &#8220;increasingly powerful bureaucrats&#8211;who seek and acquire ever-more control over our lives&#8211;remain faceless, nameless, unelected and unaccountable. They operate largely behind closed doors, issuing regulations and arranging sweetheart &#8216;sue-and-settle&#8217; legal actions with radical environmentalist groups to advance ideological agendas, without regard for the impacts on our lives.&#8221;</p>
<p>Tellingly, on the same day the president gave his speech, <a href="http://CNNMoney.com/">CNNMoney.com</a> <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/index.html">published</a> the results of a sobering survey conducted by <a href="http://Bankrate.com/">Bankrate.com</a>. It revealed that a whopping 76 percent of Americans are &#8220;living paycheck-to-paycheck.&#8221; Less than 25 percent of Americans have enough money saved to cover six months of expenses, 50 percent have a three month total, and 27 percent have no savings at all. &#8220;After paying debts and taking care of housing, car and child care-related expenses, the respondents said there just isn&#8217;t enough money left over for saving more,&#8221; the article reported.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s the <i>real</i> catastrophe most Americans face. Yet a president whose most recent pressing initiatives have included gun control, immigration reform and combatting global warming, not only remains willfully oblivious to that catastrophe, but bound and determined to exacerbate it.</p>
<p>In short, Obama is determined to destroy America in order to save it. Unfortunately, there is no &#8220;offset&#8221; for such unbridled hubris.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-eco-assault-on-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Environmentalism and Human Sacrifice</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/environmentalism-and-human-sacrifice/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=environmentalism-and-human-sacrifice</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/environmentalism-and-human-sacrifice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dennis Prager]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmentalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179075</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eco-fanatics cause tens of millions of Third World children to die due to their anti-human policies. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/environmentalism-and-human-sacrifice/children-pines-384x265/" rel="attachment wp-att-179078"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-179078" title="children-pines-384x265" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/children-pines-384x265.jpg" alt="" width="274" height="228" /></a>Last week, Bjorn Lomborg, the widely published Danish professor and director of one of the world&#8217;s leading environmental think tanks, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, published an article about the Philippines&#8217; decision, after 12 years, to allow genetically modified (GM) rice &#8212; &#8220;golden rice&#8221; &#8212; to be grown and consumed in that country.</p>
<p>The reason for the delay was environmentalist opposition to GM rice; and the reason for the change in Philippine policy was that 4.4 million Filipino children suffer from vitamin A deficiency. That deficiency, Lomborg writes, &#8220;according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these, half die within a year.&#8221;</p>
<p>During the 12-year delay, Lomborg continues, &#8220;About eight million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Golden rice&#8221; contains vitamin A, making it by far the most effective and cheapest way to get vitamin A into Third World children.</p>
<p>So who would oppose something that could save millions of children&#8217;s lives and millions of other children from blindness?</p>
<p>The answer is people who are more devoted to nature than to human life.</p>
<p>And who might such people be?</p>
<p>They are called environmentalists.</p>
<p>These are the people who coerced nations worldwide into banning DDT. It is generally estimated this ban has led to the deaths of about 50 million human beings, overwhelmingly African children, from malaria. DDT kills the mosquito that spreads malaria to human beings.</p>
<p>US News and World Report writer Carrie Lukas reported in 2010, &#8220;Fortunately, in September 2006, the World Health Organization announced a change in policy: It now recommends DDT for indoor use to fight malaria. The organization&#8217;s Dr. Anarfi Asamoa-Baah explained, &#8216;The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.&#8217;&#8221;</p>
<p>Though Lukas blames environmentalists for tens of millions of deaths, she nevertheless describes environmentalists as &#8220;undoubtedly well-intentioned.&#8221;</p>
<p>I offer two assessments of this judgment.</p>
<p>First, in life it is almost always irrelevant whether or not an individual or a movement is well intentioned.</p>
<p>It is difficult to name a movement that has committed great evil whose members woke up each day asking, &#8220;What evil can I commit today?&#8221; Nearly all of them think they&#8217;re well intentioned. Good intentions don&#8217;t mean a thing.</p>
<p>Second, while environmentalists believe they have good intentions, I do not believe their intentions are good.</p>
<p>Concern for the natural environment is certainly laudable and every normal person shares it. But the organized environmentalist movement &#8212; Lomborg specifically cites Greenpeace, Naomi Klein and the New York Times &#8212; is led by fanatics. The movement&#8217;s value system is morally askew. It places a pristine natural world above the well-being of human beings.</p>
<p>The environmentalist movement&#8217;s responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions of poor children in the Third World is the most egregious example. But there are less egregious examples of the movement&#8217;s lack of concern for people.</p>
<p>Take the Keystone XL pipeline, the pipeline the Canadian government wants built in the US in order to send Canadian crude to American refineries. It would be a 1,179-mile, 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline, beginning in Alberta, and ending in Nebraska. The pipeline will be able to transport about 830,000 barrels of oil per day to Gulf Coast and Midwest refineries, reducing American dependence on oil from Venezuela &#8212; Iran&#8217;s base in the Western Hemisphere &#8212; and the Middle East by up to 40 percent. It will also provide Americans with many thousands of well-paying jobs.</p>
<p>Approving this pipeline is a moral and economic necessity.</p>
<p>The American economy needs the pipeline &#8212; even big labor wants it; it vastly reduces American dependency on countries that wish to hurt us; it helps our ally and biggest trading partner, Canada; and if America doesn&#8217;t use that oil, China will.</p>
<p>But the Obama administration may (again) veto the Keystone XL pipeline &#8212; for one reason: environmentalist fanaticism.</p>
<p>The employment of thousands of Americans, the well-being of the American economy and American national security &#8211; all of these concerns are secondary to the environmentalist movement&#8217;s view of nature uber alles.</p>
<p>There are many fine people who are concerned with the environment. Indeed, we should all be. But the movement known as environmentalism is not only a false religion, it is one that allows human sacrifice.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dennis-prager/environmentalism-and-human-sacrifice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1482/1637 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 12:12:38 by W3 Total Cache -->