Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome a Politico report showing that even if liberals soaked “the rich” they wouldn’t come anywhere close to paying for single-payer health care or the Green New Deal. They also shake their heads as testimony from former FBI attorney Lisa Page suggests the FBI was considering whether to recommend a federal charge against Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified emails but the Justice Department made it clear it had no intention of pursuing the case. And Jim offers his hilarious assessment of climate change activists refusing to have children until the world gets serious about climate change.
The climate debate is intensifying again as Democrats try to build support for the Green New Deal while opponents push back on efforts to overhaul the U.S. economy.
Behind the urgency for the green new deal is a government report showing a climate tipping point around 2030 unless drastic action is taken. Behind that report is a mountain of climate data, much of which is compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, otherwise known as NOAA.
But some scientists are wary of the ominous climate forecasts since they never seem to come true. But they’re also blowing the whistle on the data behind those projections.
“The models simply are wrong every single time, so what they keep doing is adjusting the data they put into the model to try and approximate what’s actually happening,” said Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. He is also author of “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.”
And how is this done?
“What they do is they lower the historic readings. In other words, they go back and say, ‘Well, these readings were not taken with good instruments at bad sites and so on. So we have to adjust them. Every single adjustment they make is to lower the temperatures from years ago.
“It then makes the apparent increase in temperature much greater than it actually is. So this is the kind of corruption that’s going on,” said Ball.
Ball says these temperatures are not done surreptitiously but out in the open with the explanation that scientists are simply revising data, much like the government revises economic reports when additional information comes in.
“That’s what they’re saying but the changes they’re making are not justified. They’re done to simply make sure that their forecasts are correct. That’s a different thing,” said Ball.
Even with the allegedly manipulated data, Ball says the United Nations-sponsored scientists still can’t make their forecasts come true. In fact, he says scientists cannot even agree on global temperatures in a given year, differing by as much as a half-degree Celsius.
“If you’ve got a difference between two different agencies of half a degree Celsius just on one year’s data, it illustrates how laughable the data is and how they’re producing it,” said Ball.
“I mean this is a total farce in terms of claiming any degree of accuracy or knowing what they’re doing. I don’t know of any job in the world where you can be so wrong so often, and still keep your job,” said Ball.
Listen to the full podcast to hear Ball further explain the cherry picking of data and why he believes we’re heading deeper and deeper into a cooling pattern that will further confound efforts to convince the world that global temperatures are soaring out of control.
Earlier this week, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, issued a dire warning, arguing that unless world leaders take sweeping action to drastically reduce carbon emissions, our planet could be irreparably changed within a dozen years.
The IPCC report says the planet is on pace to warm by 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030. That figure chronicles warming of the Earth since the pre-industrial era. The solution, according to the IPCC, is for the world to spend $2.5 trillion in capturing and reducing carbon emissions and eliminating them worldwide by 2050.
Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville and says the new report is basically alarmism wrapped in bad science.
“There’s just so many things that are wrong with this report,” said Spencer. “It’s basically fear-mongering.”
“The less people listen to the IPCC, it seems like the louder they have to scream, because this report is even more alarmist than previous reports,” added Spencer. “The science doesn’t support the idea that we are even going to warm by that much, let alone that we could prevent that warming from occuring.”
Spencer believes the planet is getting warmer and that human activity contributes to it, but he says the IPCC greatly exaggerates how much warmer the Earth is getting, arbitrarily declares critical benchmarks like a 1.5 degree increase to be hugely significant, and, most significantly, assumes that any warming is due entirely to human activity.
He estimates that the warming is about half of what the IPCC says it is and that even if the planet were 1.5 or two degrees warmer than a century ago, we should not have much problem adapting. Spencer says higher carbon dioxide levels have brought about good things like a greening of the Earth, and that so far he doesn’t see any downsides.
The IPCC counters by saying natural disasters like flooding, hurricanes, droughts, and forest fires, are all getting worse because of the warming. Spencer says the facts don’t back that up at all.
“I hate to say it, but I think they are just making things up. Just because something bad happened, like wildfires in Northern California, that doesn’t prove anything. Globally, wildfires are down substantially. Wildfires in the western U.S. are down substantially,” said Spencer, noting that there’s no discernible change in hurricane activity either.
But Spencer is most concerned by the impact of the “solution” pushed by the IPCC and others to prevent the warming from going 1.5 degrees Celsius to two degrees.
“The cost of preventing half a degree C of warming…would require such a huge cutback in fossil fuel use that it would greatly exacerbate poverty around the world. Already, tens of thousands of people are dying from energy poverty during the winter and that’s going to get massively worse.
“What the IPCC wants to do and what the United Nations wants to do is tax carbon-based fuels – coal, natural gas, petroleum – at such a large extent that we will only have access to very expensive fuel sources, wind and solar, which are still quite a bit more expensive than carbon based fuels.
“Every single thing humans do requires energy. It’s going to make all of humanity poorer and poverty kills,” said Spencer.
Listen to the full podcast to hear more of Dr. Spencer’s scientific rebuttal to the IPCC, his contention that what the UN wants to do is not even possible and how he responds to those who say the human impact in climate change is settled science.
Every destructive weather event is not caused by climate change, there is no scientific consensus that human activity is endangering the planet, and there’s no proof the carbon dioxide is actually bad for us.
Those are among the iconoclastic conclusions reached by ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano in his new book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”
The first target for Morano is the environmental movement changing the terminology from global warming to climate change. Because of that, climate change activists can now chalk up every severe weather event to humans damaging the planet.
“What they try to do is switch it over to extreme weather. In other words, every drought, flood, hurricane, tornado, and yes blizzard, is now the result of global warming and what they expected. That was one of the shifts in the name of climate change because then they could cover anything and everything,” said Morano.
But the blame doesn’t stop at weather developments. He says the climate change movement sees the impact everywhere.
“An increase in prostitution? That’s global warming. Vehicle thefts going up? That’s global warming. Bar room brawls? That’s global warming. Bad coffee crop? That’s global warming. That’s climate change. Everything’s shifted over to the name climate change and they blame everything on it,” said Morano.
By 2018, many of the dire climate predictions of flooded coasts and other calamities were predicted to come true. So how do those scientists explain those erroneous projections?
“They have opposite predictions. If you bet for both teams to win the Super Bowl, you’re going to be a winner no matter what. They’ve done that. They can go back on snow in particular. Global warming will cause less snow. That’s what the United Nations said, that’s what the United Nations scientists said. That’s what was in all these studies.
“But they had a few studies that said global warming will cause an increase in snow. So they predicted global warming will cause more snow and less snow. now they can come out and say they predicted it. They predicted global warming will cause fewer lightning strikes and more lightning strikes. Now, not matter what happens, they predicted it – more malaria and less malaria, more hurricanes and fewer hurricanes,” said Morano.
But how can a “consensus” of 97 percent of climate scientists be wrong?
Easy, says Morano. That number is made up and there is nowhere near that kind of consensus.
“One study claiming 97 percent of scientists wasn’t even 97 scientists. It wasn’t even 87 scientists. It was 77 scientists and we don’t even know who these 77 anonymous scientists are. We don’t know their university affiliation. We don’t know their expertise.
“They got a survey that started with tens of thousands and they whittled it down. They tortured the data until they got what they wanted,” said Morano.
And Morano stresses the reason for all this sleight of hand is not to be missed.
“In the words of the United Nations climate chief, whom I interviewed for the book, she actually says, ‘We want a centralized transformation that will make life on planet earth very different in order to fight global warming,” said Morano.
He says this is nothing new.
“I go back to the 1970’s and I show that different environmental scares had the same solutions: wealth redistribution, central planning, and global governance. These are the exact phrases they’ve been using for 40 years trying to promote the solution to the crisis. Global warming is just the most recent crisis,” said Morano.
Morano interviewed former Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, an ardent opponent of the climate change movement because it reminds him of what he saw for decades behind the Iron Curtain.
“He said, ‘Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, the greatest threat since the fall is ambitious environmentalism from the climate agenda.’ He considers them the greatest threat to liberty, this whole climate agenda. And this is a man who grew up under that agenda,” said Morano.
Morano is fully confident the truth is on his side in this debate, but he is unsure whether his side will win the debate given the United Nations, most world leaders, Hollywood, the media, and liberal politicians all insisting the science is settled and action must be taken.
He is especially concerned about how early schools are targeting young kids with this message.
“This is absolute brainwashing of children. They are taught from a very young age that there is no dissent on this issue. Not only is there no dissent but no dissent is allowed. You are going to be called an idiot. You are going to be disenfranchised. You will have no career unless you toe the line. This is very far from science.
“One scientist I interviewed was actually called a heretic after she reversed her view and became a skeptic. Those are not the words of science. Those are the words of religion,” said Morano.
Morano says he wrote the book to give kids and parents a way to push back.
“The book is an entertaining, humorous book first and foremost. Make no mistake about it, this is not a boring textbook. This is for parents and for anyone in the public who wants to debate and parents who want ammunition as their kids get indoctrinated,” said Morano.
He applauds President Trump for setting the U.S. on the path to withdrawing from the Paris climate deal and for rolling back a number of government regulations from water rules to emissions standards on coal-fired power plants. Still, Morano urges Trump to find a science czar to push back on the science as well as the damage such rules could do to the economy.
Morano also says the environmental movement will never stop.
“They are all in on this. They are going to keep pushing and they have an agenda. And if global warming were to fade, they would replace it with another environmental scare at some point, with the same solutions,” said Morano.
A judge in British Columbia dismissed all charges against climate change skeptic Dr. Tim Ball, in what Ball calls a major win for free speech in an era where the effort to stifle politically incorrect opinions is “endemic.”
On Tuesday, Judge Ronald Skolrood dismissed the charges aimed at Ball by Canadian climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who is also leader of the Green Party in British Columbia and has a long affiliation with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Why was Weaver targeting Ball in court?
“The article (Ball authored) on Weaver was saying that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had so directed the focus of climate research and all of the funding by the way – we’re talking billions of American dollars towards CO2 and human-caused climate change. So for 30 years, there’s been no real advancement in our understanding of climate,” said Ball, a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg and the author of numerous books on climate science.
The trouble started soon after that article ran.
“The mistake I made was that after an interview with Weaver, I made some comments that I didn’t fully substantiate. And that’s what triggered the lawsuit,” said Ball.
“As soon as I got the lawsuit, I sent him a letter of apology for those unsubstantiated comments. That wasn’t enough for him to drop the lawsuit. He took it all the way,” added Ball.
Ball says Weaver relishes portraying himself as a victim.
“To give you a measure of what we’re dealing with, he posted that apology letter of mine on a wall in his academic office that is labeled the ‘Wall of Hate,'” said Ball.
“He’s labeled it that because he shows it to students to say, ‘Look, here’s all the people that hate me and this is what I have to go through to defend you and defend the planet from these climate change deniers,” said Ball.
Ball says his fierce participation in the climate debate is about science, not politics or hate.
“It’s laughable. I don’t hate him . What I dislike is the fact he’s using climate science for a political agenda,” added Ball.
“The judge heard all of that, heard about the ‘Wall of Fate,’ and came forward with his judgment of total dismissal of Weaver’s claims. By the way, when we got to the courtroom, (Weaver) didn’t present a single witness,” said Ball.
Ball still faces charges in a lawsuit filed by Dr. Michael Mann, the originator of the the hockey stick explanation of allegedly rising global temperatures. Ball gave a talk in Manitoba that was highly critical of the hockey stick theory and the legal papers came flying.
“Within 12 hours, a lawsuit was filed on Michael Mann’s behalf. Here’s an American living in Pennsylvania filing a lawsuit in in British Columbia for an event that occurred in Winnipeg, Manitoba. This is what they call jurisdictional shopping. It’s a measure to me of the extent to which they’re using the law to silence people,” said Ball.
Ball is being sued under what are known as SLAPP laws, which stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and have been used to chill political speech. Eight of ten Canadian provinces have anti-SLAPP laws, but British Columbia recently rescinded it’s anti-SLAPP provisions, allowing the suit to proceed there.
Ball says Americans and Canadians need to fight back against this assault on speech rights.
“The use of the law to silence people is becoming endemic,” he said, noting that lawsuits are often aimed at media outlets who publish material critical of the climate change movement.
“When you start to lose an argument, you start to attack the individual. That’s what these lawsuits are, they’re silencing the individual. But they have a residual effect. People have said to me, ‘We wouldn’t go through what you’re going through, so we’re going to keep our mouths shut,” said Ball.
He says he hears some version of that fear on a regular basis.
“I’ve had scientists say to me, ‘We agree with you but we won’t say anything because we’ll lose our jobs,” said Ball. “Scientists have said to me, ‘Look, we’re Democrats or socialists . Even though we agree with you, we’re not going to say that because immediately we’ll be cast as right wing conservatives,'” said Ball.
When asked if this legal and financial road of hardship has been worth it, Ball says it’s complicated.
“It really doesn’t matter now. I’m in this and I’m not going to quit. I’m going to move forward with it. Truth be known, if I knew what I was going to go through, I probably wouldn’t have done it again,” said Ball.
“But of course, as Edmund Burke famously said that evil triumph when good people stand idly by,” said Ball.
After insisting for more than three decades that human activity was driving the earth’s temperatures to dangerous levels, climate scientists and activists now contend that same activity is keeping us artificially cool and that cleaning up our atmosphere will leave us feeling the heat.
On January 22, an online article for Scientific American makes the claim that certain parts of the pollution created by human behavior are actually preventing us from feeling the impact of the other emissions we spew into the air.
“Pollution in the atmosphere is having an unexpected consequence, scientists say—it’s helping to cool the climate, masking some of the global warming that’s occurred so far. That means efforts worldwide to clean up the air may cause an increase in warming, as well as other climate effects, as this pollution disappears,” wrote Chelsea Harvey for the Scientific American story.
“New research is helping to quantify just how big that effect might be. A study published this month in the journal “Geophysical Research Letters” suggests that eliminating the human emission of aerosols—tiny, air-polluting particles often released by industrial activities—could result in additional global warming of anywhere from half a degree to 1 degree Celsius,” added Harvey.
So after years of telling people their activity is responsible for the climate we experience, climate activists are now claiming our behavior is responsible for not feeling what we’ve supposedly caused? Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher C. Horner is not buying it.
“To put it gently, it is a more recent, if recycled, way of trying to explain how their lurid climate projections have not come to pass,” said Horner, who also served on President-Elect Trump’s landing team at the Environmental Protection Agency during the transition.
“They’re now saying, ‘My models, which I said were OK, on which we were supposed to base economic policy…were actually wrong.’ That’s what they’re saying here. They’re just saying, ‘My models are wrong and this is my excuse,'” said Horner.
He says the climate change movement is scrambling to explain dire predictions that simply have not materialized.
“All of the claimed warming has failed to arrive. There seems to have been a several-decade plateau, Yes, we have El Niño and La Niña Years, but the projected warming hasn’t occurred,” said Horner.
Horner says these supposed experts are flailing and now claim any weather event is directly related to human activity throwing the planet’s climate off course.
“In just 2014, the New York Times wrote ‘The End of Snow.’ They do this every mild winter. Then severe winter returns with a vengeance and a great sense of humor and they write ‘More Snow in A Warming World, the Science is Clear.’ That’s an actual headline, just a year after writing ‘No Snow in A Warming World, the Science is Settled,'” said Horner.
And he says it’s not just an issue when winters vary in severity, noting the same response happens with natural disasters. Horner says former Vice President Al Gore responded to the devastating hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005 by proclaiming that the climate problems he warned us about had arrived and the destruction we saw was the new normal.
For more than a decade after that, no major hurricanes made landfall in the U.S..
“So the lack of hurricanes was somehow attributable to catastrophic man-made global warming. ‘Which time are you lying?’ I suppose is the question. The increase in storms, the absence of storms, is it everything? Even when it’s just right, Goldilocks, is that because of your faith in catastrophic man-made global warming?” asked Horner.
And he says faith is exactly the right term to use for the climate change movement insisting every climate shift and weather event proves their point when none of their projections come true.
“It’s a non-disprovable hypothesis, which means it’s a faith. Their religion requires them to reach for whatever happens outside the window,” said Horner.
“Nothing they’ve ever proposed would detectably impact the climate. This is something I come back to every time because the rest is just this increasingly bizarre sideshow,” said Horner.
Horner says environmental activists and academics routinely tie themselves in knots on these issues, including President Obama’s last EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy.
“(She) testified that there would be no impact on the world’s temperatures from her rules. Then after Boston’s most severe winter two years ago, she said, ‘This most severe winter is because of carbon dioxide. If you let these EPA rules stand we won’t have these storms anymore,'” said Horner.
He says the polar bear scare turned out to be another dud.
“As a famous EPA memo I found said, ‘Make it about children struggling to breathe. That’s what people care about because the polar bear stories aren’t persuading people,'” said Horner.
“As you know, polar bear populations plummeted from somewhere below 5,000 to nearly 30,000, so that one had to go,” laughed Horner.
But what about this new claim that human activity is creating greater aerosol levels that mask the true damage to our climate?
“What we’re now hearing is, ‘The reason it’s not as warm as we promised is because of aerosol pollution.’ It’s something of a paradox for them because which is it that you want to address?” said Horner, who believes this is yet another effort to control the narrative and advance political goals.
“Do you want cleaner air? That’s not what global warming is about by the way. Global warming is about controlling the reliable, affordable, abundant energy sources,” said Horner, noting that the certainty of the scientists masks just how much they want to change our lives.
“You cannot impact the world’s temperature. Their models agree on that. You’re talking about 1900 levels (in the amount of emissions prescribed). The old PBS show about the house on the prairie, not ‘Little House on the Prairie’ but ‘Prairie Living,’ that’s what you’re talking about. You know, the good old days of drudgery, disease, and infant mortality. What a throwback,” said Horner.
Less than a decade after predicting climate change would lead to winters without snow, former Vice President Al Gore and other climate change activists say the recent cold snap is another clear sign of a “climate crisis” and media refuse to point out the contradictions.
Colder than normal temperatures hung around the Midwest and Northeast for weeks, exacerbated by stiff winds and even a bombogenesis of “bomb cyclone” along the east coast last week. However, for Gore and his allies, the stretch of frigid temperatures serves as further confirmation of the impact human activity is having on our world.
“It’s bitter cold in parts of the US, but climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis,” Gore tweeted.
However, researchers at Climate Depot point out that as recently as the year 2000, scientists had a far different expectation from climate change – then referred to as global warming. That year the UK Independent declared “snow is starting to disappear from our lives” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr. Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, says Gore is scrambling now that his forecasts have proven wrong.
“In his 2006 documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ Al Gore said absolutely nothing about rising temperatures leading to colder winters,” said Cohen.
Cohen asserts that the the liberal narrative had to change once global temperatures failed to keep rising last decade. He says there are too many political and financial investments for the activists to turn back now.
“Because they were still interested in scaring us to death so that we would undertake steps to regulate ourselves and to mandate the use of renewable energy and to take other steps we otherwise wouldn’t do, they had to slap a new label on all of this. So out went ‘global warming’ and in came ‘climate change,'” said Cohen.
And with the new terminology came greater flexibility for climate change activists to steer reality to their narrative.
“Regardless of what happens – a tornado in Oklahoma, a hurricane that slams into Texas or Florida, a typhoon that churns up the Pacific or whatever – they are covered. ‘Aha, this is further proof of climate change,’ when in fact it’s proof of absolutely nothing other than the climate doing what the climate has always done,” said Cohen.
Now that the narrative is shifting, are the news media highlighting the very different statements from Gore and others over the years or simply giving them a platform for their latest contentions?
“They adopted this ‘extreme weather event’ explanation. We are somehow supposed to believe that we are experiencing extreme weather conditions that we have never experienced before.
“They are, in effect, giving cover to Gore and giving cover to the whole agenda. Of course, these people are every bit as ignorant of our climatological past, including our recent climatological past, as is Mr. Gore,” said Cohen.
And Cohen says the media, just like Gore, will keep the narrative going regardless of the evidence.
“You can count on all of these people still beating the drums of what is now called climate change simply because I think the mainstream media is too invested in this to admit that it has been taken to the cleaners by climate alarmists, who have an agenda which I assure you has nothing to do with the climate,” said Cohen.
“I don’t expect these people to undergo any change in their course whatsoever,” he added.
So what did happen during the cold snap?
“It’s evidence that it’s winter. This is something that we’ve all seen before. This was a combination of two things occurring simultaneously. One was a typical Nor’easter, that is a storm that made its way up the Atlantic coast.
“This one coincided with extremely cold weather which originated over land, namely Siberia, made its way on prevailing winds to North America and eventually to the Midwest, the Northeast, and even the Southeast as far south as North Florida,” said Cohen.
Cohen says history has recorded plenty of these storms, most notably the blizzard of 1888, which left snow drifts 50 feet high in New York City.
“Whatever may have been behind the storm of 1888 and similar storms which have occurred, I can tell you one thing that did not cause them: man-made emissions of greenhouse gases through the burning of the burning of fossil fuels, which is supposed to be behind all of this,” said Cohen.
An Obama-era plan to drastically reduce carbon emissions is on its way to the regulatory scrap heap after the Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday announced a repeal of the Clean Power Plan.
For Americans already struggling with much higher energy costs, this news will be welcome in many households trying to make ends meet.
“This was designed to cause electricity rates, according to [Obama] to necessarily skyrocket. So that won’t happen. The seniors, the poor on low and fixed income who had to choose between heating and eating will now, we hope, not have to,” said Horner.
The Trump administration projects this move will result in $33 billion in avoided costs due to the proposed policy. Horner suspects the actual number is much higher.
Even though the plan was never implemented, Horner says it still exacted a heavy toll on blue collar America.
“He put a lot of people out of work. A lot of communities were devastated. There’s an inescapable connection between the opioid epidemic in that region and the devastation that was wrought by what was clearly a political and not an environmental agenda,” said Horner.
“He thought he was punishing corporations. He harmed badly many communities and the people in them,” added Horner.
Horner says the outlook is getting brighter and will be helped by Tuesday’s EPA action. But he says a lot of the damage is permanent.
“Employment in that industry is rebounding. I don’t know that it will ever get to where it was before it faces the awesome power of the federal government,” said Horner.
What makes the toll even more tragic, according to Horner, is that the Obama administration freely admitted the crackdown on carbon emissions wouldn’t actually accomplish anything.
“The former EPA administrator under President Obama (Gina McCarthy), who is decrying the climate impact of this decision, testified that there was no detectable climate impact from this rule. There is actually a consensus on this,” said Horner.
So what was the point of the tougher emissions standards if they weren’t going to improve our climate? Horner says Obama was very clear about it.
“He said in four speeches, in the exact same deliberate phrase, ‘This to finally make renewable energy profitable in America. That’s what this was about. It was never about the climate,” said Horner.
But while Horner and his allies celebrate Tuesday’s decision, he says the fight is far from over.
“We will start a rule making process. Today begins the repeal, a 60-day comment period to be followed by another request for comments about what to replace it with if anything,” said Horner, who is urging Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to scrap another Obama-era finding.
“They also made a declaration that carbon dioxide, a marginal greenhouse gas produced at the margins by man – not just through exhaling but by combusting hydrocarbon energy, the stuff that works, the reliable, affordable, abundant stuff. The administration now has to determine whether that really does endanger human health and welfare,” said Horner.
In urging the EPA to go further, Horner also applauds Trump and Pruitt for a move on Tuesday that he believes many other Republicans would be reluctant to take.
“We say pull it out root and branch. This is a very good start. I have to say most establishment Republicans would have shied from it and hoped for the best from the courts. We’re asking, now that these people have shown that they’re serious, fix the problem and undo the endangerment finding,” said Horner.
He says that explicit step is critical since domestic activists and even the United Nations are asking the courts in the U.S. to effectively make policy instead of the executive branch.
“You will have to replace it because this doesn’t have to go through Congress anymore. There’s enough on the books that the courts will take this over. The UN is issuing reports calling on attorneys general and private parties to ask the courts to take over this policy now, including the United States, to impose the Paris Treaty on us and so forth,” said Horner.
He says defenders of freedom need to stand in the gap against that unconstitutional effort and any future efforts to repeat Obama’s moves.
“It was a cruel gesture. It was virtue signaling. Thank God the EPA has said, ‘We’re going to formally repeal this rule.’ Let’s fix the problem and make it more difficult for someone like a President Warren to just come in and do this again,” he said.
Within the dramatic coverage of Hurricane Harvey and the historic flooding that ensued, the mainstream media repeatedly assert that climate changes triggered by human activity are responsible for the amount of devastation seen along the Texas coast, but a leading critic of the climate change movement says science tells a very different story – that cooling is playing a key role.
Since Friday, record amounts of rainfall have inundated the Houston area, flooding countless homes and roads, and forcing thousands of rescues of stranded residents by emergency responders and area residents.
But as the media share the dramatic stories of rescue and loss, they are also suggesting human activity played a role in the severity of this storm.
“What is the role of man-made climate change in disasters like this one?” asked CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
CNN political contributor Ron Brownstein was even more assertive.
“There is no doubt that climate change, particularly because of the warming of the ocean waters and the gulf waters, makes storms like this more common,” said Brownstein.
CNN anchor John Berman presented climate change as a reason when speaking with former National Hurricane Center Director Bill Read.
“One of the thing we’ve from scientists over the last ten years is that climate change does impact the intensity of many of the storms that we see,” said Berman.
Read did not agree.
“I probably wouldn’t attribute what we’re looking at here. This is not an uncommon occurrence,” said Read.
So did human activity play a role in the misery being inflicted upon Texas?
“Man-made climate change is not occurring. There’s no evidence for that whatsoever, and climate changes all the time naturally,” said Dr. Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg and the author of “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.”
He says partisans are cherry-picking information to advance a narrative.
“They’re taking things out of context. You’re looking at one event. When you look at the long-term history of hurricanes and severe weather events, this is well within the normal variability and nothing unusual at all,” said Ball, who posits that government agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is using Harvey to further a political point.
“NOAA especially, and the media amplifying it, are doing everything to hype these things because they want to push this whole human-caused global warming agenda,” said Ball.
Even worse, Ball says anyone with the temerity to dispute the government and media line is targeted for ridicule and humiliation.
“To try and get to the truth and to calm things down is almost impossible. If you dare to even question any of this, it’s ‘Oh, you don’t care about the people that are drowning or the loss of life and so on. How dare you say that?’ This is what’s going on. you’re immediately bullied into silence if you dare to try to bring some semblance of reason and evidence and facts to the issue,” said Ball.
So why have we seen record rainfall topping more than 50 inches of rain in Texas and why did the storm just linger on the coast for days? Ball says it’s actually just the opposite of what the climate change activists would have people believe.
“The reason it parked itself day after day is because the world is cooling down and the cold air is pushing down from the north. If you look at the weather maps, you’ll see that there were two high pressure ridges to the northwest of where the hurricane would normally go inland and they were preventing it from moving inland. So it’s actually global cooling that’s causing the problem,” said Ball.
He says tropical storms and hurricanes typically lose steam very quickly once they hit land but Harvey stopped at the worst possible place.
“With Harvey, that’s not fully happening. Half of it is over the land and half is over the water, so it’s continuing to pick up some of the moisture and that’s feeding the steady rainfalls that are associated with it,” said Ball.
While Harvey’s rainfall totals are the worst on record, Ball says that’s no reason to jump to conclusions about human activity playing a role.
“Has this happened before? Of course. It’s just that it hasn’t happened as far as I know in the modern record of hurricane events. To understand the meteorology of it and to say that this would have occurred in the past is perfectly reasonable,” said Ball.
However, experts who agree that humans do play a role in the changing climate say the volatility and severity of events such as Harvey are proof of their conclusions. Ball says it’s just the opposite.
“The increased variability of weather, that is what you get when the world starts to cool down. The cold air starts pushing farther south, That’s what’s caused the problems with Harvey, and what it does is amplify the variability of the weather and the climate and that’s what we’re seeing happening,” said Ball.
Ball says the cooling planet is just the latest failure of most climate scientists to predict what will happen.
“The fact that all the predictions of temperature that have been made since 1990 have been wrong. If your forecasts are wrong, your science is wrong,” said Ball.
Ball points to a new British study suggesting 2016 is the warmest year on record as an attempt to keep the political narrative in place in spite of the science.
“They cooked the data to show this. There is a warm patch down in the southeast of England right now, but the rest of England is below normal temperatures. So it’s this cherry-picking of data and selectivity of data to push the agenda you’ve sold to the public,” said Ball.
He says the politicians pushing the climate change agenda are too far down the road to turn around now.
“As a bureaucrat, you don’t want to come out and say to the politicians who put their political lives on the line with this, ‘Hey, what I told you was wrong.’ That ain’t going to happen. This is the difficulty. When you get it in a bureaucracy, it takes on a life of its own,” said Ball.
Ball says the cooler the earth gets in the coming years, the more the public will see the truth in the climate debate.
“There will be a continued attempt to keep it going but the evidence for cooling will continue to grow. Gradually, people will start to realize that they’ve been fooled by it,” said Ball.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are aghast as the threat to life along the Texas coast gets more dire but they are amazed at the tireless efforts by exhausted heroes to save thousands and thousands of lives. They also disgusted, but not surprised, as North Korea fired a missile over Japan in one of the most provocative acts in years. And they sigh as the mainstream media leap to the conclusion that man-caused climate change is responsible for the extent of the devastation in Texas.
Also a note to our listeners, Three Martini Lunch will spend next week on vacation before resuming on Monday, September 11. We will have episodes for the rest of this week.