Thursday, October 06, 2016

An insight into the intellectual quality of Warmist believers

Marc Morano received the following barely literate email:

Although it is my belief that you and your children should be burned in public. Not be cause you are " a skeptic", I honestly believe that you know the science is true, but because you are to cowardly to engage in a real dialog. Since I already know your a coward, I expect this to be declined. I challenge you to debate me on climate change an average citizen with no connection to anyone. The last time I dealt with a door to door salesman, which is really all you'll ever be, I sent away with his tale between his legs. If you don't want to debate then let's meet man to man and I'll rip that stupid smile off your face. Again I know your cowardice runs deep, I am sure it runs in your family, so I know you won't accept.


A question that I know you can answer. Ho long is Limbaugh's cock since you have had it your mouth so many times ?

The sender appears to be Douglas Trolian [].  He appears to live at Oakhurst, New Jersey.  The email is clearly threatening so is probably a crime under both State and Federal law.  Morano has been advised to report the threat to the police

UPDATE:  Mr Trolian certainly is a lively lad.  I have now had two aggressive emails and one aggressive phone call from him. He definitely has an anger problem.  I predict that he will end up in jail or die of a heart attack in the not too distant future

Judging Obama's Clean Power Grab

The DC Circuit Court hears oral arguments on the regulatory climate agenda

After the U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) on Feb. 9, pending judicial review, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has begun hearings to resolve the issue. The CPP is the Obama administration’s next step to impose severe restrictions on burning fossil fuels to save the world from supposed climate change from carbon emissions. The agenda is control.

Barack Obama’s EPA explains the regulation this way: “On August 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean Power Plan — a historic and important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that takes real action on climate change. Shaped by years of unprecedented outreach and public engagement, the final Clean Power Plan is fair, flexible and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy. With strong but achievable standards for power plants, and customized goals for states to cut the carbon pollution that is driving climate change, the Clean Power Plan provides national consistency, accountability and a level playing field while reflecting each state’s energy mix. It also shows the world that the United States is committed to leading global efforts to address climate change.”

That garbage notwithstanding, 27 states and a group of private companies and trade associations challenged the CPP on grounds that it’s exceedingly costly executive overreach. The regulation seeks to cut carbon dioxide emissions in the energy industry by over 30% and to effectively nationalize the country’s electric power grid. The regulation, which runs 1,500 pages, gives the federal government authority over how states use their natural resources.

There are significant problems with the CPP. For starters, it’s another example of what is effectively the executive branch making law, a function plainly reserved for the legislative branch by the U.S. Constitution. However, Congress frequently abdicates this responsibility, and effectively and unconstitutionally transfers it to the executive branch. The CPP also breaches the Tenth Amendment protections of the states against improper encroachment by the federal government, and it was this aspect of the CPP that prompted the Supreme Court to call a timeout.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, challenging the CPP on Tenth Amendment grounds (State of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency), said after the court session that the way EPA set its goals is key to the case. The Daily Signal notes that “the Clean Power Plan seeks to reverse what may be natural climate fluctuation at the cost of creating power blackouts, higher energy costs, job losses in the energy sector, and price spikes throughout the nation’s economy, including for necessities such as food and water.”

The Heritage Foundation predicts the following effects of the CPP:

An average annual employment shortfall of nearly 300,000 jobs;

A peak employment shortfall of more than one million jobs;

A loss of more than $2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted) in aggregate GDP; and

A total income loss of more than $7,000 (inflation-adjusted) per person.

And for what great and noble end would the EPA impose this misery on the nation?

Heritage cites climatologists Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, who used the “Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change” developed with support from the EPA, and estimate that the climate regulations will reduce warming by a meager 0.018 degree Celsius by 2100.

Oral arguments began last Wednesday, and Scientific American magazine reports that both sides in the case thought the EPA arguments had the edge in the nearly seven-hour court session that involved 10 of the Circuit’s 11 judges, rather than just the normal three-judge panel. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland recused himself from the proceedings.

“The most contentious questions focused on a big issue: how the regulation set state-specific carbon levels for power plants,” the magazine noted. “Rather than looking at what individual coal plants could do to limit greenhouse gas emissions, EPA assumed the industry as a whole could accelerate a trend away from coal and toward cleaner natural gas and renewable power.”

The EPA’s arguments predictably did not sit well with the CPP’s challengers. Lawyers representing the 27 states and the private companies allied with them “argued that EPA overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act, moving into Congress' turf and violating a separation of powers.”

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee, said that while curbing greenhouse gas emissions is a “laudable” goal, “global warming isn’t a blank check” for the administration. “I understand the frustration with Congress,” he said, but the rule is “fundamentally transforming an industry.” The executive branch does not have that authority.

The outcome is definitely uncertain, with judges expressing both support and opposition to the CPP. A decision from the DC Circuit might not come until early next year, and the Supreme Court’s final action might be delayed until 2018.

The administration’s manic, emotional and weak theory about carbon emissions threatening life as we know it brought forth a question from authors Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White in their excellent new book, “Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy” — “How can carbon be a weapon of mass destruction and the basis of all known life” at the same time?


DiCaprio: ‘If You Do Not Believe in Climate Change, You…Should Not be Allowed to Hold Public Office’

And know-nothing actors should not be allowed to speak on politics

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio said at the White House yesterday--at President Barack Obama's "South by South Lawn" festival of "Ideas, Art and Action"--that if you do not believe in climate change you “should not be allowed to hold public office.”

DiCaprio made the statement while introducing President Obama at the event, where they discussed a new "climate change" documentary DiCaprio made with filmmaker Fisher Stevens. The documentary, entitled “Before the Flood," premiered at the White House event and will be featured on the National Geographic Channel.

“If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts or in science, or empirical truths, and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office,” DiCaprio said while introducing the president.

DiCaprio said his documentary was designed to be released before the election.

“This film was developed to show the devastating impacts that climate change is having on our planet, and more importantly, what can be done,” DiCaprio said. “Our intention for the film was to be released before this upcoming election.”

"The film follows DiCaprio as he travels to five continents and the Arctic speaking to scientists, world leaders, activists and local residents to gain a deeper understanding of this complex issue and investigate concrete solutions to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time," says a synpsis of the documentary posted by the National Geographic Channel.

Here is an excerpt from DiCaprio’s remarks:

Leonardo DiCaprio: "Tonight I am pleased to present the U.S. premier of my new documentary, “Before the Flood.”  This was a three-year endeavor on the part of myself and my director, Fisher Stevens.  Together we traveled from China to India, to Greenland to the Arctic, Indonesia to Micronesia, to Miami to learn more about the effects of climate change on our planet and highlight the message from the scientific community and leaders worldwide on the urgency of the issue.

"This film was developed to show the devastating impacts that climate change is having on our planet, and more importantly, what can be done.  Our intention for the film was to be released before this upcoming election.  It was after experiencing firsthand the devastating impacts of climate change worldwide, we, like many of you here today, realize that urgent action must be taken.

"This moment is more important than ever where some power leaders who not only believe in climate change but are willing to do something about it.  The scientific consensus is in, and the argument is now over.  If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts or in science, or empirical truths, and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.

"So, with that, I'm so very honored and pleased to be joined onstage with one of those leaders -- a President who has done more to create solutions for the climate change crisis than any other in history -- President Barack Obama."

President Barack Obama:  "Thank you."


Double standards at the  NYT

Or no standards, more like it

In reaction to the New York Times publishing a story on Oct. 1 about a 1995 Trump tax return the newspaper may have obtained and published illegally, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell said The Times was hypocritical and duplicitous because, in 2009, it refused to publish ClimateGate emails, stating they were "acquired illegally" and "never intended for the public eye."

“The duplicity of the Times publishing private tax information about a Republican presidential candidate is blatantly obvious when you consider that they refused to publish the ClimateGate emails," said Bozell in an Oct. 3 statement.

"The Times made a public editorial decision not to publish private emails exposing the ClimateGate lies because they damaged their leftwing political agenda," he said. "But here they are all too happy to publish private tax return information of a GOP candidate – in possible violation of state and/or federal law – because it advances their leftwing political agenda."

“The New York Times laid bare its hypocrisy on their Trump tax story and now they must explain themselves," said Bozell.  "If they remain silent, this will be just another example of The Times conveniently jettisoning journalistic standards when doing so would harm Republicans."

"If The Times is to retain any integrity in its newsroom, they must stop aiding and abetting the Clinton campaign," said Bozell.  "Sadly, no one expects that to happen.”

The MRC statement also says, "In 2009, The Times refused to report the leaked ClimateGate emails that showed how the left was lying to the public about climate change. At the time, the paper explained its refusal to report this story because the ClimateGate emails were ‘acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.’"

"Over the weekend, the New York Times reported a story about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s tax returns," reads the statement.  "The returns may have been obtained and published illegally. This comes just weeks after the top editor at the New York Times, Dean Baquet, said he would risk jail time to obtain Trump’s tax returns."


Australian Resources Minister Matt Canavan says the abuse of Australia's legal system by green groups seeking to delay mining projects warrants a "fundamental" review of environmental law.

Senator Canavan on Wednesday used a Queensland Media Club luncheon speech to take aim at activists who harbour an anti-development ideology.

He said a leaked document from a NSW green group in 2011 laid bare their "disrupt and delay" strategy, calling for significant investment in legal challenges.

"We have to be very clear that this is an abuse of our legal system," Senator Canavan said.

"Our legal system is there to provide legitimate avenues for people of that view that government decisions, that industry decisions are harming them or are not taking into account proper environmental needs."

Senator Canavan said recent court decisions had dismissed conservationists' concerns about negative impacts on the environment or projects not stacking up economically.

"We still believe fundamentally as a government that our environmental laws need reform," he said.

It was only last week that Queensland's highest court dismissed a conservationist group's latest appeal against Hancock Coal's proposed Alpha coalmine.

Coast and Country has been fighting the Gina Rinehart and GVK mine in court since 2013 and may consider a high court challenge against the last week's ruling.

Adani's Carmichael coal mine has also faced a long string of legal challenges from green groups, while a legal challenge to New Hope's Acland expansion is currently winding up after seven months in the Land Court.

Senator Canavan argued that if governments did not open up resources-rich areas, other competitors would supply products to developing countries.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here



C. S. P. Schofield said...

The only objection i have to the New York Times story is the notion, implicit in the work "retain", that the paper has had any integrity. The paper hasn't had any in several decades.

pyeatte said...

The NYT is a left-wing political rag with zero socially redeeming value. It gave up on objective news many years ago.