Monday, July 15, 2019

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change 


Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change


Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change
A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.
In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.
Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.
Adjusting for the cloud coverage factor and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers found that mankind is simply not having much of an effect on the Earth’s temperature.
If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.
The study’s authors make a hard distinction between the type of model favored by climate scientists at the IPCC and genuine evidence, stating “We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence,” noting that the models often yield contradictory conclusions.
Also on rt.com Meet America’s newest $9 trillion climate change solution Given the evidence presented in the study, the Finnish team rounded out the paper by concluding “we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” adding that “the low clouds control mainly the global temperature.”
The results sharply cut against claims put forward by many environmentalists, including US lawmakers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who argue not only that climate change is an immediate threat to the planet, but that it is largely a man-made phenomenon. Ocasio-Cortez, better known as ‘AOC’, has proposed a ‘Green New Deal’ to address the supposedly dire threat.
Also on rt.com ‘Climate emergency’ on Monday, pipeline expansion on Tuesday: Trudeau the fraud strikes again Japanese researchers at the University of Kobe arrived at similar results as the Turku team, finding in a paper published in early July that cloud coverage may create an “umbrella effect” that could alter temperatures in ways not captured by current modeling.

Sorry, Ladies: It's Just Biology, Psychology, and Economics

Sorry, Ladies: It's Just Biology, Psychology, and Economics


Sorry, Ladies: It's Just Biology, Psychology, and Economics

Just like probably 90 percent or so of those virtue-signaling in favor of "pay equality" for the American women who won the FIFA Women's World Cup, I've never paid to attend a women's soccer game.  In fact, as best I can recall, I've never paid to attend any women's sporting event.  The only girl I've ever paid to watch compete in sports is the beautiful and talented Caroline Thomas, the (now) 13-year-old karate champion.
Yeah, that's my girl, and she has about 15 of those first-place trophies — in both karate fighting (which involves contact but is not very violent) and forms, or "kata."  Caroline also plays in a co-ed basketball league. Like most other fathers, I would pay (up to a point) to watch my daughter show off her talents in almost any venue — whether in sports, performing on stage, or in a cooking contest (Caroline also likes to cook).  However, it doesn't mean that the public at large is interested in forking over hard-earned dollars to watch my daughter perform — especially in the realm of athletics.
The "inequality" that exists in women's sports is nothing new, and in spite of what many on the left would have us believe, it involves nothing nefarious.  The fact that consumers overwhelmingly prefer men's sports to women's sports is merely a matter of biology and psychology and not due to some mythical misogynistic plot.  The facts and the data clearly bear this out.
Just as was the case in 2015 — the latest data available when I last wrote about this issue — in 2018, when examining sports audiences, men's sports dominated television ratings.  Of the 50 most watched sporting events in 2018, 43 of them were men's football — 40 NFL games and three college football games.  The other seven were events from the Winter Olympics.
According to Sports Media Watch, including pre-game coverage, Fox earned a 7.7 rating and had 12.98 million viewers for the Women's World Cup final.  These numbers are nowhere close to what was needed to make the top 50 most watched sporting events of 2018.  The 50th-place event — Winter Olympics night 6 — had an 11.4 rating and 19.3 million viewers.  There's virtually no doubt that the Women's World Cup final will not make 2019's top 50 list, either.
If you exclude the NFL and the Winter Olympics, women's sports are still nowhere to be found among the most watched sporting events in 2018.  Again, as was the case in 2015, even non-humans outperform women's sports in viewership — two of the 2018 non-NFL/Winter Olympics top 50 were horse racing events.  The Kentucky Derby was 16th on this list, with an 8.5 rating and 15 million viewers.
When it comes to television audience and paid attendees, the professional sports in which women compete annually are not in the same universe as men's sports — or even horse racing.  In 2018, the top-rated women's tennis event was the U.S. Open women's final.  It earned a 1.9 rating with 3.1 million viewers.  The top-rated women's golf event for 2018 was the U.S. Women's Open Final Round.  It earned a 0.6 rating with 878,000 viewers.  The top-rated WNBA event for 2018 was the WNBA All Star Game.  It earned a 0.5 rating with 709,000 viewers.
Thus, as such consumer data imply, according to Forbes, from boxer Floyd Mayweather ($285 million) to basketball player Nicolas Batum ($22.9 million), of the world's 100 highest paid athletes in 2018, not a single female athlete made the list.  There is nothing evil at work here; it is simply a matter of economics.  Whether in person or through television or livestreaming on their phones or computers, fans simply prefer to watch men compete over women.
This does not mean that fans are "discriminating" against women.  Fans are discriminating, just not in the way the "equal pay" loons of the Left would have us believe.  I've jokingly told the left before how to make women's sports more interesting: allow men to compete as women.  Forgetting that the Left takes jokes and makes them into policy, I never thought leftists would take me up on it.
Given the pay disparity that already exists among male and female athletes, and given how the Left is determined to convince us that this is "unfair," the fact that liberals are now allowing men to take trophies and dollars from women is the height of absurdity.  It just goes to show how tragically devoted to the perverse LGBT agenda is the modern Left.
Unless the Left continues down this road, where gender-deluded (or financially savvy?) men are allowed to compete as women, there will never be "equal pay" or "gender equality" when it comes to athletics, because human sexes are not — and will never be — equal.  Men are bigger, faster, and stronger than women.  And "bigger, faster, and stronger" makes for more exciting and interesting sports.
What's more, as most anyone not devoted to a liberal worldview who has observed human beings for at least 15 minutes was already aware, men are naturally more physically aggressive than are women.  As Psychology Today points out:
The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense.  In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger than the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16].  Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc.  In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native.
As Ann Coulter noted over a decade ago, "Competitive sports are ritualized forms of fighting, and boys like to fight."  In other words, sports — especially those involving heavy contact — are a form of battle, and in spite of what the foolish Left would have us believe, men are much more suited for battle than are women.  No amount of legislation, legal wrangling, or whining is going to change these facts.
Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the 
The Miracle and Magnificence of America.
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Democrats want to wreck the Electoral College. That would destroy the USA

Democrats want to wreck the Electoral College. That would destroy the USA


Democrats want to wreck the Electoral College. That would destroy the USA

June 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — While you were sleeping, the Democrats (abetted by some deviant Republicans) have been working on a plan that would destroy the diversity of the American political system and bring the nation to the brink of civil war. The plan is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and tens of millions of dollars have already been spent over several decades trying to implement it. Fourteen blue states and the District of Columbia have already joined the Compact, which means they are 70% on the way to making their proposal the law of the land.
The Democrats' plan is designed to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College in choosing the nation's president, no doubt because while Hillary won the popular vote, she failed to win the necessary votes in the Electoral College. Eliminating the influence of the Electoral College would end the diversity now embodied in the federal system with its division of powers between Washington and the fifty states. The fact that a party that presents itself as a defender of diversity should be leading the charge to eliminate the nation's most powerful source of diversity should be all that is required to understand the threat its agenda poses to what has been the nation's constitutional way of life for 232 years.
The Electoral College and the division of powers are features of the Constitution. But the National Popular Vote movement does not propose to amend the Constitution because it doesn't have the votes to do that. Instead, in the name of "democracy," it proposes to circumvent the Constitution and its requirement of large national majorities for amending what has been the fundamental law of the land. Think how Orwellian that is, and how concerning it should be for anyone believing that the Founders created the most practical, realistic, democratic, diverse, and successful polity the world has ever seen.
This is how the Democrats' circumvention of the Constitution and its provision for an Electoral College would work. Instead of abolishing the College, which would require the support of two thirds of the states, they are hoping to put together a coalition of states representing 270 electoral votes that would agree to award all their votes to whoever wins the national vote. In other words, if the popular vote is won by 10 votes, every state in the Compact would award 100% of its votes to that party, even if a majority of the voters in the state voted against that party.
The bottom line (and goal) of this devious plan is to eliminate the influence of rural voters or "Middle America" and create an electoral lock for the large urban population centers — e.g., California and New York — which would then decide the direction of the country.
Currently, the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign in states they might otherwise ignore, and thus forces them to compete for diverse constituencies, and therefore to compromise and moderate their positions. It was designed by the Founders to move the country to the center and to prevent an overzealous majority from tyrannizing the minority.
Consider the practical implications of this radical plan to remove an institution that has stabilized our political life for more than 200 years. The urban centers of America, which would become dominant under the plan, are also the centers of America's crime problems and gun homicides, its intractable poverty, its failed public schools, and its political corruption. Do we really want to replicate for all America the failed welfare policies that have created a permanent underclass in cities like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Baltimore?
Or consider California, a one-party state whose government has defied federal law and proclaimed itself a sanctuary for illegal migrants. What will be the consequences for an already deeply divided nation of having an open-borders policy imposed by leftist states led by California and New York on Middle American states who are already fiercely opposed to flooding the country with millions of illegal aliens whom no government agency has vetted? lf New York has legalized the killing of babies already born, how will that go down in states already banning abortions of babies with fetal heartbeats? All the blue states pushing this agenda are fans of the Green New Deal, which focuses on a problem — global warming — that most of the country doesn't consider urgent and calls for crushing new taxes to finance new social giveaways while programs like Medicare and Social Security are already on the brink of bankruptcy. Or consider the Green plan to remove 250 million gasoline-driven automobiles within ten years and replace them with electric cars. If an incredibly costly and unsettling confiscation scheme like this is imposed on the rest of the country, what can we reasonably expect as a reaction?
The Founders' scheme to produce compromise between competing factions and to put checks and balances on radical adventures was never more needed than now, when the country is divided in a way that it has not been seen since the Civil War. But apparently this is the perfect time for an out-of-touch and increasingly out-of-control Democratic Party to undermine the constitutional foundations of the nation, push a divisive agenda, and move the nation toward a one-party state.

All Lies About Global Warming DEBUNKED in One Article

All Lies About Global Warming DEBUNKED in One Article 

All Lies About Global Warming DEBUNKED in One Article


Everything you’ve been told about global warming, climate change and carbon dioxide by the mainstream media — and mainstream “science” — is an outright lie. Far from being a dangerous poison, carbon dioxide is a miraculous life-giving nutrient that plants need to thrive.

Rising carbon dioxide is actually helping “green” the planet, as any legitimate science already knows. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, nearly all life on the planet would collapse, including both human life and plant life.

Now, an eye-opening interview has emerged that features István Markó, an organic chemistry researcher and professor at the Université catholique de Louvain. He was recently interviewed by Grégoire Canlorbe, a science journalist and out-of-the-box thinker.

I’m publishing parts of the interview below, and I encourage you to read the full interview at GregoireCanlorbe.com. All the words below are from István Markó, except the subhead titles, which are mine:


The truth about carbon dioxide

Again, CO2 is not, and has never been, a poison [PDF here]. Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths, emits an astronomical quantity of CO2 proportionate to that in the atmosphere (some >40,000 ppm); and it is very clear that the air we expire does not kill anyone standing in front of us.

What must be understood, besides, is that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Without CO2 there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans. The equation is as simple as that.

Plants need CO2, water, and daylight. These are the mechanisms of photosynthesis, to generate the sugars that will provide them with staple food and building blocks. That fundamental fact of botany is one of the primary reasons why anyone who is sincerely committed to the preservation of the “natural world” should abstain from demonizing CO2.

Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet’s vegetation has grown by about 20%. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Can You Guess How Much CO2 is Mankind Responsible For? Click HERE for the Answer. 

If we study, however, what has been happening at the geological level for several million years, we realize that the present period is characterized by an extraordinarily low CO2 level. During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today.

Not only did life exist, in those far-off times when CO2 was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters.

Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.

In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen.

By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70% of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees: contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the “lungs” of the earth.

The truth about the “greenhouse effect”

About the supposed link between global warming and CO2 emissions, it is simply not true that CO2 has a major greenhouse effect. It is worth remembering, here too, that CO2 is a minor gas. Today it represents only 0.04% of the composition of the air; and its greenhouse effect is attributed the value of 1.

The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor which is ten times more potent than CO2 in its greenhouse effect. Water vapor is present in a proportion of 2% in the atmosphere.

Those facts are, in principle, taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning, in using a dirty trick that presents the warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated, through feedback loops, by the other greenhouse effects.

Can You Guess How Much CO2 is Mankind Responsible For? Click HERE for the Answer.

How status quo science brainwashes people and turns them into obedient robots who spout scientific nonsense

I believe in science. I mean that I believe in the possibility of objectively knowing reality through science. I believe that there are truth and falsehood, that science allows us to distinguish between the two, and that truth must be known; that scientific knowledge must be placed in the hands of the population.

I also believe in freedom. I believe that every man is entitled to lead his life and to manage his goods as he sees fit, that he is the only possessor of himself, and that statist socio-economic control is as morally reprehensible as it is harmful in its social, economic, and environmental consequences.

I note two things distressing me: firstly, the population is increasingly misinformed scientifically; and secondly, the media and governments take advantage of this to propagate a theory that is doubtful, namely that of anthropogenic warming, and to promote coercive measures on its behalf.

Few people take the time to get vital information about the actual CO2 footprint; and few people, more generally, are still interested in science. I deeply regret that our Western societies have succeeded in cultivating such mistrust of science: such a reluctance to have confidence in its capacity to know the world objectively and to transform it positively.

The theory of anthropogenic warming claims to be scientific; but if people accept this theory, if they hold it to be true, it is clearly not out of interest for science.

Such a fragile theory, in view of the CO2 facts I have presented to you above, could never have been accepted by people who truly care about science; and who possess a deep understanding in that field.

In my eyes, there are two main reasons — or if you prefer, two main types of feelings — that make people let themselves be seduced by the theory of anthropogenic warming so readily. In the first place, the Catholic religion is in decline in the Western world; and what I call ecologism comes to replace it.

In the second place, Westerners have a pronounced taste for self-flagellation; and the theory of anthropogenic warming provides justification for that tendency, possibly anchored in our Judeo-Christian heritage.

So, on the one hand, we have religious feelings: faith in a new system of thought, which is ecologism; the veneration of a new divinity, which is benevolent and protective Nature.

On the other hand, we have a feeling of guilt, expressed in our conviction that, if the climate warms up, it is our fault; and that if we do not immediately limit our CO2 emissions, we will have sullied and disfigured our planet.

Rising ocean levels and melting ice caps

Over the last 12,000 years, what we have witnessed is an oscillation between warm and cold periods, thus periods with rising and declining sea levels.

Incontestably, sea and ocean levels have been on the rise since the end of the Little Ice Age that took place approximately from the beginning of the 14th century until the end of the 19th century. At the end of that period, global temperatures started to rise.

That being said, the recorded rise is 0.8 degrees Celsius and is, therefore, nothing extraordinary. If the temperature goes up, ocean water obviously dilates and some glaciers recede. This is something glaciers have always done, and not a specificity of our time.

Thus, in Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome, (except during a snow storm just before arriving on the Italian plain).

Today, you could no longer make Hannibal’s journey. He proved to be capable of such an exploit, precisely because it was warmer in Roman times.

Sea levels are currently on the rise; but this is an overestimated phenomenon. The recorded rise is 1.5 millimeters per year, namely 1.5 cm every ten years, and is, therefore, not dramatic at all.

Indeed, it does happen that entire islands do get engulfed; but in 99% of the cases, that is due to a classic erosion phenomenon[2] and not to rising sea levels.

As far as the Italian city of Venice is concerned, the fact it has been faced with water challenges is not due to any rise of the lagoon level; and is just the manifestation of the sad reality that “the City of the Doges” is sinking under its weight on the marshland. Once again, the global sea and ocean levels are rising; but the threat effectively represented by that phenomenon is far from being tangible.

I note that the Tuvalu islands, whose engulfment was previously announced as imminent, not only have not been engulfed, but have seen their own land level rise with respect to that of waters around them.

Still another phenomenon we tend to exaggerate is the melting of the polar caps. The quantity of ice in the Arctic has not gone down for 10 years: one may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but on average that level has remained constant.

Right after the Little Ice Age, since the temperature went up, the Artic started to melt; but the ice level in the Arctic finally settled down.

Besides, ice has been expanding in Antarctica over the last 30 years; and similarly, we observe in Greenland that the quantity of ice increased by 112 million cubic kilometers last year. On a global scale, glaciers account for peanuts, with most of the ice being located in Antarctica and on Greenland. One cannot but notice an almost unchanged ice level over hundreds of years.

…We are told that the level of water will increase throughout the world and increase to the point that it will overwhelm a large part of our continents. As Hans von Storch, one of the world’s leading climate modelers, has shown, the models supporting those forecasts are, for 98% of them, totally false.

We are told that the air we breathe in the big cities has never been so polluted. One only must review the documents oneself about the air that people used to breath in London in the 1960s to realize how much urban pollution has diminished.

In Peking, often castigated for poor air quality, there happens, every now and then, a fog reminiscent of the London smog. But even that pollution in Peking is far from competing with that which, a short while ago, reigned in London.

Global “warming” and temperature models

Many other climate myths and legends exist. From storms to tornados, extreme events are going down all around the world; and when they occur, their level is much lower, too.

As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease. But once again, the rise of temperatures shows a magnitude considerably lower with respect to that we currently project.

If you look at satellite data and weather balloon measurements, you then note that the temperature rise around the world is relatively modest; that it is much lower than the rise that is predicted for us by authorities, and that these predictions rely on calculations that are highly uncertain.

This is because the simulation inputs cannot take into account past temperatures (for which there is no precision data[3]), except by subjectively adjusting x, y, z data that are not always known.

The recent temperature spikes measured by satellites and balloons are part of a classic natural phenomenon which is called El Niño. This short-term phenomenon consists of a return of the very warm waters at the surface of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The heat thus liberated in the atmosphere pushes up the global temperature and CO2 plays no role in that process.

Another issue I would like to raise: present deserts, far from expanding, are receding; and they are receding due to the higher quantity of CO2 available in the air. It turns out that greenhouse operators voluntarily inject three times as much CO2 in the commercial greenhouse as it is present in the atmosphere.

The result we can observe is that plants grow faster and are bigger, that they are more resistant to diseases and to destructive insects, and that their photosynthesis is way more efficient and that they therefore consume, less water.

Similarly, the rise of CO2 level in the atmosphere makes that plants need less water and thus that they can afford to colonize arid regions.

Regarding diseases and other weird phenomena hastily attributed to climate warming, there is a website — “globalwarminghoax.com,” if I recall — that collects the different rumors and contemplations on this theme.

The fact that masculine fertility decreases; the fact that birds’ wings shrink; the fact that a shark showed up in the North Sea; absolutely anything is likely to be connected to climate change if one displays enough intellectual dishonesty.

That is where honest journalists come into play: your role is to investigate on the true reason of phenomena and to demystify the ready-made thinking that financial and political forces ask the media to channel slavishly.

Climate-related diseases are relatively rare; and even malaria does not directly depend on the climate, but rather on the way we enable the parasite to reproduce and the mosquito to flourish in the place where we are located.

If you find yourself in a swampy area, the odds you will get malaria are high; if you have drained the system and you no longer have that wetland, the odds you will catch the disease are very low.

In the end, automatically blaming the resurgence of some disease on climate change comes down to removing the personal responsibility from the people involved: such as denying that their refusal of vaccinations, for instance, or their lack of hygiene, may be part of the problem.


The economic failure of wind power

The wind industry, over which ecologists swoon, produces highly unpredictable output, depending on the intensity of the wind. Even under good atmospheric conditions, wind delivers too little electricity to be a profitable industry on its own.

Warren Buffet, who owns one of the largest wind farms in Iowa, said it without embarrassment:
“On wind power, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. This is the only reason to build them. They do not make sense without the tax credit.”
The ecological balance is just as bad: onshore wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands, even millions of birds and bats per year. As for wind turbines at sea, they kill many marine mammals, again in the utmost indifference of ecologists.

Thoughts on world government and eco-tyranny

Many persons, generally those coming from the former Eastern Bloc, let themselves be seduced by the idea that the resolution of our environmental problems would be that of global governance.

In many respects, ecologism is also the communism of the 21st century. In the same way as Islam, it occupies the place left vacant by the decline of Marxism-Leninism. I do not know if a convergence of struggles between Islamists and ecologists will actually take shape; however, I note that we already have the equivalent, on a smaller scale, of the global ecological caliphate.

I am thinking of the European Union, which gives us a foretaste of the bureaucratic, global, and totalitarian governance that the United Nations manifestly endeavors to establish.

Since we are talking about globalization, envisioned in its political aspect, the prospect of a world government, but also in its economic and, say, informational aspect — the networking, sometimes instantaneous, of humans, goods, and ideas — I would like to opine a possible perverse effect.

As cultures and mentalities mingle, the Westerners’ ecologist (or Gaianist) religion, as well as their penchant for repentance, seem to even reach some of the Asian peoples. Japan, which emerged spiritually emasculated from the Second World War, is more conducive to letting itself be invaded by that Western sanctification of the self-denial of ecologism.

The global depopulation agenda

The agreement of the Paris COP 21 was not signed to save the planet and to prevent us from roasting due to an imaginary temperature increase of +2°C. Behind all that masquerade is hidden, as always, the ugly face of power, greed, and profit.

All the industrialists who are in favor of that commitment, which will ruin Europe and immensely impoverish its citizens, do so for the good reason they find in it a huge and easy source of income.

As for NGOs, when they are not simply motivated by greed, their motive consists in a resolutely Malthusian ideology.

Their object is to return the world to a very small population, on the order of a few hundred million people. To do so, they impoverish the world, remove the power of fossil fuel energies, and thus ensure that the number of deaths increases.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Tucker Carlson Is Absolutely Right About Ilhan Omar

Tucker Carlson Is Absolutely Right About Ilhan Omar

Even if he's wrong about immigration
David Harsanyi
By
Americans are constantly being lectured that good citizenship isn’t contingent on skin color, faith, or ethnicity, but a set of beliefs. Yet whenever anyone is critical of the ugly things someone like Ilhan Omar says, they are immediately battered for being xenophobes and racists. You can’t have it both ways.
I mean, you can try. Nearly the entire contemporary progressive argument is girded by identity grievances. So when Fox News’s Tucker Carlson gives a monologue, in which he concludes that Omar was “living proof that the way we practice immigration has become dangerous to this country,” the reaction is predictable.
As philosophical matter, though, Omar isn’t the kind of immigrant we should want.  That’s not because she is Muslim or black, but because she doesn’t believe in the traditional ideas that define American life. And she shouldn’t be immune from criticism merely because of her background.
When my parents came to the United States as refugees in 1968, for instance, they were asked to renounce communism—because collectivism, like Islamism or fascism or any authoritarianism, is antithetical to American principles. Any newcomers in 1968 who believed the United States was guilty of crimes against the proletariat, and praised Pol Pot or Castro, would not have been a quality immigrant.
This is one reason we still give newcomers citizenship tests. We want them not only to comprehend our foundational ideas, but to adopt them. Whether or not this nation consistently lives up to those values (far from it) is irrelevant. There’s no country in human history born without sin. Yet only Americans are asked to engage in daily acts of contrition for their past.
Notwithstanding the pathetic self-flagellation we see from historical revisionists like Beto O’Rourke and Omar, most immigrants surely understand that our mitzvahs outweigh our sins, and then some. Most wouldn’t be here otherwise.
The concepts that allowed all of that to happen were codified by the American Founders, not by the 1900s progressives or the Obama administration or Megan Rapinoe. Diversity is nice, but it’s not our “strength.” Activism itself is no act of patriotism. Being an immigrant or gay isn’t a manifestation of American idealism. Prospering under a system that values the individual liberty of all citizens is.
Some people might have you believe their partisan hobbyhorses—like “economic patriotism,” for example—are American ideals. They aren’t. Having the right to protect yourself, your family, and your property without asking permission from the state is an American ideal. Religious freedom is an America ideal. Being able to live life without being coerced to participate in groupthink is an American ideal. Uninhibited free expression is an American ideal. The right of communities to live without being impelled by a majoritarian democracy to adopt centralized policies is central tenet of American governance.
Social mores change. Not our core governing principles. Now, you may find all this eye-rolling earnestness both antiquated and puerile, which seems to be the case with Omar and most of her progressive allies. But then you have a new set of principles you want to enact, not the traditional ones some of us want to preserve.
When Carlson argues that the very fact Omar — a refugee from one of the most violent places on Earth, Somalia — can rise to become, at only 36, one of the most famous members of Congress is the best argument against her critique of America, he has good point. Omar has more influence than 99 percent of her co-citizens. She is a testament to an open and free society. Her words are not.
Believing that the United States is defined by racism and economic injustice doesn’t make Omar a bad immigrant, only a silly human being. Importing anti-Semitic beliefs from the broader Islamic world, on the other hand, makes her an unassimilated American.
Being critical of foreign intervention doesn’t make Omar un-American, but talking about servicemen who sacrificed their lives fighting Somalian warlords at Battle of Mogadishu as if they were terrorists does. In the same way, dismissing the Islamic extremists who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 as “some people who did something”—because it’s “Islamophobic” to point out facts—makes her ungrateful.
Now, I disagree with Carlson’s broad contention about the value of immigration. My empirical view—one which I gained partly from being the child of immigrants and partly living in a neighborhood filled with newcomers who, although they possess a range of political opinions, are both grateful and decent—is that, on the whole, liberal immigration adds much to American life. There is plenty of data that backs this view. That doesn’t mean all immigrants are exemplars of patriotism.
Nowhere in the Constitution are we asked to let everyone in world enter this country. Yet we have the largest percentage of immigrants in the world, with more than 40 million people living here right now who were born elsewhere. The United States, allegedly steeped in the white supremacist ideology of the nefarious founding, has been more welcoming to strangers than any nation in the world, and it’s not even close.
With so many people coming here, it is within the purview of the citizenry to make decisions about who enters and who doesn’t. And it is perfectly legitimate—although probably not very practical—for us to try and discern what ideological baggage is brought with them.
Certainly there is nothing “nauseatingly racist” about bring critical of Omar, or pondering the potential downsides of mass immigration. This lazy smear so overused it’s become virtually meaningless. (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez recently insinuated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a racist for criticizing her.) And not just by politicians, but pundits, as well.
At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf claims that Carlson suggested “that because Omar came here as a child, she doesn’t have the right to voice critical opinions about America.” You can read the Fox News host’s comments yourself, but nowhere does he propose anything of the sort. What does seem to be happening, though, is that some people are given special dispensation from criticism and debate. And that is a genuinely un-American idea.

How Not Asking About Citizenship On The Census Gives Democrats More Votes In Congress

How Not Asking About Citizenship On The Census Gives Democrats More Votes In Congress

Our country should be governed with political power evenly allocated on a ‘one voter, one vote’ basis. However, to do that, we will need the data from the citizenship question on the census.
James Lucas
By
When the Supreme Court delayed the addition of a question on citizenship status to the 2020 census, it called on the Commerce Department to provide a new rationale for including it. President Trump has indicated that his administration will press ahead on this issue.
Fortunately, there is a compelling rationale for including the question on the census. This is the need to measure how far the apportionment of the U. S. House of Representatives and the states’ legislatures has deviated from the constitutional gold standard of “one person, one vote.”
Traditionally, seats in the U. S. House of Representatives and state legislatures (and votes in the Electoral College, which equal the states’ representation in Congress) have been allocated based on gross population numbers, including non-citizens and even illegal residents. Yet these non-citizens do not vote (or at least they are not supposed to).
The result is that citizens living in areas with large numbers of non-citizens have more legislative representation per capita than citizens living where there are lower numbers of non-citizens. This violates the fundamental principle that each voter’s vote should count equally.

How We’ve Deviated from One Voter, One Vote

These deviations from what could be best described as the “one voter, one vote” principle comes from the uneven distribution of non-citizens among and within our states. The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey in 2014, which asked about citizenship status, found differences ranging from 14 percent of California’s population who are non-citizens to less than 1 percent in West Virginia. As a result, California, the first sanctuary state, has five or six more members of the House (and consequently Electoral College votes) through counting its non-citizen population than if House seats and Electoral College votes were based only on the nation’s citizen population.
The ranges can be equally large within states. For example, the ACS found that non-citizens make up 17.6 percent of New York City’s population, but only 5.2 percent of the rest of New York state.
Based on these differences in non-citizen population, New York City has one more seat in the U.S. House, two or three more seats in the New York state senate, and at least five and probably more seats in the state Assembly than it would have if apportionment were based on New York’s citizen population. This gives New York City residents such as Donald Trump, Bill de Blasio, and me significantly more voting power than New York voters who live outside the city. Such distortions of voting power within states can be found across the country.
This argument is often cast as seeking a partisan political advantage for Republicans. However, a “one voter, one vote” apportionment can cut both ways. Democratic-leaning African-Americans have citizenship rates equivalent to whites, and could be advantaged by apportionment based on the citizen population.
Conversely, rural Republican-leaning areas with large numbers of migrant laborers could be disadvantaged. And Democratic-leaning Rhode Island, which is in perpetual risk of losing its second congressional seat at each census, would be much more likely to keep it in a re-apportionment based on citizen rather than gross population.

The Rationale for Including the Citizenship Question

The Constitution requires that apportionment of the U. S. House of Representatives be based on “the whole number of persons” in each state. Assuming that meant the gross population made sense at a time when women did not have the vote, but made up half the population.
However, constitutional attorneys David Rivkin and Richard Raile argue that the original understanding of that phrase was to include only permanent residents, which today would correspond only to citizens. Indeed, the current practice of using gross population is an unfortunate legacy of the early days of our nation when slave states were able to count their slaves as three-fifths of a person in apportioning legislative seats.
In its 2016 decision in Evenwel v. Abbott the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not require that apportionment be based on the citizen population. However, that case did not determine whether it was permissible for a state or the Congress to apportion based on the citizen population rather than the gross population.
With more than 1 million legal immigrants every year since the ACS survey in 2014 and untold numbers of illegal residents, the deviations from “one voter, one vote” will be even greater today. There is a good argument that, as a public policy matter within legislatures’ constitutional authority, the U. S. House of Representatives and state legislatures could choose to apportion themselves on the basis of citizen population.
Our country should be governed equally by all of its citizens, with political power evenly allocated on a “one voter, one vote” basis. However, to do that, we will need the data from the citizenship question on the census.

Here’s the Strategy Trump’s Admin Should Use

The administration can accomplish this with a three-part strategy. First, it should start printing the census forms with the citizenship question. If their court advocacy fails, a notice can always be included with the census forms indicating that the citizenship question is optional.
Second, the administration should immediately issue and file in the relevant courts a statement that the citizenship question is about voting rights, but more broadly conceived than just the Voting Rights Act enforcement that it originally used as a rationale. The question is about realizing equal allocation of political representation on a “one voter, one vote” basis.
Third, the administration should request that the Supreme Court reconvene, stay all lower court proceedings, and consider the case on a highly expedited two-week schedule. A “one voter, one vote” rationale stands as a matter of law, and does not require any fact-finding. This will enable the court to provide the definitive resolution that it should have provided last week. It is entirely proper that the census seek to assure that our nation and states are to be governed on a basis of true equal representation of all citizens.

DOJ Attorney Says Russian Gov't Had Nothing To Do With Troll Farms

DOJ Attorney Says Russian Gov't Had Nothing To Do With Troll Farms


DOJ Attorney Says Russian Government Had Nothing To Do With Troll Farms

A newly released transcript reveals details of a humiliating hearing that took place the day before Robert Mueller’s puzzling press conference.
Adam Mill
By
A Robert Mueller with a surprisingly frail voice took to the lectern on May 29, 2019. Visibly uncomfortable, he delivered a puzzling address to reporters curious about the strangely timed press conference. Mueller spoke for a few minutes until arriving at what now appears to be the real purpose of the press conference: damage control.
“As the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation, where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election,” he said. “These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”
We already knew at that point that Mueller had worked with Attorney General William Barr to redact the report to remove references which could harm “ongoing investigations,” or infringe on the privacy of “peripheral third parties.” But he overlooked one category in redactions: Prosecutors aren’t supposed to try cases in newspapers and press conferences.

Are Press Conferences Customary—or Appropriate?

In his effort to seem fair and conciliatory to his old friend Mueller, Barr told America that, “As the special counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election. But thanks to the special counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign…”
Mueller’s report said something similar: “the investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election through the ‘active measures’ social media campaign carried out by the IRA, an organization funded by Prigozhin and companies that he controlled.”
Recall that after the Department of Justice (DOJ) held a dramatic press conference announcing indictments of Russian companies for allegedly interfering in the American presidential election, one of those defendants, Concord, hired an attorney to fight back. That case, as I’ve written here and here, has turned into a disaster for the DOJ and America’s cherished traditions of freedom of speech.
“Russia interfered in the election” became such an established truth of the mainstream press that expressing skepticism would be labeled a “conspiracy theory.” But now, in open court, an attorney representing the Department of Justice has admitted that the Russian government had nothing to do with the internet troll farm case.
Mueller and Barr’s reckless publicity of unproven “Russian interference” allegations as “established” confronted federal Judge Dabney L. Freidrich with a challenge to her authority to preside over a trial to determine whether Concord is guilty of anything. Again, the Mueller report publicly pronounced that the Mueller team “established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election through the ‘active measures’ social media campaign.” Really?  So why are we even bothering to have a trial if the government has already “established” that Concord is guilty?

DOJ Won’t Tie Russian Government to Troll Farm

A newly released transcript reveals details of a humiliating hearing that took place the day before Mueller’s puzzling press conference. The judge asked the prosecutor, “Can you address also the specific tie to the Russian government, which is the overarching comment that the attorney general made tying both this case and then the case involving the hacking and the release of the e-mails, the GRU case, to the Russian government?”
Buckle up, buttercup, because you’re not going to believe DOJ’s response: “The report doesn’t say that.” What? I thought we “knew” that the Russian government committed an act of war by posting politically charged information on the internet. Now the DOJ is backing away from any tie between the internet troll farm and the Russian government?
The DOJ has now admitted that the Mueller report “itself does not state anywhere that the Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency [and Concord] activity.” Whoa. The judge then asked, “So it is the government’s position that tying Concord and its co-defendants to the Russian government is not prejudicial?”
In the subsequent order, Judge Freidrich wrote:  “On May 29, 2019, following the Court’s hearing, the Special Counsel held a press conference…[in which he] carefully distinguished between the efforts by ‘Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military’ and the efforts of” Concord. This, the Judge found, made the criminal contempt proceedings she contemplated against Mueller’s team “unnecessary and excessive under the circumstances.”
A narrow escape it was indeed. Freidrich found that both the release of the Mueller report and Barr’s statements boosting the report violated DC Rule 57.7 prohibiting lawyers from trying cases in the press. Judge Freidrich rejected the government’s argument that the Mueller report did not smear Concord with unproven links to the Russian government.

Russia or Russian Entities?

“By attributing [the conduct] to ‘Russia’-as opposed to Russian individuals or entities—the report suggests that [Concord’s internet activities] were undertaken on behalf of, if not at the direction of the Russian government,” she wrote. Remember, the government has now denied in court that it even alleged Concord worked for the Russian government to post political messages on the internet.
The government, Freidrich found, “violated a standing court rule” by making these public pronouncements that intruded upon the question to be tried in her courtroom. To save Mueller’s team from “criminal contempt,” Freidrich exercised her discretion to decline to “initiate criminal contempt proceedings in response to the government’s Rule 57.7 violation.”
With the benefit of these newly unsealed documents from Judge Freidrich’s court, we now can see that Mueller’s May 29, 2019 press conference, held the day after the hearing on Concord’s contempt motion, must have been a desperate but successful effort to avoid the wrath of a judge whose authority Mueller insulted by “concluding” the guilt of defendants yet to be tried. And in that desperate effort, the U.S. government threw overboard the key assumption that the Russian government (as opposed to freelancing Russians) was behind the dubious internet troll case.
All over the world, private citizens try to influence American politics using Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and any other internet-based application that offers some promise of playing a role in the most important political contests in the world. Is that a bad thing? If you believe in robust free speech, it isn’t.
Should we criminalize foreigners who attempt to out Joe Biden’s son or foreigners who attempt to out Donald Trump’s son-in-law? Does your answer depend on who gets embarrassed by the information?