Use of Fear to Silence Climate Skeptics Is An Assault On Reason

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball


Fear is the most powerful enemy of reason. Both fear and reasoning are essential to human survival, but the relationship between them is unbalanced. Reason may sometimes dissipate fear, but fear frequently shuts down reason. As Edmund Burke wrote in England 20 years before the American Revolution,” no passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning past fear.”

Fear is aided and abetted by exaggeration, distortion, and falsehoods. Sadly, these exploitations litter history as people sought to control others and push a political or religious agenda. There appears to be a difference today as Farhad Manjoo identified in his book “True Enough: Learning to live in a Post-Fact Society”:

Facts no longer matter. We simply decide how we want to see the world and then go out and find experts and evidence to back our beliefs.

If that doesn’t work, you manufacture the material and hire spin doctors to spread the lies and misinformation more effectively. The truth doesn’t need spin doctors.

Most people are afraid of lawyers and the law. There is the apocryphal story of a lawyer (solicitor) in England who had a standard letter that said,

“Sir: This matter has come to our attention, and if you do not deal with it immediately we will do things that will astonish you.”

Many think a letter from a lawyer is a legal document, it isn’t; it is a letter from a lawyer. Apart from the potential legal action that might follow, the recipient knows it is going to cost money even if only to hire a lawyer. The increasing use of the law to intimidate people is a frightening trend that is a perversion of the laws purpose to protect the citizens. Now that trend extends to those who are doing their job. It is the job of a scientist to challenge and question. As Thomas Huxley wrote,

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

Even the threat by US Attorney General (AG) Loretta Lynch that the FBI are going to examine the role of climate skeptics for charges under the RICO is deeply disturbing. It is the practice of leaders who hold a singular political view from either extreme to isolate and threaten. Totalitarianism occurs on the left and the right.

While Lynch was threatening skeptics, President Obama held a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at which they announced total agreement on the need to fight climate change. Both present themselves as leaders who only have the people and the planet at heart, but consider the actions of what Trudeau’s father Pierre did when his belief in centralized government was challenged.

French-speaking people in Quebec with distinct cultural identity wanted to form a nation-state.

After the First World War the principle of ‘the right to national self-determination’ were commonly used by international lawyers, national governments and their challengers. The demand that people should govern themselves became identified with the demand that nations should determine their own destiny.

“When the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) sought separation of Quebec from Canada, Pierre Trudeau used the murder of Deputy Premier and Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec Pierre Laporte to act.”

This does not change the point of the story. It was a gross over-reaction to take away all citizens rights and use the Canadian Army against Canadian citizens.

For comparison, imagine if a State politician was murdered by a person and Obama used that as an excuse to take complete control of the US and use the Army to control citizens. There is a reason for the second amendment. As Thomas Jefferson said,

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

When challenged about his draconian actions, this academic lawyer who suddenly became a tyrant said in a TV interview,

Trudeau: Yes, well, there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don’t like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in a society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who we don’t like the looks of.

Reporter; At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend that?

Trudeau; Well, just watch me.

At what point would the White House decide that the threat of climate change and the subversion of “big oil” and their skeptical lackeys justify suspending the Constitution? After the 911 attack

President Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51). This, for the sixth time, extended for one year the emergency proclaimed on September 14, 2001. It empowered the President to personally ensure “continuity of government” in the event of any “catastrophic emergency.”

To my knowledge that is still in place and provides a justification for those who seek one. The phrases used are easily adapted to the climate issue, especially when they are given legitimacy by the consideration of the Attorney General.

Misrepresentation of information to make a political statement or achieve financial gain is central to the AG Lynch’s claim. The White House web page talks about “greenhouse gas pollution” and “carbon pollution.” They incorrectly use carbon, a solid, when they mean carbon dioxide, a gas. They incorrectly label CO2 a pollutant when it is essential to plant life and thereby all life. They threaten with the fear that

“we need to avert an additional 2-degree temperature increase to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.”

When a story is spun, it is essential to capitalize headlines, which is why I repeat them here in that format. Everybody knows because of the Internet practice that capitals are the equivalent of shouting. They claim “THE WEATHER IS GETTING MORE EXTREME,” but provide no evidence. The reason they don’t is because it isn’t true. Instead, they follow the headline with comments about warmer temperatures across the US. Then they do what was done in the 1990s after a sequence of hurricanes ending with Andrew. Stories claimed that hurricanes were increasing in numbers and intensity. This was not correct, and investigation showed the actual increase was the cost of repairs, which was due to inflation and corruption as the cost of building materials sky-rocketed. The WH follows the temperature data with a section titled,”EXTREME WEATHER COMES AT A COST,” which again conflates inflated costs with increasing number and severity of events.

The next section compounds the falsehoods with a headline that says, “CARBON POLLUTION IS THE BIGGEST DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE.” It is followed by a subheading that infers a link without providing evidence. “Global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels are on the rise” is classic sleight of hand like those practiced by the IPCC between the certainty of the Science Report and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). If challenged, they can say that they acknowledged the reality, but the deception is the method.

Saki, the pen name of a British social commentator cynically observed,

“A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanations.”

In the case of the President’s web page it is more than a “little inaccuracy”, but the need to instill fear in the public is necessary to justify the agenda. Is this a case where fear of failing to instill fear led to abandoning reason? The answer is obvious.

The person who wrote the opening quotation of this article also wrote the following,

The truth shall rise again. I wasn’t the only person who heard that promise, nor was I the only one for whom that hope still rings loud and true.

But before such a hope can be realized, we need to understand the implications of fears new prominence in our democracy. In the following chapter, I will explore why, in an atmosphere of constant fear, the public is more likely to discard reason and turn to leaders who demonstrate dogmatic faith in ideological viewpoints. These new demagogues don’t actually offer greater security from danger, but they’re simplistic and frequently vitriolic beliefs and statements can provide comfort to a fearful society. Unfortunately, the rise of these leaders serves only to exacerbate the decline of reasoning and further jeopardize our democracy.

The quotes are from the master of fear AL GORE in his 2007 book “The Assault on Reason.” The truth is few exploited the false fear of global warming like Gore, and few made more money.

I presume Ms. Lynch is going to apply the same reasoning of exploitation of fear and false information to Gore and the White House. I presume Ms. Lynch will apply the law to all skeptics throughout the world including the White House. If not it is another example what Obama claims to despise, American bullying.

The actions are among the first steps toward totalitarianism defined as

“any system of political ideas that is both thoroughly dictatorial and utopian.”

The White House web page is pure propaganda deliberately designed to strike fear so they can come to the rescue of people and the planet by declaring a state of emergency. This appears to coordinate with the AG giving legal weight to the political agenda by identifying the method and the enemy. It is those dastardly ‘deniers’ funded by the fossil fuel industry who dare to perform their legitimate task as scientific skeptics. I am still waiting for my cheque. Meanwhile the White House confirms that exploitation of fear does suspend reason, just as Gore said.

Update: 3/14/16 The section on…

“When the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) sought separation of Quebec from Canada, Pierre Trudeau used the murder of Deputy Premier and Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec Pierre Laporte to act.”

…has been updated to reflect history more accurately.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Miller
March 13, 2016 3:13 am

Having an opinion, backed by scientific fact, as opposed to the Establishment view supported by scaremongering and data manipulation, should be considered a possible crime by one of the highest authorities in the land, says a lot about America today.
Sick and sad.
Truly, that’s the Obama legacy. Possibly knocking Jimmy Carter off his title as the worst US president in the past 50 years

Reply to  Peter Miller
March 13, 2016 3:21 am

..Obama makes Carter look like an Eisenhower type of president ..

Reply to  Marcus
March 13, 2016 7:54 am

And as for Eisenhower; he killed around 1 million German prisoners in the Rhine Meadow camps, AFTER the war was over, by designating them “Disarmed enemy forces” so as to deny access to the Red Cross, then systematically denying them food, clothing and ANY shelter through the harsh winter of 1945-46 – but you won’t read about that in the victors history books either. Another American hero eh?

Reply to  Marcus
March 13, 2016 9:51 am

…Wikispooks ??? ROTFLMAO…put your tinfoil hat back on and take your meds !

Reply to  Marcus
March 13, 2016 10:20 am

The only think in dispute regards the Rheinwiesenlager is the number of dead. Official estimates are 10,000 (approx). A 1989 author claims as many as 1 million. The actual number can never be known and doesn’t matter – 1 or 1 million dead from incompetence is unacceptable. The conditions at the camps were unjustifiable and serve as an example egregious rationalizations people in charge are capable of which is the topic of Dr. Ball’s article.

Reply to  Marcus
March 13, 2016 11:12 am

…to Marcus….you are wrong…those post world war 2 camps did exist and many German POW’s died of disease and starvation. Also…did you know that in the early 1930’s…the 3 Lieutenants they put in charge of routing, rousting and killing the homeless veterans of world war 1 who were camped outside of DC demanding that they be taken care of, paid pensions, etc….those three lieutenants were Patton, Ike and MacArthur….firing on ww1 vets and crushing their encampments…great patriots, eh?
RJ O’Guillory

Saul from Montreal
Reply to  Marcus
March 13, 2016 12:34 pm

I think Dr Ball needs to correct: “When the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) sought separation of Quebec from Canada, Pierre Trudeau used the kidnapping and death of an ambassador to act.”
The British Trade Commissioner James Cross was neither an ambassador nor murdered and was released unharmed. The murder victim was Deputy Premier and Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec Pierre Laporte*

Reply to  Marcus
March 13, 2016 1:25 pm

This is way off topic.
Information about those camps is quite scanty. Obviously not a bright spot in the history of the US Army.
I knew a German who was a POW in one of those camps. He said conditions were awful, but he didn’t blame the Americans. They just didn’t have the materials to house everybody properly. (Try housing a million men, all of a sudden, all soldiers and no telling who is out for revenge.) He only survived he said because he spoke English and he got better housing since he was then working for the Americans as a translator. He came to America to settle down after the war, with his wife, and became an American citizen. Not much resentment with him, apparently. Of course, no telling what he saw the German army do during the war.
BTW, nobody knew that the Germans had given up the fight despite the surrender of the German govt. There were calls for continued fighting by some die-hards. Eisenhower was extremely worried about continuing fighting and did everything he could to prevent it.
But, nice try. Here we are talking about the imminent heresy trials for climate skeptics by a completely corrupt American govt, and you want to criticize Eisenhower, probably our last decent President.

Saul from Montreal
Reply to  Marcus
March 15, 2016 7:44 am

One more correction:
The correct quote
: “Dear Sir, Unless you pay the rupees within seven days, we shall take such steps as will cause you the utmost damned astonishment.”

Reply to  Peter Miller
March 13, 2016 3:28 am

I don’t think there was any great malice in Jimmy Carter but there certainly is in Obama.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  mikebartnz
March 13, 2016 5:09 am

Obama said exactly what he would do before the first election. Hope and Change not withstanding.
Nobody listened to what he said, they were fixated on Hope and Change. (including the Nobel comity).

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  mikebartnz
March 13, 2016 10:46 pm

I have to agree. Carter was a terrible president but one without malice towards America. He was just wrong about everything he did.
Obummer is a lot weirder. He blames American arrogance for the world’s problems (remember he was bowing humbly to some foreign leader while returning the bust of Churchhill in the White House to the Brits). He is an intellectual lightweight who believes he is wise and thinks Socialism is settled science. (He is concerned about what is good for Socialism, not what is good for America.) He is a race baiter and divider setting classes and ethnicities against each other in an attempt to “revolutionize” America. He is a lot of negative things — but strangely his one saving grace is that he is scared to death of being a leader. The happiest day of Obummer life will be the day his presidency is over. What is for him the unbearable weight of leadership will be lifted from his shoulders and he can go back to being the loud-mouthed pretend he has always been, free of all consequences from anything he says. After his presidency he plans to live in the Washington area — undoubtedly intending to be the loudest and most public ex-presidents the country has ever seen. He’ll strut and rant from that Washington stage — continuing what his entire career has been — an acting job.
Eugene WR Gallun .

Reply to  mikebartnz
March 14, 2016 5:37 am

@ Eugene WR Gallun

He is an intellectual lightweight who believes he is wise and thinks Socialism is settled science. (He is concerned about what is good for Socialism, not what is good for America.)

Obama is not an intellectual lightweight, he is an intelligent but ignorant ideologue, much worse. Socialism, while impractical, has many admirable attributes. You are too generous when you imply Obama supports a political / economic model with any admirable attributes. Dr. Ball more correctly describes Obama’s attributes as totalitarian and we should call him exactly what he is.

Reply to  mikebartnz
March 14, 2016 3:50 pm

The last few decades has shown that there is ample malice in Carter.

Steve Case
Reply to  Peter Miller
March 13, 2016 5:05 am

LBJ was the worst president. He gave us the Viet Nam war, the failed war on poverty and the counter-culture of the ’60s.

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  Steve Case
March 13, 2016 6:12 am

I am no fan of LBJ but the president who got the USA into the Vietnam war was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 13, 2016 10:24 am

Cmon now, LBJ? Who gave us the civil rights laws? Who retired rather than die in office with all the chaos that would entail? My nomination would be FDR, who introduced the massive all-powerful federal government and had (ultimately) a Supreme Court to go along with him.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Steve Case
March 13, 2016 11:17 am


Mike McMillan
Reply to  Steve Case
March 13, 2016 11:20 am

Let me withdraw my remark. It’s been subverted by the moderation pipeline.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 13, 2016 5:04 pm

Keith Willshaw says:
March 13, 2016 at 6:12 am
I am no fan of LBJ but the president who got the USA into the Vietnam war was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

You could trace the blame back to Truman and Eisenhower after him. link Some people blame Robert McNamara. There’s plenty of blame to go around. I have always liked to think that JFK was a much better poker player than LBJ and would not have escalated but we’ll never know.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 13, 2016 7:42 pm

LBJ gave us the entire 23 part entitlement system that subverted the Civil Rights Act and enticed most of the black population to convert from Republican to Democrat and to chase after freebees, creating a dependent class that would forever vote Democratic. Yep, LBJ was a winner, but NOT for best President by a long shot.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 14, 2016 3:53 pm

JimB, Was that the same LBJ who after the civil rights laws passed was quoted as saying “Now those N****s will be voting for use for 100 years”?
As to not running for re-election, he was so far behind in the polls that he stood no chance of winning anyway.

Reply to  MarkW
March 15, 2016 4:10 pm

Those rascals could not have done those things had Abraham Lincoln not gone on a killing spree to break the Constitution.

Bob Denby
Reply to  Peter Miller
March 13, 2016 9:48 am

Obama, and his minions, have (wittingly or unwittingly) long-ago decided that it’s Capitalism, not climate-change that is the greatest threat — don’t be mislead. Everything he’s done is consistent with that supposition. (Fear of AGW,reinforced by widespread ignorance, is but a handy tool.)

Reply to  Bob Denby
March 13, 2016 11:15 am

Hope & Change
Can the people be awakened, is there still enough time?
Are the powers that be frightened, intimately aware of their crime?
Can you feel the anger building, the increased rate of rage?
As people begin to recognize, their ever-shrinking cage.
Can you feel liberty shrinking, diced up into little cubes?
Courts pretend to rule, as though we’re silly rubes.
Can you feel the Revolution, the ever-growing vibes?
People throwing off their chains, of blatant corruption and bribes.
Can you get the humiliation, the years of pent-up fury?
Millions rotting in prisons, no right to trial or jury.
Can you feel all the sorrow, of all this Hope & Change?
People have come to realize, their dreams were really strange.
Can you sense the switch of direction, the move towards Change & Hope?
As the crowds begin to gather, each…with a length of rope.
RJ O’Guillory

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Bob Denby
March 13, 2016 10:56 pm

fjoguillory — are you writing about Venezuela? — Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Peter Miller
March 13, 2016 11:00 am

Peter Miller March 13, 2016 at 3:13 am wrote: “Having an opinion, backed by scientific fact, as opposed to the Establishment view supported by scaremongering and data manipulation, should be considered a possible crime by one of the highest authorities in the land, says a lot about America today.”
It says a lot about the corrupt Obama administration only.
The FBI will come back without a criminal referral because no crime has been committed. You can’t legitimately charge someone with denying something that doesn’t exist, like catastrophic human-caused global warming/climate change. Even if it did exist, there is no crime in denying it that I can see, if it is a personal opinion, not meant to defraud anyone.
The FBI Director may be one of the few honest people in the Obama administration. If so, there will be no charges because no laws have been broken.
And President Obama is definitely the worst president in U.S. history, IMO.

Reply to  Peter Miller
March 13, 2016 2:19 pm

Here’s one who must be in his pay: JAW-dropping, I tell you! Must have been hit with his own (original!) Hockey Stick!

Saul from Montreal
Reply to  Goldrider
March 13, 2016 3:11 pm

You may want to check your link because it goes to a blog post by Jeff Masters and you’re certainly crossing the line into the twilight-zone when questioning his integrity.
It’s far fringe stuff like that as well as rants about an Obama third term and the mass arrests of climate change skeptics that gives climate change skepticism a bad name it neither deserves ,or desires.

Reply to  Goldrider
March 13, 2016 6:06 pm

Tides Canada, Jan.21, 2016
‘Is 2016 the climate change tipping point? Tides Canada and Toronto Star climate and economy series wraps up’
Announced in September 2015 and written by Tyler Hamilton.
Our Windsor, Dec.7, 2015
Reprinted from: The Star, Toronto
By: Tyler Hamilton + another author
Note the scientists quoted from for this article.
Scary stuff!

Reply to  Goldrider
March 13, 2016 6:46 pm

York University, Ontario, Canada
Sustainable Energy Initiative/SEI
Our Team includes:
Tyler Hamilton, Adjunct Professor, York’s Faculty of Environmental Studies.

Reply to  Goldrider
March 13, 2016 8:03 pm

Tyler Hamilton Blog @

Reply to  Goldrider
March 14, 2016 8:49 am

Clean | Break
Tyler Hamilton Resume
Science education?

Reply to  Peter Miller
March 14, 2016 7:14 am

You guys are hilarious.

March 13, 2016 3:18 am

…Well duh, how else is Obama going to get his third term ? CAGW will force him to declare a state of emergency and cancel all elections, for the good of the world, of course ! And I’m sure mini Trudeau will be right there behind him with his head stuck up Obama’s derriere !

Reply to  Marcus
March 13, 2016 12:53 pm

And when someone goes to trial after being arrested for speaking against global warming, all data to used for defense will be disallowed, leaving no possible verdict but guilty. That’s the future being built.
Either that, or an executive order will declare that, like taxes, accusation is equal to guilt.

Stevan Makarevich
March 13, 2016 3:25 am

I weep for our country, and would have given to despair if not for WUWT, where I find hope from the articles, and especially the comments that show I am not alone.

Reply to  Stevan Makarevich
March 13, 2016 6:06 am

We are many Stevan, WUWT has restored my faith in human nature more than any other single agency. For a very experienced retired civil engineer it was like coming home after a long time away.

Reply to  Keitho
March 13, 2016 12:40 pm

Anthony and his helpers have achieved an incredible thing here at WUWT. It is much broader than just the US, important as that is. I am from New Zealand, an electric power engineer in my 60s. WUWT, the authors and the commenters have stretched my mind and changed me for he better. The community here is just amazing, and It seems to me to contain a good number, if not a majority of scientifically literate folk, with moral fibre and not afraid to state their case.

Joan Zacharuk
Reply to  Stevan Makarevich
March 13, 2016 7:19 am

I understand. I weep for my children and grandchildren.

Reply to  Joan Zacharuk
March 13, 2016 12:21 pm

Stevan. I believe with the press of time these climate hucksters will diminish to the background noise a mouse would make squeaking doom and gloom at a climate conference afterparty, the odds are against them.

Reply to  Joan Zacharuk
March 14, 2016 3:56 pm

AGW is just the latest tactic being used to advance the agenda of big govt socialism.
When it is abandoned, the same people will move on to the next lie.
In the meantime, the programs put forth under the AGW umbrella will only be rolled back a little, if at all.

Sandy In Limousin
March 13, 2016 3:33 am

When politicians use the phrase “if you’re not breaking the law then you’ve nothing to fear” when justifying ever more surveillance I think yes, but I don’t know what future law I might be breaking. Being sceptical of mankind’s influence on the climate and saying grows evermore risky, but that isn’t a reason to change your mind about the truth.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
March 13, 2016 3:59 am

Sandy: Whenever someone quotes that “If you have nothing to hide…” crap at me I just ask them: You’re driving along and suddenly a police car appears behind you with ‘blues and twos’ going – what’s your first thought?

Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
March 13, 2016 8:05 am

Every one of us unknowingly commits several misdemeanor and occassionally felonious acts each day. For example, to aid in the war against drugs, the federal (US) government passed a law that mandates all prescription drugs be kept in their original bottles with the prescription lable attached. This identifies the drug and who has the right to possess it. Sounds reasonable on the surface. However, a great many people, most notable seniors and the elderly, transfer their numerous meds to a pill case for convenience and as a reminder when to take their medication. They are all committing felonies.
Many such laws are written broadly in order to give the government more leverage against the bad guys. They were never intended to be used against the otherwise innocent. Given the right (wrong) totalitarian government, though, they could selectively screw whomever they wish to silence.
You always have reason to fear those whom have power over you.

Reply to  Jtom
March 13, 2016 8:06 am


Dr. Dave
Reply to  Jtom
March 13, 2016 9:00 am

This is off the weather topic, but does illustrate your point, jtom. When I was a young physician, less than a year into my career (it was the early 90’s), I went into a patient’s room to find a very well dressed man sitting there. Before I could say anything, he looked at me and said, “Did you know that you are guilty of Medicare fraud?” I was obviously quite shocked, and not a little nervous, about what he said. I told him I could not be–I hadn’t been practicing medicine for that long, and besides, the clinic I worked in didn’t even take Medicare. He asked if it was possible that a person on Medicare could drive into our parking lot, find out we didn’t take Medicare, and then drive away. I said “Sure”, so he replied, “Then you are guilty of Medicare fraud”. He then apologized for surprising me like that, and explained that he was a former investigator of Medicare fraud for the US gov’t, and stated that the rules and regulations for Medicare/Medicaid were so numerous that almost any action you take will be listed as illegal in some part of the “manual”, and any action a Medicare patient takes, even if you don’t even see them, can be interpreted as fraud on the physician’s part. He also stated that any action you are explicitly ORDERED to perform in one portion of the regulations will be listed as illegal in another. He stated the only reason 100% of doctors aren’t in jail is because the government doesn’t WANT them in jail–yet. Heckuva way to start off my career!!

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  Jtom
March 14, 2016 12:38 am

I’ve heard that the tax laws make criminals of us all. You say also the drug laws!

Reply to  Jtom
March 14, 2016 3:59 pm

I do not remember what book it was from, but one of the minor characters in it noted that the purpose of the law was to make felons of everyone. After all, innocent people have no need to fear their govt. Make it impossible to go through the day without breaking some law, and the govt will own you. For the magistrate then has the power to destroy you if he wishes, or let you off if he wishes. All that is required for mercy, is that you dance to his tune.

Reply to  MarkW
March 14, 2016 4:08 pm

You described a mutual extortion society. These are common throughout the non-Anglosphere, and seemingly expanding quickly into the Anglosphere.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
March 13, 2016 9:30 am

The problems come when they change the law making what you were doing, illegal. Then they change the law to making thinking about it illegal. It is not a slippery slope, it is a cliff.
Cecil E Cook Jr points out that in the US there were many warnings that the cliff edge was near. After the edge was well and truly crossed, Western society finds itself plummeting into the abyss, and comments, ‘Well, that was a false warning! We have fallen over the edge and so far we are doing just fine!’
Mountaineers know it is not the fall that kills you, it’s the impact.

March 13, 2016 3:37 am

As always, impeccable and to the heart of the matter.

March 13, 2016 3:40 am

It appears that the USA has been so successful at exporting democracy that there is none left for the American citizens

Reply to  Kiwikid
March 13, 2016 3:48 am

I like it. Sadly seems to be true.

Reply to  Kiwikid
March 13, 2016 11:21 am

Kiwikid March 13, 2016 at 3:40 am wrote: “It appears that the USA has been so successful at exporting democracy that there is none left for the American citizens.”
Don’t count American citizens out, just yet. Let’s see what things look like Wednesday morning. We will have some clarity then, I believe.

March 13, 2016 3:51 am

They are too blind to see that at some point it is going to be them against us.

Reply to  Alex
March 14, 2016 6:01 am

Alex “They are too blind …”
You underestimate them. They know exactly what they’re doing. Christians are being systematically removed from your police and military forces, which are trained to kill American citizens without compunction (InfoWars.) Their plans to reduce world population to 500 million are no secret (Dakota stonehenge.) Plans to make ~96% of the USA out of bounds to ordinary citizens have been reported on WUWT. Just hand over your guns and meet the fury of their eugenic religion.

March 13, 2016 3:56 am

Sheldon Whitehouse, Raul Grijalva and Loretta Lynch?

Reply to  firetoice2014
March 13, 2016 9:45 am

These green hooligans and fellow-travelling government thugs are clearly conspiring to violate the First Amendment free-speech rights of those who dare to disagree with them.
They are the Brownshirts of 21st century America
Also happens in the political realm:
It was beyond IRONIC that Bill Ayres was a major participant in the thuggery to shut down the Trump Chicago event!! Saul Alinsky is smiling from the bottom of his crypt, and winking at Hillary

Reply to  GeologyJim
March 13, 2016 3:00 pm

She clearly needs someone to wink at her. 😉

Reply to  GeologyJim
March 13, 2016 10:07 pm

The brownshirts were charged with pushing communists out of Germany, how are these communists brown shirts?

Reply to  GeologyJim
March 14, 2016 10:43 am

… similar tactics.

March 13, 2016 4:02 am

So come on America, vote for a Republican. But preferably not Trump.

Reply to  johnmarshall
March 13, 2016 4:07 am

and all the bureaucrats will still be there. Also the NSA, FBI, CIA and others of their ilk you don’t even know about

Reply to  johnmarshall
March 13, 2016 4:29 am

I am not share that any other candidate, but Trump could beat Hillary…

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Janus
March 13, 2016 5:50 am

Polling says otherwise. Cruz beats Hillary handily, Trump squeaks by.

Reply to  Janus
March 13, 2016 8:50 am

“Trump squeaks by.”
As Trump himself says: he hasn’t started on her yet. She has so many cracks that with a few taps she should fall apart like auto door glass.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Janus
March 13, 2016 11:25 am

I can’t imagine Trump ‘squeaking.’

Reply to  Janus
March 13, 2016 1:50 pm

Just so that you Americans know (and not that it helps either way), theer are an awful lot of British people over here in the UK who are hoping that Trump is the next President. Don’t listen to our media (who are amazingly out of touch). I can tell you from speaking to people every day of my life, so many Brits are rooting for Trump.

Reply to  Janus
March 13, 2016 1:51 pm

Sorry, “there”.

Reply to  Janus
March 14, 2016 4:02 pm

I’m not sure that the difference between Trump and Hillary is enough to matter.

Reply to  johnmarshall
March 13, 2016 8:17 am

Continue electing professional politicians and you will continue getting what you have gotten from professional politicians. How many elections will it take for voters to learn this?
If the politicians in DC wanted to fix the issues we have been debating for decades, they would be fixed. They create the problems (complex and unfair tax code, uncontrolled bureaucracy, mountains of regs, not being able to fire incompetent bureaucrats, SS funding problems, immigration problems), then claim the experience needed to fix the problems – but never do. They are the problem, and we need to fix it by removing them from Washington.
I don’t care who people vote for as long as it is not for a career politician.

Reply to  Jtom
March 14, 2016 4:03 pm

You don’t have to hold office in order to be a professional politician.
Trumps been a politician his entire professional life.

March 13, 2016 4:03 am

Yet another timely, reasoned, and insightful essay by Dr. Ball. Thanks for taking the time.
The USA is already a police state or nearly so, but we may not yet be as bad as Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China … yet. But we have not followed the Constitution in many, many generations. Oh, we pretend we follow the Constitution but we just follow what the rulers want it to mean.
In this case, the President is using totally un-physical theories of how the weather machine works to claim that he is in the business of “saving the world”.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. ~ H. L. Mencken

The problem is that there is no global warming other than the natural warming that brought us out of the Little Ice Age due to natural variation. We see some rises in “average temperature” (whatever that means) and then some reductions. We don’t really know what the next 100 years will bring other than the probability is very high that the models have it dead wrong. (which means cooling I guess)
In addition to the probability being against any more than a tiny bit of warming, we have to remember that the alarmist team of [insert forbidden word here] who told us that what warming that would come would do so at night and toward the poles. A warmer night and a warmer Canada?!? What the heck is wrong with that?
And the “luke-warmers” don’t help our side any by censoring and attacking the real skeptics. There is much controversy about what CO2 really does in the atmosphere — heck, there is real controversy about what and how the atmosphere in total helps to moderate temperatures on the planet. It is time to stop marginalizing those who reject the “CO2” warms the earth speculation.
The bottom line is no one can prove that CO2 is warming the planet (in my view because it is not) and no one can tell us what the climate will be 100 years from now.
For these reasons and many more, Obama is simply going for a power grab. A police state needs to be able to silence those that voice opinions the State does not want voiced. What better way to start than by putting skeptics in jail because they are “hurting our chances of saving the world”?

Reply to  markstoval
March 13, 2016 4:13 am

..Why do you think he wants America’s guns ??

Reply to  Marcus
March 13, 2016 4:18 am

Who needs a gun? When you can exhale more and destroy the planet.

Reply to  markstoval
March 13, 2016 11:32 am

Whatever Obama may be doing for his part in the power grab it is worth observing that police action that was popularly and properly vilified a generation ago has become commonplace these days. The entire city of Boston “locked down”, everyone confined to their homes, while homeland security engaged in a manhunt for two suspects with out so much as a whimper in the press about police state measures. We are hearing more and more for civil law enforcement this expression of “lock down” which, so far as I know, only applied to prisons in danger of rioting not that long ago. Then Homeland security runs in with HumVees and “tactical units” that employ every bit of military not police tactics against civilians. Amazing! If you have nothing to hide why should you object? Because that sort of behavior by police is Unamerican and has been battled against for the entire history of the country.

March 13, 2016 4:08 am

Lynch would seem to be an appropriate name.

March 13, 2016 4:13 am

Loretta Lynch should be impeached and banned from any office.

Mark T
Reply to  jamesbbkk
March 13, 2016 7:27 am

Impeachment applies only to elected officials. Loretta Lynch was appointed, therefore indictment is what applies.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Mark T
March 13, 2016 11:35 am

Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment . . .
Appointed Judge Alcee Hastings was impeached and convicted and booted off the bench.
Yes, Lynch can be impeached.

Reply to  Mark T
March 14, 2016 4:05 pm

As soon as he got out of jail, he ran for congress and won easily.

March 13, 2016 4:18 am

The use of fear for control has been around for a long time.
Captain Bligh: Remember, fear is our best weapon.
From Mutiny on the Bounty.

Don B
March 13, 2016 4:26 am

In Dead Wake, the fine book about the sinking of the Lusitania, the author relates the story of how the British head of intelligence visited Germany in 1934, and wrote to a friend…
“All the young men are in the net,” he wrote, “anyone who tried to keep out of being a Nazi is hazed till they change their mind; a form of mass cruelty which exists only in such a country.”

March 13, 2016 4:36 am

I’ve been audited by the IRS 3 times in the last 6 years and so have a few of my friends. This documentary highlights just a few of the efforts made by some of the biggest names in Climate “Science” to silence a skeptic. The main clip starts at 49:28 and another starts at 38:34.

March 13, 2016 4:47 am

BTW, this tactic was outlined by Saul Alynski, “Blame Others Of What You Are Guilty.” Every criminal points the finger at others to deflect blame. The whole purpose of these lawsuits and threats are to throw the scent off the truly guilty. That is why I keep going back to the idea of an open source, crowd funded and/or X-Prize approach to a temperature data reconstruction and climate model. No way would the Hockeystick and IPCC Models be recreated if people understood what went into creating them, Real science is done through 1) Reproducible (which the Hockeystick is not) and 2) Models being validated with a high R^2. No way would the public allow “Mike’s Nature trick to “Hide the decline” and any climate model that reduces the significance of CO2 in any of the IPCC models will have a greater R^2. All one would need to do is take an existing IPCC Model, reduce the coefficient assigned to CO2, or even eliminate if from the model, and I bet the R^2 would increase. It would be that simple. The existing models clearly have exaggerated the impact of CO2, and that is why their forecast of temperature tracks CO2 and not the actual temperature. They have a CO2 forecast model, not a temperature model. Temperature tracks the amount of radiation reaching the earth’s surface, not CO2. That is why every control for CO2 like the deserts and Antarctica don’t show any warming, and Mars, with 20x the CO2 of earth, shows such extreme temperature swings between day and night.

Reply to  co2islife
March 13, 2016 11:16 pm

The Russian model seems to be fairly accurate in reproducing recent tropospheric temperature. That one would be a good start.
If that is their official ‘state model’ it also explains why the Ruskies aren’t getting too upset about this whole farce….

March 13, 2016 4:56 am

Facts no longer matter. We simply decide how we want to see the world and then go out and find experts and evidence to back our beliefs.
This is in fact the postmodern approach to philosophy, where the mantra that ‘reality is a cultural construct’ has been somewhat…misinterpreted.
Reality as we experience it, may well be a cultural construct, but it isn’t a totally free choice.
The postmodernists seem to deny that there is a Reality behind and governing the reality of our perceptions.
This is tantamount to believing in Magick, that Reality is conformant to our will and choices.
Which of course denies the metaphysical assumptions of science altogether, which is that there is, behind the reality of our Perceptions, a Reality, even if we can’t completely grasp it.
I wanted to make this point because I think it really summarises the nature of the struggle – maybe the war – that is going on between rationalism and anti-rationalism. Of which climate change is just a small part.
For sure, we can show philosophically that reason doesn’t provide all of the answers, but it is a major step to them declare that it provides therefore none of the answers, and what counts is faith and belief…in climate change, in political correctness, in cultural diversity or whatever the latest fashionable bigotry is to be.
If it were true that the world conforms to our beliefs, we would never have developed Science. The whole point of Science was to explore the humble proposition that Something Out There, be it a God, Gods, Spirits, or Natural Mathematical Laws, was rather in charge of stuff we had very little control of, and if we could guess at its Laws, we might be able to second guess the future.
And to an extent that has been spectacularly successful. So successful that it has given rise to those in charge of Black Magick, which today we call Politics and Marketing, a severe case of ( ‘Physics Envy’ . They seek to usurp the perceived qualities of Physics, and ascribe them to not hypotheses of a testable nature, but emotional narratives of a metaphysical (untestable) nature.
Since the Druids, and other shamans, it has been understood that power over men consists in having charge of and control of their beliefs. The terrifying prospect of the latter day shamans who run the media, and infest the pages of the Sunday papers and the screens of the mass media, is that if enough people understood science and its underlying philosophy, they would be able to counter belief in falsehood, by means of mere observation. It is after all no warmer today than 50 years ago, so global warming has to be a load of bullcrap.
And this is why there is today an full on assault on ‘reason’ by those who will tell you that what counts is ’emotional intelligence’ and that doing wrong is not wrong ‘if you sincerely believed it was right’ (Tony Blair on Iraq), and in fact the phenomenon of the Left is, it seems, precisely about these ‘values’, that what counts is not what you can do, and do do, to alleviate human misery, but what good intentions you hold!
And that is why these people can gaily travel 12,000 miles by first class airliner to a climate conference, because what counts is not reducing emissions, it’s altering the perceptions of people to see emissions as a Sin.
And that is why these people will gaily allow millions of culturally antithetical immigrants to flood their countries, because at some level to deny them access would make them feel guilty.
I am not joking.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 13, 2016 6:59 am

This is why “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”, “CO2 is a pollutant”, “Ocean Acidification”, “Global Warming Increase Snow” and other patently false narratives can stay in the public discourse despite their obvious inaccuracy.
Each of these can be proven wrong with a simple link to the DOJ, a greenhouse growers website, a pH table, a meteorological description of snowfall amplification by cold.
Yet, people do not want to embrace the facts because it is a “just” cause they support – racial justice, warming planet, protecting ocean life, climate change.
Our society’s current willingness to live in a “fact free” world results in the dramatic polarization we see among factions. If there are no absolutes, where is the central basis to build agreement upon.?

Reply to  FTOP_T
March 13, 2016 7:48 am

..It is ONLY the liberal left that lives in a fantasy world of Unicorns, Elves and CAGW !!

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 13, 2016 7:08 am

Leo Smith excellant comment +100

James Francisco
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 13, 2016 9:07 am

Thanks Leo. Always interesting comments.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 13, 2016 10:01 am

I sympathize with your views, Leo, but need to add that there is no necessary “metaphysical assumptions of science … that there is, behind the reality of our Perceptions, a Reality,…” Science is about deriving explanations for our observations. Observations arrive. In deriving an explanation for them, there is no need for an assumption regarding their source. We can deduce a falsifiable explanation for their source, (the physical universe), but that deduction is not a metaphysical assumption. Science would be the same if we were all brains in vats being exposed to hallucinations (which, in some senses, we are).
Also, let’s not let the scientific establishment off the hook for the AGW scare. Postmodernists can yowl about cultural text all they like, but they would have no effect on science were it not for the fact that the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Physics, the US NAS, the Royal Society, and all the rest willfully swallowed the poison and bugled the fakery for the past 25 years.
Were the physics establishment as skeptical of AGW as they were of cold fusion (rightly or wrongly), we’d not be in this mess today and the postmodernists would be confined to their academic playpens. A huge portion of the fault lays with them. Postmodernists have just moved into the vacuum created by the new default of dishonesty of the physics establishment.

Reply to  Pat Frank
March 14, 2016 4:09 pm

It wasn’t the scientists in those organizations who swallowed the Kool-Aid, it was the politicians who ran them.
The real scientists let the politicians have control because they were more interested in doing science than in dealing with the grind of running such organizations.

Mindert Eiting
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 13, 2016 3:11 pm

Postmodernism is a suicidal or self defeating philosophy. If truth does not exist and it is just a matter of taste what we want to believe, this verdict also applies at postmodernism it self. As a matter of taste I have put this philosophy in the garbage bin many years ago.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 13, 2016 5:34 pm

Large parts of most American universities have been taken over by crap. Alan Sokal demonstrated this by getting a bogus paper published in Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. My favorite Sokal quote:

Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. I live on the twenty-first floor. link

Gad Saad has done videos that brilliantly take apart the crap.

Dallas R Basso
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 15, 2016 9:20 am

Well said Leo Smith. I wish I knew how to cut and paste for repost

Reply to  Dallas R Basso
March 15, 2016 9:44 am

Cut and paste it into an email. Send to yourself, then you will have it permanently.

March 13, 2016 5:09 am

Facts no longer matter. We simply decide how we want to see the world and then go out and find experts and evidence to back our beliefs.

Here is a real world case study:

Reply to  co2islife
March 13, 2016 7:50 am

…I wonder how many times she’s been called an ” Uncle Tom ” for not toeing the line ?

March 13, 2016 5:20 am

When George LeMaitre’s Big Bang theory was accepted in the latter part of the twentieth century, two physicists from Stalin’s Soviet Union wrote a paper accepting the theory. For that thoughtcrime, one was shot and the other sent to the gulag. As late as 1948, Soviet scientists were forbidden to accept the Big Bang theory. Because “clericalism”. LeMaitre, the ‘father of the Big Bang theory’ was also a Jesuit priest. The alarmists are the Stalinists of today; only they just want the money from the huge enviro business….follow the money, except for the ‘useful idiots’, who haven’t been educated about how science works…it is never settled dogma.

Reply to  Austinne
March 13, 2016 6:41 am

They now want to sell their gas to Europe.
Something which they are doing quite successfully.
And with it’s increasing obligations to serve its renewable heavy fluctuating supply, Europe is in need of more and more gas.
Hence, whilst the Kremlin has little interest in spending its own money on off-shore wind turbines – they are extremely interested in seeing that their European neighbours continue to expand such self-defeating plans.

Reply to  Austinne
March 13, 2016 7:07 am

European leadership sees nothing wrong with banning fracking and fossil fuels while simultaneously empowering Russia through dependency on its energy resources.
Better to serve a foreign master than empower and free your own people. Rallying the public around “clean energy” is how the a EU leaders get the commoners to place their heads under the yoke — or guillotine.

March 13, 2016 6:00 am

Fear to silence? That’s not an “assault on reason” it’s a violation of The Constitution up here in the US.

Philip Finck
March 13, 2016 6:01 am

Dr. Ball. Your posts are always interesting, however in this case your use of the Quebec Crisis is sadly misinformed and incorrect. At that time the FLQ was seeking independence for Quebec through the use of force. Specifically kidnapping, killing, and the indiscriminate use of bombs, specifically blowing up mail boxes. Worse, they were getting more radical with every act of violence. The government needed to act and act they did. Further, this was not an act to put down the separatist movement in Quebec. It was an act to stop the radical FLQ, a terrorist organization, not to stop the independence movement. In fact, there were several subsequent referendums on independence in which the Quebec people rejected separation. In fact, it could be argued that the referendums were an act to try and get more power for the provincial government by intimidating the rest of Canada, not the other way around. Whether it is climate science or politics you should be more careful and try to get your facts straight.

Wm Sears
Reply to  Philip Finck
March 13, 2016 7:16 am

I agree. The FLQ was like the WUO (weathermen), the IRA, or even the Taliban; that is a terrorist organization intent on setting up a totalitarian state similar to Castro in Cuba. They were not a political party in the way that the Parti Quebecois is. The FLQ needed to be quickly crushed. It is just too bad that Batista didn’t quickly crush Castro. In this sense Tim’s analogy is backwards and poorly chosen much as the Velikovsky example was poorly chosen.

Saul from Montreal
Reply to  Philip Finck
March 13, 2016 10:15 am

It appears that once again Dr Ball in his zeal to help Anthony Watts, has in his haste to publish neglected to perform due diligence and we have another post that is chuck full of irony that make clear eyed skeptics groan. There is no way the FLQ was anything other than a dangerous terrorist organisation that performing bombings, kidnapping and eventually murdered a hostage.

Saul from Montreal
Reply to  Saul from Montreal
March 13, 2016 11:38 am

correction: second to last line of my comment
that performing bombings replace with
that committed bombings

Reply to  Saul from Montreal
March 14, 2016 10:07 am

I love it when people take a few actually spoken words, insert their own assumptions about the author and their personal interpretations of his/her words and then reply with full confidence against the author as if doing so in an authoritative manner somehow compensates for their irrational, illogical, biased conclusions. It’s amusing to me.
The entire point Ball makes with the FLQ reference is that governments can, and have, used “FEAR” to take away the rights of INNOCENT citizens-as if THAT is a perfectly “reasonable” thing to do in crisis situations! (Your response could easily be taken as your endorsement for such a practice ) Dr. Ball doesn’t say a WORD that indicates his views on the FLQ at all! So you attempting to impune him as if you have mind reading abilities while defending the suspension of citizens rights by a totalitarian using FEAR to control his country really only makes you look idiotic while so perfectly proving Dr. Ball’s point about how governments use FEAR to rob people of their ability to reason!

Reply to  Philip Finck
March 13, 2016 11:14 am

Your assumption that there was no other way to combat the FLQ is false. The Canadian Federal Government has the full powers of the RCMP and the law(Parliament would have passed any extra provisions, such as search, that he needed). The reason Trudeau used the War Measures Act was simple.. he was totalitarian by nature.. my way or the highway. That is why he and Castro were buddies.

March 13, 2016 6:06 am

The Republicans are just like Obama when it comes to getting their own way. Just look at the disinformation propaganda for Iraq War II. Look at how the CIA was destroying careers of anyone who got in their way. Look at the lying propaganda in the UK Press about US multinational investment in the UK if we went to war with them, not a single cent of which materialised.
I really, really, really, wouldn’t try and make this out as Republican vs Democrat.
Until proven otherwise, it should be assumed that every politician, every CEO of a multinational corporation and every intelligence operative uses these techniques on a daily basis.

Reply to  rtj1211
March 13, 2016 6:33 am

…And the moon landings were fake, and George Bush created 911 and, and……please take your medication, your overdue..ONLY the left is pushing the Glo.Bull Warming Fraud !

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  rtj1211
March 13, 2016 7:26 am

In the case of climate, it is pretty much about Republican vs Democrat. And no one has suggested that Republicans don’t use similar tactics on other issues, so that’s a straw man.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 13, 2016 7:51 am

..JFK was a Democrat, the party now is nothing but liberal socialist ! Democrats no longer exist …

March 13, 2016 6:17 am

All this nonsense based on estimations-
This is how bad it is in Africa- one fifth of the world’s land mass-
WMO – “Because the data with respect to in-situ surface air temperature across Africa is sparse, a one year regional assessment for Africa could not be based on any of the three standard global surface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC, NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4 Instead, the combination of the Global Historical Climatology
Network and the Climate Anomaly Monitoring System (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory was used to estimate surface air temperature patterns”
so there we have it- one fifth of the world’s land mass in just estimated.

Reply to  englandrichard
March 13, 2016 7:14 am

Throw in less than 3% of the oceans. Yet accurate to .1 C when calculated as a global annual mean.
If you gave scientists the sparseness of the GISS raw data and asked them to solve for GAT, you would not only never achieve 97% consensus, you would have a hard time getting any of them to stop laughing.

Reply to  FTOP_T
March 14, 2016 4:12 pm

Many of the sensors being used to measure the earth, aren’t accurate to 0.1C. Even if all siting issues were eliminated.

Reply to  englandrichard
March 13, 2016 8:29 am

Add to that Antarctica, another 10% of the earth’s land mass. Very few monitoring sites there.
That’s 30% of the land surface and 97% of the oceans being estimated.

Reply to  Jtom
March 13, 2016 8:42 am

add on the WMO give a fat 0 for quality for temp data in urban areas and 27% of the world’s temp stations are in Urban areas,
Must be a weird world to be a climatology estimator. Spending all day looking at data that isn’t there.

Reply to  Jtom
March 14, 2016 4:13 pm

Parts of US, southern Canada and parts of Europe are adequately monitored. The rest of the world is not even close.

March 13, 2016 6:35 am

Fear tactics typical of Chicago thug apparatchiks. The unfortunate thing is that such a relative few in the electorate see them for what they are. Who was it that said that tyranny would next come wearing a pleasant smile and nice clothing?

Pat Paulsen
March 13, 2016 6:46 am

This has all be orchestrated. Obama & Trudeau. (sheesh) A community activist and part time drama teacher. They are both experts on the climate? I think not. Who is whispering in their ear, telling them what to say, as they pull the puppet strings?

Ethan Brand
March 13, 2016 7:30 am

Dr Tim Ball:
“Sadly, these exploitation’s litter history as people sought to control others and push a political or religious agenda. There appears to be a difference today as Farhad Manjoo identified in his book “True Enough: Learning to live in a Post-Fact Society”:
“Facts no longer matter. We simply decide how we want to see the world and then go out and find experts and evidence to back our beliefs.”
If that doesn’t work, you manufacture the material and hire spin doctors to spread the lies and misinformation more effectively. The truth doesn’t need spin doctors.”
My overall comment to Dr Balls comments are that they don’t go far enough, and hence are within the very subject he is discussing.
As noted by Philip Finck March 13, 2016 at 6:01 am regarding Quebec, the perception of what and why things happen is mired in the uncertainty of knowledge of the underlying events. This uncertainty is then both intentionally and, in this case, unintentionally used to further some other discussion or agenda. It does not take long for any “fact” based chain to turn to dust.
My other concern relates to a more pervasive issue, promulgated by Dr Balls quote (above) by Manjoo “True Enough: Learning to live in a Post-Fact Society”. This missive seems to be relating present behavior to some past behavior (“Post-Fact Society”), which would infer that at some time in the past, we (humans) were better at communicating and or perceiving “facts” than we are today. I have not seen any compelling argument (supported by reality) that supports this is a large sense. While it is easy to selectively recall a time when reporters were honest, and politicians were sincere and police were angels and scientists were steely eyed rationalists, a more honest assessment would likely disintegrate this rosy view of the past.
My own observation is that the current “debate” (or lack thereof) related to AGW is just a continuation of predictable human behavior, but I find that I must extend my same skepticism to the notion that we are falling into a pit of irrational “Post-Fact” science. Based on a more rational view of history, I think it is clear, overall, that we are in fact on a trajectory of slowing the power of fear and ignorance on human activity. I use Mark Perry’s blog as a reality check, as Perry also does not subscribe to the sometimes popular notion of current gloom and doom (related to the past).
I think the bottom line is that today, compared to yesterday, that we are slightly less able to be convinced to pay homage to the local priests. I think we AGW “skeptics” would be better served by encouraging/acknowledging this trend, rather than falling into the same trap and comparing today’s science to some “better” science of the past.

March 13, 2016 8:00 am

We should just listen to what the enviro radicals are actually SAYING and DOING.
Many of them know that their predictions of catastrophic humanmade global warming are false and fraudulent, but it suits their purpose to use global warming hysteria as a smokescreen to mask their true intentions.
The radical warmists have done everything in their power to starve the world of fossil fuel energy that is required for continued global prosperity.
They have squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources on catastrophic humanmade global warming (CAGW) nonsense.
Investing these squandered resources in clean drinking water and sanitation alone would have saved the ~50 million kids who died from drinking contaminated water in the past 25+ years of CAGW hysteria.
Intelligent use of these scarce global resources could have easily saved as many people as were killed in the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
50 million people died in Hitler’s WW2. Josef Stalin killed another 50 million of his own people in internal purges. Leftist hero Mao gets the prize, killing as many as 80 million Chinese during his Great Leap Backward.
The radical environmental movement has done equally well, rivaling Mao for fatalities caused by the banning of DDT and the misallocation of scarce global resources on the fraud of catastrophic humanmade global warming.
Since many of these enviro radicals are latter-day Malthusians, Club of Rome types, etc., it is reasonable to assume that THIS WAS THEIR INTENTION.
Is this proposal too extreme? Well, no it is not: In addition to what the radical enviros do, let’s examine what they say:
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”

If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund

Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2016 9:04 am

..+ 10,000

Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2016 9:40 am

Allan MacRae! Any relationship? A nicely written letter to the editor, in this morning’s newspaper.
Just wondering.
Models fail to predict temperatures accurately

Reply to  Cam_S
March 16, 2016 7:41 pm

Good letter.
Not a close relative, but clearly an excellent gentleman!

James Francisco
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2016 9:54 am

Thanks Allen for that list. These public statements show how stupid these people are for revealing their true plans or goals that they surely know are not anywhere near majority views.

G. Karst
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2016 10:24 am

This should be repeated on every thread. People think I am exaggerating when I tell them what greenies really want and say. No power on earth are resisting these dangerous ideas. Scares the bejesus out of me. GK

Phil Brisley.
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2016 10:54 am

Pompous drivel from a bunch of self important dufus types. I like George Carlin’s “the Earth has a case of fleas” analogy…nothing serious.

Reply to  Phil Brisley.
March 13, 2016 5:49 pm

…unless you happen to be a “flea”
Funny, but sick SOB, it seems to me.

Warren Latham
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 14, 2016 3:08 pm

Well said indeed !
Those people are lunatics; we were warned of them and it is good that you warn us again.
Your “comment” is of the highest integrity, superbly written and is appreciated.

March 13, 2016 8:12 am

Dr. Ball,
A small correction: carbon is used throughout the scientific world, as CO2 is only present as CO2 in the atmosphere. In the oceans it is 1% CO2, 90% bicarbonates and 9% carbonates. In all life forms it is in a host of molecules like sugars, starch, cellulose,…
To make it easier to follow the carbon cycle (not called the CO2 cycle for that reason), everything is calculated as carbon fluxes in and out the oceans and vegetation/feed/food…
Indeed “carbon pollution” is nonsense, even if that is used as synonym for CO2 “pollution”, which it is no pollution at all…

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
March 14, 2016 1:18 am

“Carbon” the element is also present in very small amounts in the atmosphere in both methane and carbon monoxide, not just carbon dioxide. On a per molecule basis, methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, which the AGW worriers have on their list of things to worry about, and try to prohibit release into the atmosphere.

Reply to  Mayor of Venus
March 14, 2016 7:43 am

Both only have one carbon and both “simple” carbon compounds. CH4 can oxidize quite rapidly or at least this is what I learned in chemistry?

March 13, 2016 8:24 am

And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame,
He wol come up and offre in goddes name,
And I assoille him by the auctoritee
Which that by bulle ygraunted was to me.
by this gaude have I wonne, yeer by yeer,
An hundred mark sith I was pardoner.
I stonde lyk a clerk in my pulpet,
And whan the lewed peple is doun yset,
I preche so as ye han herd bifoore,
And telle an hundred false japes moore.
Thanne peyne I me to strecche forth the nekke,
And est and west upon the peple I bekke,
As dooth a dowve sittynge on a berne.
Myne handes and my tonge goon so yerne
That it is joye to se my bisynesse.
Of avarice and of swich cursednesse
Is al my prechyng, for to make hem free
To yeven hir pens, and namely unto me.
For myn entente is nat but for to wynne,
And nothyng for correccioun of synne.

Reply to  AJB
March 13, 2016 9:34 am

I do lurve a bit of Chaucer on a Sundye.

Fly over Bob
March 13, 2016 8:53 am

Totalitarianism occurs on the left and the right. If you mean by Left you are describing Liberals / Progressives / Socialists and by Right you are describing Conservatives, please name the Conservative Totalitarians of the 20th century.

Reply to  Fly over Bob
March 13, 2016 9:12 am


Reply to  Fly over Bob
March 13, 2016 11:31 am

I’ve heard some say that Conservatives are “Totalitarians”? I believe that’s a lie made up by the Left, Bob. Conservatives, contrary to the incorrect definition posited by the Left, want established values (like honesty, integrity, responsibility and thrift) to endure. We don’t need to be “spreading the wealth” or supporting this anthropogenic climate change meme to already know the results would be disastrous. Just look around you for confirming evidence.
On the other hand, maybe Conservatives ARE totalitarian–in that we want total honesty, total integrity, and total responsibility, especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility. The Left’s right to an individual’s money, whether it be through excessive taxation or irresponsible government debt, is tantamount to theft.
And nobody but thieves like a thief.

Reply to  Fly over Bob
March 14, 2016 6:44 am

Liberal – open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Progressive – favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas:
Socialism – any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Conservative – holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
All the above can be good or bad depending on the circumstances and your point of view. We should not conflate the above with:
Totalitarianism – of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.
The only connection between totalitarianism and liberal, progressive, socialist, and conservative is that the latter are abused by bad actors to achieve the former.

Tom Halla
March 13, 2016 9:22 am

I was once in a discussion thread on the “Mother Jones” website with a person who, quite sincerely, argued ther was no such thing as objective reality. Anyone opposed to this political mass movement has to bear in mind who we are dealing with. In the US, we have a chance to throw the enablers and suckups and fanatics out of office. Anyone who votes for the Hidebeast in the general election deserves what they are going to get–stagnation at best, rapid decline at worst.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 13, 2016 9:38 am

I was once in a discussion thread on the “Mother Jones” website with a person who, quite sincerely, argued there was no such thing as objective reality.
It is imponderable. Realists assume there is, Idealists assume there isn’t, but the best fit hypothesis is that there is, it’s just we can never actually see it, only imperfect models of it constructed by us in our own minds, so to speak.

L Garou
March 13, 2016 10:21 am

Meet the neo-Bolsheviks
(same as the old Bolsheviks)

Reply to  L Garou
March 14, 2016 2:42 am

The world looks just the same/
And history ain’t changed . . .
Or has it?

March 13, 2016 10:35 am

Even black Democrat lawmakers aren’t safe from attack:

March 13, 2016 10:48 am

In the end, they simply deem it.

March 13, 2016 10:51 am

What I find so strange about these kind of essays is that they seem to assume that AGW is a purely American thing, while actually more or less every other country on the planet (including the likes of Saudi Arabia, China, etc. Many of which couldn’t care less what America wants to do) are fully on-board. Even if the US would stop renewable today it would hardly change the global trajectory. So it seems to me you should be analysis a global phenomenon on a global level and not pretend is all driven by liberals in the US of A.

Reply to  benben
March 13, 2016 11:05 am

The countries that seem to buy totally into this are the European nations. All those other countries play lip service to the idea, mostly because they stand to be net gainers from the scam.
To call China fully on board, when they are currently the worst polluter, with real pollution, seems naive. As far as I know they have selected 2030 as the date for when they will start to reduce.

Reply to  benben
March 13, 2016 11:22 am

Sure BenBen, China and India are fully on board…by building coal plants faster than Obama can shut American ones down !! LOL idiot !

Reply to  benben
March 13, 2016 11:29 am

“while actually more or less every other country on the planet (including the likes of Saudi Arabia, China, etc. Many of which couldn’t care less what America wants to do) are fully on-board. ”

Reply to  benben
March 14, 2016 7:20 am

While ‘LOL idiot’ seems to be a good summary of the level of debate on this blog, here is an interesting and very recent read for people more inclined to decent analysis 😉

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  benben
March 14, 2016 7:32 am

“Decent analysis”, huh. More like CAGW ideology astro turf, and “renewable energy” cheerleading and hyper-spin.

Reply to  benben
March 14, 2016 8:08 pm

ok, ignoring the spin in the article (like the subtitle), what exactly bothers you? It’s mostly just a collection of facts and extrapolations of current trends. Nothing partisan about that, as far as I can see. And if you see a fact that you dispute, please provide references of course!

John Robertson
March 13, 2016 11:00 am

When your pampered existence depends on the “Big Lie”.
“Silence I kill you” is never far behind.
Fear is a great tool.
Until those you need to be fearful, decide they have nothing left to lose.
Great short term tool that gets old fast, breeding resentment, anger and vengeance.
The fools and bandits who attempt to install fear into those they seek to rob and control, always seem so surprised when they become the target of the mobs they incite.
Blind worms, gnawing on the foundations of civilization .
Rule of law is under open attack, when the person appointed to uphold national laws is as shallow as this Attorney General.
No wisdom to be found in Obamanation.

March 13, 2016 11:18 am

Drudge has story today about Black Democrat in California being attacked for voting against the California climate change bill.

Reply to  CO2isLife
March 13, 2016 12:26 pm

Moderate, pro-business blacks are huge targets because they are expected to stay serfs to the Democrats. What is happening to this woman is quite scary if you read the article.

March 13, 2016 12:44 pm

Unfortunately, there are so many sides and so many voices when we are speaking about climate, that sometimes is hard to believe in one or another…. Still, if we came to speaking about climate “criminals”, one especially comes into my mind. It’s the one that started World War II and whose actions on the seas and on the oceans, the naval war, led to climate change, as shown here: I’m speaking about mistakes that should never be made!

Reply to  smamarver
March 13, 2016 2:34 pm

…WTF ????

March 13, 2016 1:11 pm

A much deeper fear of many research scientists would be that of looking like an incompetent crank to their peers, out of their depth and unable to keep up with developments in their field.
But Tim vaulted right over that hurdle and just kept going.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Magma
March 13, 2016 2:03 pm

So, you’re saying climate “scientists” don’t care about whether or not they are doing real science, just that they look good to their peers. Interesting.
In other words, don’t rock the boat, we like our jobs doing pseudoscience.

Jeff Stanley
March 13, 2016 2:06 pm

Economist, academic and commentator Walter E. Williams, in a forward to a 1999 reprint of the classic defense of liberty against government tyranny, The Law by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), wrote:
“Bastiat was an optimist who thought that eloquent arguments in defense of liberty might save the day; but history is not on his side. Mankind’s history is one of systematic, arbitrary abuse and control by the elite acting privately, through the church, but mostly through government. It is a tragic history where hundreds of millions of unfortunate souls have been slaughtered, mostly by their own government. A historian writing 200 or 300 years from now might view the liberties that existed for a tiny portion of mankind’s population, mostly in the Western world, for only a tiny portion of its history, the last century or two, as a historical curiosity that defies explanation. That historian might also observe that the curiosity was only a temporary phenomenon and mankind reverted back to the traditional state of affairs — arbitrary control and abuse.”

March 13, 2016 2:54 pm

Baz March 13, 2016 at 1:50 pm wrote: “Just so that you Americans know (and not that it helps either way), theer are an awful lot of British people over here in the UK who are hoping that Trump is the next President. Don’t listen to our media (who are amazingly out of touch). I can tell you from speaking to people every day of my life, so many Brits are rooting for Trump.”
I saw some newspaper pictures of European demonstrators a few weeks ago, protesting the current Muslim immigrant problem over there, and a lot of the people in the crowd had huge signs with Donald Trump’s face on it!
European media is just like American media and is biased to the Left. Way to the Left. We take their opinions about as seriously as we take the opinions of the Leftwing news media in the U.S., which is not at all. Most of their product is Leftwing propaganda.

Reply to  TA
March 14, 2016 2:54 am

Nope, most Brits fear Trump because they think (rightly or wrongly) that he is a conman and a potentially dangerous loose cannon. Some fear that he will win, others fear that him being nominated ensures a Hilary Clinton win – a lose/lose situation!

Paul Westhaver
March 13, 2016 3:01 pm

Do facts ever really matter? Ghosts of Immanuel Velikovsky haunts us still.
“When the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) sought separation of Quebec from Canada, Pierre Trudeau used the kidnapping and death of an ambassador to act. ”
Pierre Laporte, a provincial cabinet minister of Quebec (Labour), was kidnapped and murdered.
Jame Cross, the British diplomat, was kidnapped and released.
Where is Sturgis Hooper?

March 13, 2016 3:39 pm

13 Mar: LA Times: Christine Mai-Duc: San Bernardino Assembly race could define what it means to be an Inland Empire Democrat
What happens when a Democratic lawmaker strays from party leaders on a key piece of Gov. Jerry Brown’s policy agenda? One assemblywoman who held back support for a sweeping climate-change bill last year is starting to find out.
Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown (D-San Bernardino) was among a group of business-aligned Democrats who objected to a provision in the bill, SB 350, that would have cut California’s motor vehicle petroleum use in half by 2030…
Protesters have shown up at her local events. Some of her supporters have defected, endorsing Reyes early in the fight.
“Do you ever feel that something is not going quite right?” Brown said in a recent phone interview. “They are after me, and I still don’t know why. I don’t know who ‘they’ are. But I will find out soon.”…
Husing (John Husing, an economist with the Inland Empire Economic Partnership) came to Brown’s aid, arguing that lower-income families might have been harmed by potential rising energy costs that may have resulted from implementation of the provision.
“That’s fine if you live in San Francisco and can afford a Tesla,” said Husing. “It’s not fine if you’re a poor family living in downtown San Bernardino … and the folks that stopped that deserve a welcome thanks.”
A group of twenty-somethings interrupted him, calling Brown “a corporate hack.”…

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  pat
March 13, 2016 4:23 pm

Pat… or Doug… or whatever…
Your post belongs in the tips and notes section where they can continue to be ignored.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
March 13, 2016 6:43 pm

Oh look. Paul the man-god has spoken ; )

March 13, 2016 3:47 pm

I came across this on the Internet and I was wondering if it makes scientific sense.
Get Ready for Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling
Covered Businesses Must Have Organics Recycling as of April 1, 2016
As part of California’s recycling and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission goals, businesses will be required to collect yard trimmings, food scraps and food-soiled paper for composting, effective April 1, 2016. Multifamily buildings with five or more units will be required to collect yard trimmings, effective April 1, 2016. These organic materials account for nearly one-third of the approximately 30 million tons of waste destined for California’s landfills each year.
Diverting organics from landfills for processing into compost and mulch reduces landfill GHG emissions and produces sustainable products that contribute to soil health, plant nutrition, water conservation and carbon sequestration. Mandatory commercial organics recycling helps to meet the goals of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32
Doesn’t compost generate CO2, CO, and methane?

Reply to  TCE
March 13, 2016 4:30 pm

Ah Cali9fornia, the land of fruits and nuts !…So instead of GHG coming out of landfills, it will come out of fertilizer ! D’oh

Reply to  Marcuso8
March 13, 2016 4:31 pm

Dang sticky fingers !! LOL

Reply to  TCE
March 13, 2016 4:42 pm

Doesn’t compost generate CO2, CO, and methane?
They never claimed otherwise. Their claim is:
Diverting organics from landfills for processing into compost and mulch reduces landfill GHG emissions and produces sustainable products
A statement that is completely true, just doesn’t mean what the average voter thinks it means.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 13, 2016 6:07 pm

Composting (growing nitrogen rich bacteria) has a lower capital cost than other renewable sources such as wind turbines and solar panels. Nitrogen fertilizer takes lot of natural gas and produces CO2.
It always amuses me when California watermelons discover science that my conservative Republican grandparents knew.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 13, 2016 6:32 pm

Yes, the statement is true. But doesn’t it ignore the emissions from compost. In other words, what is the net effect?

March 13, 2016 4:53 pm

13 Mar: Columbia Daily Tribune: Alicia Stice: Repercussions of climate change, not debate over its existence, dominate MU conference
Richard Alley wasn’t pulling any punches Saturday morning.
As the Penn State professor and environmental scientist addressed the crowd at the MU Life Sciences and Society Symposium, he made it clear that he was not interested in a debate about whether climate change was occurring or whether people have caused it. Instead, he wanted to give people context and talk about paths to wider use of new sources of energy to substitute for fossil fuels.
He held up his cellphone in front of the crowd, an example, he said, of how humans have used science to make incredible things out of sand, oil and “the right rocks.” But, still, some people bristle at ideas put forth by the scientific community.
“I have gotten emails that say ‘you scientists are evil liars. I hope you suffer personally. … I am trying to get you fired,’” he told the crowd. “And the irony of doing that with a cellphone seems to be lost.”
Life Sciences and Society Director Mary Shenk said that when organizing the symposium, she made a concerted effort to make sure the speakers focused on exploring the way climate change might affect people and how its effects might be mitigated rather than engaging about a debate over the science. There is widespread acceptance in the scientific community about the existence of climate change…
The answer, he (Alley)said, is in renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy…

March 13, 2016 4:59 pm

Meanwhile back at the farm-
‘U.S. President Barack Obama will come to London in April and urge British voters to back continued membership of the European Union, The Independent on Sunday newspaper reported.’
And I thought you Americans fought to be separated from the Colonial Home. ;<)

Reply to  lee
March 13, 2016 5:34 pm

..Obama is Anti-American …….

Reply to  lee
March 13, 2016 6:04 pm

Look at how well events in Germany are working under Merkel’s guidance. Her CDU Party just lost 3 elections with two of the defeats being substantial. Naturally, they label all those against them as being far right, with all of the negatives that supposedly implies…

Reply to  goldminor
March 13, 2016 11:59 pm

Merkel has already killed her party. It just does not know it’s dead yet.

Reply to  lee
March 14, 2016 7:04 am

Actually, what we wanted was full membership in the home country, being denied that we separated.
Why Obama would choose to interfere in your politics escapes me. Seems you Brits have governed yourselves just fine since before we existed. Why anyone would care about what our egotistical self important President has to say on the subject is a mystery. What hubris!

March 13, 2016 6:00 pm

Mao: “When we study a problem, we must subdue the facts … The relationship between politics and numbers is like that between officers and soldiers: Politics is the commander.”

March 14, 2016 6:12 am

Appeals to emotions such as fear are ‘highly illogical’.

March 14, 2016 11:27 am

John Podesta is the head of Hillary Clintons campaign… Here are the latest tweets…
Follow by SMS
John Podesta John Podesta
Mar 9
What’s at stake.…
View details ·
John Podesta retweeted
Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton
Mar 9
Found it for you: #DemDebate…
View summary ·
John Podesta John Podesta
Mar 9
Miami Beach can’t wait for Rs to get w/ the program. Ft Lauderdale can’t wait. The Everglades can’t wait. Our kids can’t wait. #ActOnClimate
View details ·
John Podesta John Podesta
Mar 9
Hillary’s plan uses all the tools we have to protect our environment, build renewable power & boost efficiency:
View summary ·
John Podesta John Podesta
Mar 9
In the next 15 years $69 billion of South FL property is at risk from climate change—more than anywhere else in the US #ImWithHer #DemDebate
View details ·
John Podesta John Podesta
Mar 9
Florida is all too familiar with the real & urgent threat of climate change. #ImWithHer #DemDebate
View details ·

Hugh Hudson
March 14, 2016 11:31 pm

When people invite you to learn and something, then give you lists of things you can’t learn and discuss – that’s propaganda – that’s brainwashing.
It’s not science. That’s what happened to climate science.
Scientists left.
Science left
”Climate Science” is now tambourines and orange dresses;
the bad haircut people at the airport, are the ”researchers.”

Verified by MonsterInsights