DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be Banned from Public Office: President Obama Stays Silent

Screenshot of President Obama Listening while DiCaprio Calls for "Deniers" to be banned from public office.

Screenshot of President Obama Listening while DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be banned from public office.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate advocate Leonardo DiCaprio has called for climate “deniers” to be banned from public office. President Obama, sharing a stage with DiCaprio, did not object – Obama’s words in my opinion appear to actually lend some support to DiCaprio’s outrageous demand, for limiting the US people’s freedom to choose leaders who represent their views.

DiCaprio: Climate change doubters shouldn’t hold public office

Politicians who don’t believe in climate change should not hold public office, said actor Leonardo DiCaprio Monday at the White House before the screening of his new climate documentary.

“The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over,” DiCaprio said at the White House’s South By South Lawn event.

If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.

“Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically. It is a problem that creeps up on you,” Obama said.

“The political system in every country is not well-designed to do something tough now to solve a problem that people will really feel the impact of in the future.”

Read more (includes a video): http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/leonardo-dicaprio-barack-obama-sxsl-climate-change

How many tyrants and dictators through history have used the pretext of an imminent disaster to seize control, to deprive people of their freedom?

It is one thing for a hypocritical jetset climate clown like DiCaprio to say something outrageous and anti-democratic. But it is an entirely different issue, when the serving President of the United States, who took an oath to defend the US constitution, fails to discharge his duty by speaking up against a high profile verbal attack against the liberty of the people he swore to protect.

Advertisements

229 thoughts on “DiCaprio Calls for “Deniers” to be Banned from Public Office: President Obama Stays Silent

  1. I will never watch a movie with DiCaprio in it. He is a traitor to the Constitution. President Obama is a disgrace for remaining silent.

      • Actually Dicaprio looks much more like a young Lenin.

        Either way Obama just sitting there and not even laughingly interjecting says it all. The guy is a grade A weasel. “Being There” main character Chauncey Gardner had more substance. more gravitas than this dribbledick. No wonder a piece of utter crap like Trump has such wide appeal.

        Obama will be remembered as the man who presided over the evacuation of America from iys international standing. He has done more damage than that final, panicked flight from Vietnam in 1975. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize before he even started the job but rather than actually bringing ‘peace in our time’ he has just pissed on our time. Duterte’s contempt is simply a measure of what Obama has actually achieved.

      • If anyone decides to make a movie of “The Snow Goose” we all know which part De Crapio would be best suited for.

    • Obama is a disgrace for much more than just this. In fact, I’m actually surprised he didn’t openly agree with the other idiot.

    • He’s probably got a ninth-grade education; he almost certainly doesn’t know much about the Constitution.

    • President Obama is a disgrace for remaining silent.
      ============
      Obama and Clinton both recognize that the First Amendment limits Congress, not the President. The President is free to shut down freedom of speech thru Executive Order. Don’t like what someone has to say, drone them.

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    • Personally, I don’t watch DiCaprio movies because they’re almost always bad. Not that he’s a bad “actor” if you enjoy the single personality he plays, but he chooses poor scripts.

      I like Harrison Ford even though he always plays the same character in different settings. Like DiCaprio, he’s not all that versatile, but he has better taste in scripts I think. At least, I can say his taste in scripts is closer to mine.

      DiCaprio was OK in “Titanic”, which was a good script. He got lucky. He’s done nothing more of note. I wouldn’t call him an actor, a ham is closer to the mark. He’s a “one trick pony” in the classic sense.

      • I partially agree with your point. However, Harrison Ford is much more versatile (but I do not disagree on your analysis of his talent). He has done movies such as Sabrina and Regarding Henry. In your defense, he did look out of place in both.

      • (trigger alert ; )

        Science is a religion, though philosophic rather than theistic in nature, and “Climate Change” is just a cult, it seems to me. We’ve been indoctrinated, I believe for decades, with the underlying objective of moving us into an “elitist” technocratic dictatorship, with Big Siants (just sounds like science ; ) replacing theistic religion as the source of moral standards/justification and behavioral norms, and givers people “something bigger than themselves to be a part of . . which hands down ultimate truth and prophecy as needed to justify whatever the ruling elites (highbrow criminals, basically) want us to do/accept/obey.

        Big Siants includes “social science” in a big way, and hence we get treated to dorky crap like SJWs and virtue signaling celebrities like this clown here . .

        To sell the Siants god, they had to discredit/demonize the Christian God, and religion, so they could indoctrinate the young into their synthetic replacement. (which is not science in the classical sense). And, tellingly I feel, if you check you’ll find that virtually all the famous religion/God bashers we’ve been highly exposed to for decades, are members of the CAGW clan . .

      • John, maybe that’s true using some ancient sense of the word “religion”, but it doesn’t jive with the modern definition. Especially in the monotheistic West, exclusivity is a major component of religion. This is why it is common to refer to Confusianism and Taoism as “philosophies” rather than religions, because their practitioners also follow a variety of other religious practices .

        As for your “going to a technocracy led by scientific overlords”, you are going way out of line and out of evidence. I don’t really think that’s worthy of a response.

      • Real science is not a religion, it is a methodology developed to try to keep us from making the more obvious mistakes in our thinking. It is not a machine that you feed data into and crank out the right answer at the end, as some seem to believe. Can you make mistakes using science? Sure, it happens more time than not. Can you overcome those mistakes by using science? Yes.

      • JohnKnight…”Science is a religion, though philosophic rather than theistic in nature, ”

        Proper science, of the objective, and not subjective sort has (or should have as much as practical) nothing to do with “belief” and religion or philosophy. Objective science is hard to find these days (cue psychology or any number of -ologies than can never be measured or objectively described).

        Perhaps we need to find a way to separate actual science. This is unfortunately muddied by “atheists” attempting to supplant religion with science, when the two should serve entirely different purposes.

      • I think you guys are just being dogmatic . . because we’ve been indoctrinated to react to the term ‘religion’ . . and other terms like ‘belief’, and ‘philosophy’ . .

        “Real science is not a religion, it is a methodology developed to try to keep us from making the more obvious mistakes in our thinking.”

        Mr. Newton called it the “experimental philosophy”, and the point of the methodology is, as you say, to try to keep us from mistakes in our thinking . . which is what philosophy is all about; careful and “transparent” thinking . . right?

        .”Proper science, of the objective, and not subjective sort has (or should have as much as practical) nothing to do with “belief” and religion or philosophy.”

        Proper science has EVERYTHING to do with belief, I say. What would be the point of conducting science if it didn’t result in ideas and techniques and so on, that we could believe in? You can’t even do science without belief in a great many things . . including of course stuff like many “natural laws”, which is a concept directly taken from the Judaeo-Christian concept of a Creator God who established the universe including strict “rules” that material stuff obeys.

        Other civilizations didn’t have that foundation belief, and on atheism, it has no rational justification at all that I can imagine . . why would one assume that “laws of nature” exist and are the same in all places at all times, as a starting point, if we are in a happenstance universe? Christian intellectuals did, and began what we now call science.

        Later (after much successful experimental philosophizing ; ) others took up the idea of universal natural laws and proclaimed (essentially) that God can’t exist because He would be a violation of the very laws the Christian intellectuals assumed based on the Book and attributed to Him . .

        And the modern anti-theists use a simple word game played with ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’, to justify much verbal persecution of “Believers” on the (to me) obviously fallacious grounds that science somehow knows that nothing above nature/natural law can occur/exist . . with occasional convenient exceptions like hypothetical “strings” that can spawn whole universes . . by the gazillions, so as to render the unspeakably conducive one we happen to inhabit; plausibly not designed . .

        But I digress, my point is that conducting science demands faith/belief in a great many things, and adherence to many well established “doctrines” and “rituals”, with high moral standards rigorously maintained throughout . . or we don’t accept the results as legitimate scientific truth/understanding. Ergo, the CAGW apostasy . . ; )

      • JohnKnight: Laurie Anderson wrote a compelling song on the subject titled “Big Science” in the early 80’s, I had the privilege of seeing her perform it at the Kabuki Theater in San Francisco during her tour following the album release. It’s very good, perhaps even outstanding, and very much in support of your point. If you haven’t heard it (or of her) I highly recommend correcting that.

    • My feelings exactly.

      De Capriato obvious does not understand the meaning of the word empirical.

      Dont think I will watch his movie though. Just be like Al Gore’s I suspect.

      Check this of AL Gore. Note he does not mention any time lines. I 5000 years maybe his prediction may come true but there would be no money in mentioning that little fact .

      Cheers
      Roger

      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  2. DiCaprio has obviously never read Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.

    Are we sure he’s not really Canadian?

    • Don’t blame the Great White North for this idiot! He’s all yours and he sounds to me like he wants to be president!

      • Sadly, that is not as bizarre as it sounds. If Reagan can and Trump might…… why not Leo taking the baton??

        Hey, . thats showbiz!!

      • Reagan was first president of the Screen Actors Guild, then a very successful governor of California, before running for office. He had been giving well written and received political speeches for years prior to his run as well. There is nothing surprising in the fact that he was able to run and win.

    • I think, as a Canadian, you should amend that to say, “Are we sure he’s not really a Canadian “LIBERAL” The previous (Conservative) PM of Canada (Stephen Harper) had no plans to implement a Carbon Tax. In contrast, the Liberal premier (Kathleen Wynne) of Ontario, the province I live in, is going to institute a Cap & Trade system joining California and Quebec starting in January, 2017. It will NOT be revenue neutral and the cost has been estimated to be about $490 per family per year.
      The new idiot in Ottawa (PM Justin Trudeau – he has very pretty hair and an empty head) just announced a Federal Carbon Tax starting in 2018. No word yet whether it will be revenue neutral – I wouldn’t count on it. It will start at $10 per tonne, increasing to $50 per tonne by 2022. When the federal Carbon Tax was announced during a recent meeting between the federal and the provincial finance ministers, three of the latter got up and walked out saying their provinces weren’t consulted. Neither “Liberal” (Trudeau or Wynne)mentioned a Carbon Tax (or Cap & Trade) in their last election campaigns – Wynne in 2014 and Trudeau in 2015.
      Along with the foolish entry into Wind & Solar by the Liberal government in Ontario, the prime reason for the doubling of electricity rates over the last ten years, more people in this province are going to be freezing in the dark before long.The number of families unable to pay their electricity bills has jumped from ~185,000 ($292 average owing) in 2013 to ~225,000 ($487 average owing) in 2015. The province has also shed 300,000 manufacturing jobs over this period, including Heinz, Kellogg and Caterpillar. All of this, of course, is to “Save the Planet”, and to hell with the people.
      I know Americans don’t pay much attention to what goes on up here in the Great White North, but you should in this case. The Shape of Things to Come for these United States of America.? Come November you will find out! Vote for Trump (warts and all) or you may suffer the same fate!

      • @ John in Oz, the two might not be twins but as far as Ontario is concerned the first time an “Globull” warming event happens , (that is the next snow fall and the the accompanying power outages) it will be. I predict that to happen in the next 4 weeks , it is after all Fall there and those November storms are quite regular and can be devastating because the sheep are not prepared for them ( Well okay at least sheep have a winter coat).

      • . . . and if the estimate is $490, you can be sure it will turn out to be at least double–ballooning like JT’s out of control deficit spending. Your electricity bills already include about $113/month in green-related fees. And now with DiCaprio and Suzuki cheerleading, it’s going to be inflicted on ALL of us. Until 2019. . . .

      • @ 3 c : I’ll guess that the Climate Before Citizens (CBC) poll must have missed you in the Poll that stated (paraphrased) All Canadians pretty much agree with our front man, this “Just-In” that Canada Loves the Tax.

    • Brian: Re the constitutional restrictions on what DeCrapio said: Wasn’t Obama a lecturer (he said) in Constitutional Law at Harvard? (Or is that just another one of his mis-statements?)

      • No one outside of the “inner-circle” has a clue as to what Obama actually accomplished at Harvard …… simply because his transcripts and other personal info/data are “sealed” from any inquiry.

        And the only reason that I can think of as to why Obama’s submitted Freshman Application Forms, Student Loan Forms, Student Grant Applications and/or Obama’s Grade Transcripts are all under “lock n’ key” at Harvard University is that there is some highly sensitive personal information on one (1) or more of said “sealed” papers that the US public should never be made aware of.

        And “HA”, …… Kaine attempted to pull an “Able” on Pence Tuesday night to “kill” Pence’s chances of becoming VP ……. but Caine, …. I mean Kaine failed miserably and accomplished little more than to “shoot himself in the foot”.

    • He is definitely not one of us! If he was then he would realize he was mocked by some Alberta cowboys. When he asked about the Chinooks, the locals told him it had never happened before. I know his real name is Leonardo, but, I think Dick would be appropriate.

  3. Once the truth is finally accepted, it may end up that climate alarmists are the ones that get banned from public office.

    DiCaprio really is a hypocritical tool.

  4. When only 5% of the people in the US are employed in a technical field, its no wonder why so many people are easily swayed by a bunch of lefties playing computer games with predetermined outcomes.

    • If “so many people” were really swayed, the matter would have already been settled, it seems to me, and there would be no need for talk of banning those still unswayed from public office.

      It’s like the candidacy of Ms. Clinton, I believe, virtually no “grass roots” support.

      • People are swayed enough to elect leftist governments pushing the green agenda. That is the best indicator of public opinion and the momentum of the ideology, as the matter is being settled incrementally in this fashion. Unless CAGW is widely publicized as bunk and becomes a deal-breaker for voters, they will continue voting for lefties and capitulated “conservatives” because that’s what good people do (sarc). The conflict of interest between government power and scientific objectivity is what has driven the agenda, and ambitious politicians will continue to use the agenda to their own benefit. Whether or not the gordian knot of green lies can be unwound depends on the power and influence of government, which continues to grow in western democracies abetted by those very lies.

  5. Wow, what with Ms Angelina Jolie Pitt, or whatever she calls herself now, berating anyone who doesn’t welcome millions of refugees into their homes (not any of hers mind you) and dear little Leonardo taking over democracy, who needs universities. Obviously acting school offers a great deal more than advertised.

    • Ever notice that the progressive elites are not exposed to the location of refugees, only the common person. How many refugees have been relocated in Chappaquiddick, Chappaqua, Nantucket, or places like Obama’s favorite vacation spots. The elites have decided that the peons must live with the risk of crime, poverty, and disease while paying for housing, schooling, etc.

      • It really is sad the way leftists feel the need to go out of their way to show how stupid and intolerant they are.

      • I was of course agreeing with the comment about the benefits of acting school.

        Thanks for the replies though. Classic knee jerk with a capital ASS from “hunter”, and of course I agree with MarkW but he hardly needed to point out the obvious.

        Special thanks to LoganSix. I didn’t know that Reagan was ever involved with the democrats.

      • Hi Forrest:

        Just FYI, and nothing else, OK?

        Reagan spent many years as a Democrat, back when, it could be argued, that Democrats may have had big hearts for the “little guy” (which, BTW, would include me; a full- and a part-time job, just to put beans on the table; sole support from those jobs for my wife and our four grandchildren; my AGI in 2015 was just under $32,000, and we cannot afford ObamaCare, so we just pay the fine; it’s much cheaper).

        Reagan eventually figured out that the Democrats no longer cared about the “little guy”, and instead only cared about Democrats. At one point he declared, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party left me.”

        To head off the inevitable reply from you, I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me. I am a Conservative, and I am not a Democrat, or Republican, because neither of those two parties has any semblance I what I stand for, which is Constitutionally limited government (which, since I doubt you understand it, is what our Founding Fathers set up for us).

        I’m the littlest of the little, Mr. Gardner. The Democrats are killing me, and thousands upon thousands of others just like me. They are working to send the ‘middle’ class into the ‘lower’ class, just as Alexander Tyler forecast, in the early 19th Century.

        You didn’t know that Reagan was once a Democrat; you’ve missed some History. Maybe you’ve heard that those who fail to study History are doomed to repeat it.

        I’d prefer that you repeat it on your own; I don’t think I have to learn that lesson. Please include me out.

        Regards,

        Vlad

      • Thanks for your informative and heartfelt explanation Vlad. It may not entirely surprise you to learn that I am not a citizen of your country and have never been within its borders. Believe it or not there are many more like me for whom your nation’s history will forever remain at least a partial mystery although I did watch an interesting documentary last night on the history of Washington DC.

        Some of us watch your politics with great amusement and more than a little dismay. Now, just to make sure you yourself are not one of those who has failed to learn the lessons of history, give me a quick run down on Australia’s political history. For example, how did a South Australian greens senator earn the epithet of Sarah Sea-Patrol.

        I look forward to your helpful and educational replies in future, but high horses are such tricky beasts to ride, aren’t they? All the best.

      • Hi Mr. Gardner:

        Just not up on my “Australian” History, except as applied to its subsurface. The political parties down under make no sense to a decent share of NH residents, except that the ideologies seem to mirror the ones we have in other parts of the world. (This is not a good thing)

        And the outcome(s) are always the same, so it would seem that the lessons of History are lost on far to many.

        Also confused on this “high horse” business. I think I mentioned something about being the lowest of the low, and in the death spiral induced by certain political elements who are out of my control. I would urge caution on riding high horses, otherwise “Ronnie Ray Gun” just might come a-ridin’ in, wearing his white hat, a pair of Colt .45 six-guns a-blazin’ an’ takin’ them bad guys out!

        His name, Mr. Gardner, was Ronald Wilson Reagan, not Ronnie Ray Gun, and he was my President. I’d be happy to enlighten you further on the merits of Constitutionally-limited government. Surprisingly enough, it works every time it’s tried!

        Regards,

        Vlad the Impaler (moniker bestowed upon me by another like-minded individual to yourself)

      • Seems to me the high horse was what you rode in on, with your “Ronnie Ray Gun” denigration.

      • Ah, I think that our polite and informative discourse may have shed some light on the issue.

        Your responses suggest that Mr Reagan is a bit of a sacred cow and I committed the egregious sin of poking fun at him using something of a homonym. I was politically incorrect. Shame on me. Will it help even things up if I refer to your current president as O’bummer?

        It may interest those living in the land of the free and the home of the brave that mocking political leaders past and present is something of a national pastime in Australia eg above Senator Sarah Sea-Patrol, Some of us are also a bit inclined to give sanctimonious people free horoscope readings.

        Enjoy your sacred cows, political heroes and anything else you hold close to your hearts. But please wary of believing anything too strongly.

        Viva la difference!

      • ‘It may interest those living in the land of the free and the home of the brave that mocking political leaders past and present is something of a national pastime in Australia’

        Well, perhaps you missed the point where it stopped being funny.

      • You’re a couple of days late to arrive Joel but as the saying goes some blokes are smarter than others.

        If only everybody shared your sense of humour then they’d be a bit more like you. What a wonderful world that would be for you.

        Thanks for playing.

  6. We see the attitude of the “government” if Hillary gets elected, radical minds will decide everything, even what you allowed to eat, drive, believe, think, or have learned what is correct science or morals.
    Obama already does not currently follow the laws as passed by congress or the rights afforded us in the Constitution.
    One could call it a dictatorship as Venezuela has with the same results.
    https://external-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQBkqjj-NeavQMpa&w=300&h=300&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmichaelpramirez.com%2Fuploads%2F3%2F4%2F9%2F8%2F34985326%2Fmrz100416-color_orig.jpg&cfs=1

  7. Sounds like a little dictator. I’ve often found it funny that “fans” are so star struck by actors, who really just lie for a living. They’re really good at pretending to be someone else, but they don’t know much about freedom or science.

  8. Motion picture making should be monitored for all CO2 & methane emissions related to a movie, including direct in-place, ancillary prior to usage, consequential to subsequent release, viewing procedures & end-user access. The “Hollywood” style of tax credits should be revoked since children, who will suffer as a result of those emissions, in the future will be forced to live with any effects occassioned by motion picture industry behavior. An immediate change in tax laws should be enacted which retroactively codifies a higher tax bracket for movie actors whose net worth is more than 2 or 3 times the average income in the place of the actor’s primary residence. /

  9. If profanity were allowed here I would post an expletive implying that Mr. Di Caprio is an xy chromosomal offspring of a female canid, but since such posts are not permitted I shall relunctantly refrain from such.

  10. This guy is a real worry.

    Leonardo de Caprio now espouses the most erudite and irrefutable argument (not) for a Carbon Tax.

    I paraphrase

    “most scientists see the Silver Bullet as being a Carbon Tax”.

    Ah what about horses for courses? Economists and other financial modellers might just have some input or do we just hang our whole future on the same guys I see as bastardising Science! If it weren’t so naive it would be funny.

  11. It’s marvelous how Hollywood liberals attempt to dictate how us “little people” should live, while they enjoy all the perks of being above the herd. We have to lower our heat to cut CO2 while they flit about in private jets. They decry the second amendment while cranking out an endless parade of “action” movies filled with gun violence. How about we tax private jets, and ban movies with firearms? They can ride the bus, and try to sell animated children’s stories.

  12. What would be cool is if just once an alarmist would answer a “denier ” with reality instead of calling for censorship. Anytime I hear the words hate speech or denier it just means leftiy lacks a coherent counter perspective.

  13. “I’m not a real climate scientist, I just play one in the movies… well I want to play one anyway.”

  14. It looks to me like we’re near the end of the Climate hustle. Perhaps we should be grateful that these two fellows came together to drive the final spikes into the religion of “Climate Change”.

  15. “Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically…….”

    Peversely designed? By whom Mr. President?

    I interpret that statement as an admission that the climate change issue is in fact manufactured and did not come about naturally. It’s an admission that there is more political opposition to it than was expected when the climate end-of-the-world-gloom-and doom campaign was created. All of the financial, political activist and scientists’ careeer-enhancing vested interests involved here are not being advanced as well as planned, are they Mr. President?

    Yes indeed. The faultiness of the whole thing really creeps up on you and gives you a hard time when you intended climate alarmism to be used to achieve goals that have nothing to do with the Earth’s climate, eh Mr. President?

    • In the real, non-government world, sometimes “perversely designed really hard to solve issues” are called wild goose chases. You know, those type of problems that sound really bad on the surface, but after a lot of time and effort to solve them, you eventually conclude that the problem isn’t as bad as it initially sounded, there are good reasons to leave the issue as-is, and the best approach for everyone going forward is to just stop chasing the goose.

      The passage of time usually brings clarity to these issues. So when do you stop chasing the goose … rational, open people who are willing to look at all sides of the issue just know when it’s time to stop chasing the goose. Single minded people or Government with an agenda on the other hand does not know when to stop chasing the goose.

    • “Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically…….”
      Peversely designed? By whom Mr. President?

      By God, of course.

    • Who was that UN official who declared that it didn’t matter if global warming was true or not, since it gave them the excuse they needed to do what they had been wanting to do.
      That being a one world government and the elimination of capitalism.

      • “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, (BSc. in nursing), former Canadian Minister of the Environment, in an interview in the Calgary Herald, December 14 1998.

        “What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
        — Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of The Club of Rome.
        — Statement made whilst U.S. Democrat Senator for Colorado in 1988.

  16. Methinks this second rate actor is getting to big for his boots. There was I thinking that America is/was the land of the free, indeed isn’t that in their anthem? It would seem one is only free when one toes the line and agrees with the scare tactics of a dictatorship.

    • He’s been to big for his boots for a long time but hey, according to the Hollywood scripts all he has to do is change his boots, he just asks for different ones and the flunky will have a pair ready.

  17. DeCaprio is just the tip of the coming iceberg for the Climate Gestapo-led suppression of free speech on the internet. The Left controls the MSM and the climate propaganda lies they spew.

    The problem is for them less than 40% of people believe Climate Change is a serious problem. The Left blames the free access of information on an open internet for that. Which is probably true. Propaganda doesn’t work against a population when freedom of speech and the press is protected and the population has ready access to websites like WUWT, Tony Heller’s, JoNova’s etc.

    There are plenty of elites who think like DeCaprio and are more than willing to impose their views and suppress the masses via control of not just politicians but all forms of free speech on the internet.

    Now that ICANN is free from the Department of Commerce, it will likely become a part of the UN’s ITU.

    Then we’ll see the UNFCCC, WMO, WHO, UNHCR jointly petition the World Court (ICJ) for a declaratory judgement that Climate Change “d3nial” on websites is a “crime against humanity.”

    This declaratory ruling will allow the ITU-ICANN to order websites that publish skepitcal content to take down that content or face domain name global internet death.

    Welcome to 1984.

    • It seems that the discussion is too political: is it just “the left” that supports the consensus on warming? I’m generally left of center but I don’t support the consensus, and I have to say that it irks me that this is cast in a “liberal” light: it’s the liberals, stupid. No, it’s not: it’s the corruption of the science, stupid, and that should be the focus. Should we have an open and free discussion of the science? Yes. Is the reason we don’t have one because of the left-leaning greenies? No. The reason we don’t have an open discussion is because Mann and the U of East Anglia have succeeded in convincing everyone that they’re right, and yes, this is a cause for the greenies but the whole scenario isn’t due to liberals or greenies: it’s due to bad science. So please, keep your eye on the ball.

      • You may be one of the honest left.

        But it is not Mann and others that have fooled your compatriots … if they are fooled then they did it to themselves, they have biased themselves in order to embraced the catastrophic BS, to use it as a tool to get what they want. If you can’t recognize this aspect of the whole deal then you are fooling yourself as well.

        Take a look at your liberal friends. Are they gullible dupes … are they so much more intellectually challenged than you that they can’t see it while you can?

        (and no, Mann hasn’t succeeded in convincing EVERYONE)

        if you focus and only keep your eye on the science ball they will change the rules and kick you off the field as soon as they get a chance, as Joel has pointed out.

      • Don,

        “The reason we don’t have an open discussion is because Mann and the U of East Anglia have succeeded in convincing everyone that they’re right…”

        Then why would “Climate Change” consistently poll at or near the bottom of long lists of general concerns people have? And why would it be entertained as necessary to outlaw those who don’t share that concern holding public office? Wouldn’t it be political suicide to resist the multitude that is ostensibly convinced Climate Change is an existential threat to humanity?

        Now, perhaps you meant everyone in certain classes of people, like UN officials . . but please bear in mind that the UN is a coming together of the most powerful people in each country . . not a coming together of the people of the world. It’s an “elitist” affair by definition, and if by “left” you mean concerned for the less fortunate of the world, I suggest that club is actually LINO (left in name only ; ) . . as I believe the mass media corporations/talking heads are too . .

        And that’s “the rub” of political leftism in general, as I see it; It’s easily commandeered by those who are anything but champions of the poor/downtrodden, and since it requires strong societal controls to do much of anything to help those unfortunate folks through governance, the strong control inevitably ends up in the hands of wealthy/powerful tricksters . . who are really interested in more wealth and power for themselves.

        It would be nice if we could count on only angels and saints to rule over us, so they could see to it that everyone was well taken care of, but that is just not the way politics works in reality-land. I think the American Founders understood that, and came up with a divided powers form of Government, which if kept intentionally weak in terms of societal controls, is our best chance at actually helping the less fortunate to overcome their plight eventually, with some help from “leftists” who want to help with that process . . which actually includes many considered to be on the “right” too, it seems to me.

    • One of the first things leftists do when they achieve power, is to restrict the ability of the people to access information that is not government approved.

    • As I recall, Soros and /or associates was one party pushing for removing the internet from U.S. control?

      Can go back to this issue if anyone wants to.

  18. Straight from the “here we go again department”:

    What defines whether or not someone “believes”? If it ever comes to the point of someone attempting to legislate for it, this is where the whole notion of banning “them” (or doing anything else to “them”, for that matter) will fall apart

  19. Question for Anthony:

    Why is D3nier (spelled correctly of course) still moderated word?
    It is in the title of this thread.
    And like “Deplorable”, I wear it as Badge of Honor in this most dishonorable of political times.

    Note I have a comment post stuck in moderation, which is frustrating.

  20. Is this the same bloke that confused the normal weather event, the Chinook wind with climate change? And had the audacity to say the locals had never witnessed this before. I wonder if Obama tells him climate change is affecting his golf game.

    • Anything that exposes Obama’s incompetence (which is almost his entire 7 1/2 yrs of executive blunders), Obama either blames on Republicans, or if that doesn’t work (like his Syria blunders) he then blames on CO2 levels.

      Obama is beyond incompetent. DiCaprio is beyond stupid. Both are Maniacally evil IYI’ers (like menacing clowns with an IVY league degree standing at the edge of a wooded clearing to lure naive to their fate. Psychopath clowns,, like DiCaprio and Obama, are usually high IQ).

    • @John of Cloverdale

      My thoughts exactly! Here we have an individual whom I can confidently say has a Carbon Footprint that
      far exceeds my own. After all this individual has several mansions that need to be keep lit, air
      conditioned (both heated and cooled), several yachts that require fossil fuels to sail the briny seas, not to
      mention the private jets. Do I even have to point out the Carbon Footprint required to make one of his films?

      Looking through his filmography I can note that at no time has he acted in a role that even remotely
      resembles that of a Climate Scientist.

      So why should I listen to him or feel the need to watch this film?

      Others have categorized him as a “useful idiot”, though I may argue the quantum of “useful” is debatable.

      AussieBear.

  21. While there are not too many people left who deny the fact that man made CO2 is warming the earth, it is the peoples right to sort the wheat from the chaff. If someone wants to look a complete fool and deny that at least some of the warming is ours… well that’s their call and the people can choose accordingly (isn’t one of the current presidential candidates denying man’s influence?). That’s democracy. So I guess in a round about way I agree with EW.

    • Straw man argument. No one denies that there may be some minor warming influence. The fact remains that a) whatever that influence is, it can’t be sussed out of the climate noise, i.e. its existence is merely hypothetical, and b) whatever that influence is, it is insignificant, i.e. we should not be worried about it, If we want to worry about climate, we should worry instead about cooling, which is far more dangerous.

      • Bruce Cobb
        “If we want to worry about climate, we should worry instead about cooling, which is far more dangerous.”
        If you want to look the other way be my guest, but given every single data set is almost guaranteed from here to have 2016 a record year…. I’m going to look in the other direction.

      • Record year? Since the first one 4.5 billion years ago?

        How does the 1930s compare with 2016 in the RSS and UAH data sets?

        Perhaps you meant to say that we have no clue what a record year is, or a record year only in the past 30 odd years. So what is 36/4,500,000,000?

    • I see simple Simon is back and still having to lie about what others believe in order to make himself sound reasonable.

      • “I see simple Simon is back and still having to lie about what others believe in order to make himself sound reasonable.”
        Really….. which part is a lie?

      • Nope I don’t. Please explain. I think I am being extremely honest and accurate. Pretty much no one now denies (except fools and one guy running for president…. sorry same thing) mans burning of fossil fuels is contributng to the present warming. The only question is how much.

      • Simon,

        When did Gary Johnson say he doesn’t think burning fossil fuels is contributing to the present warming?

        And did he address your how much question?

      • “When did Gary Johnson say he doesn’t think burning fossil fuels is contributing to the present warming?”
        I meant the chump Trump. But you knew that.

      • simon,

        Nope I don’t. Please explain. I think I am being extremely honest and accurate. Pretty much no one now denies (except fools and one guy named simon . sorry same thing) Johnson is a fool. The only question is how big of a fool.

  22. Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically.

    Coming from a man with a record of executive over reach who has demanded that his security departments all provide him with a consensus report on climate change before he leaves office, that’s a bit ominous.

  23. I have never heard of Professor DiCaprio! Could people her perhaps direct me to of his papers on climate change?

  24. I will rewrite that. ”I have never heard of Professor DiCaprio! Could people here perhaps direct me to some of his papers on climate change?”

  25. Can’t speak for the US, but many a UK actor has often admitted to having a poor academic record! As people have said, they are paid toread lines from a script, to effectively tell lies on stage & screen, toexist in a fantasy world!

  26. I looked his biography up and am surprised that in the USA one can be an academic with only a general equivalency diploma (GED) qualification. I informed my window cleaner of this and she now wishes to emigrate from here in the South Malaccas and appear on CNN to pontificate about what came before the big bang!

  27. To see a highschool dropout who needs to surround himself with models to feel worth something, talk about empiricism, ha. And Obama, Mr 57 states lol

    Hayhoe is no scientist either, she’s a batchit crazy evangelical who is terrified of being questioned openly

  28. “The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over,” is a classic example of a Hegelian dialectic oxymoron. No true science can exist within an agenda driven ‘consensus’,… but it can if the science is faith based. It appears we are dealing with a new religion called climate change. Any deviation from the dogmatic consensus is heresy,… therefore prepare for the latest inquisition to begin.

  29. As I understand it Obama’s school records are sealed, maybe not so impressive as he proves everyday. Now DiCaprio, me thinks you failed critical thinking.

  30. Hey you could reintroduce segregation. You know deniers are not allowed to use the same bathrooms, eateries or entrances as believers. Now that is a step forward for the Land of the Free!! Good on you Leonard. Reverse the thought and what would you say if your films were outlawed?? Oh the outrage.

    • My guess is Leo pays no tax on all his travel to warn the po’folk about the danger of them spewing tons of CO2 and the resultant global warming.

  31. And Obama the Nobel peace prize winner stayed silent – what a farce!

    “It can’t happen here” is always wrong: a dictatorship can happen anywhere.”
    ― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography

  32. Welcome to The McCarthy Era, Part II: The Sequel: Climate Change is Gonna Get You..
    Starring Leonardo DiCaprio as the Resurrected Senator Joe McCarthy.

  33. DiCaprio is having a great laugh and a roaring good time. All at everyone else’s expense.

    Flying around the world in private jets, visiting far flung and beautiful lands, to ponder on the dire effects of climate change.

    Holding swanky parties (ie, fund raisers) for his friends who all fly into exotic five star resorts and donate money to his cause, so he can fly to more exotic locales, and hold more parties.

    I think the lad realizes that he has hit the mother lode, and the longer he can keep the show rolling, the better.

    He may even feel genuinely righteous about it all.
    But, perhaps not.

    • It would be interesting to see (but not worth the effort to find out) if all these junkets including private jet expenses, first class hotels etc are tax write offs :) .

  34. How about banning anyone incapable of analysing the climate data and classifying its cyclic components so they can see how unlikely the climate scientists are to be correct from any public pronouncements on climate change? This is far more rational than allowing a person who has proved his ability to make pure fiction seem real is so outstanding as to have gained several awards for it become a major spokesman.

  35. I always laugh at Leftists that call CAGW skeptics “unscientific” and “unwilling to accept emoirical evidence”.

    The irony is that it’s Leftist CAGW religious zealots that are not following the rules of the scientific method and are fail to evaluate the empirical evidence, which clearly show CAGW is a completely disconfirmed hypothesis.

    It’s unconstitutional for the government to prohibit anyone that meets the constitutional qualifications to run for office from running. PERIOD!

    it’s disgraceful Obama said absolutely nothing when DiCaprio made such a tyrannous and stupid comment–probably because Obama himself is stupid and tyrannous…

  36. Here is what happened to DiCaprio, remember that scene from Titanic when he slowly slipped out of sight under water. Well maybe he held his breath to long. Oxygen starvation maybe.

  37. Leonardo DiCaprio is absolutely correct about the empirical evidence. After all, no ship like the Titanic has hit an iceberg and sunk since anthropogenic global warming started. You see, he really is an expert on the subject!

  38. Please stop reporting this nonsense WUWT! Please stop reporting such idiots! you are only giving them the publicity they crave. People like these should be prosecuted for abusing the world`s top scientists. End this rubbish now WUWT!

    • “Please stop reporting this nonsense WUWT!”

      Oh, come on, now! You want to deprive us of the pleasure of heaping scorn on these alarmist fools? That’s no fun!

  39. I wonder if DeCrapio is smart enough to tell us mere mortals what the climate ought to be like. I mean, on our planet, not his.

  40. Too many people are advocating banning this and banning that opinion. Such opinions need to be banned.

      • “IMO, The US Constitution bans the government from banning my opinion.”

        That’s not just your opinion, that’s the LAW! Let’s hope it stays that way after this next presidential election.

  41. DiCaprio’s comment raises the interesting question as to who should adjudicate the subjects which disqualify someone from office:
    – the National Thought Police?
    – the Department of Political Correctness?
    – the Supreme Court of Received Wisdom?
    Because what DiCaprio sees to be asking for is just the first step to the Climate Change Inquisition. It’s very, very dangerous. If it’s Climate Change today, it could be Islam or guns or the Right to Choose tomorrow. It’s an amazingly authoritarian posture and for Obama to remain quiet is disturbing.

  42. Luckily not all actors are that stupid, though. James Woods is a favourite of mine, this is from imdb.com: “Has said he has an I.Q. of 180. Albert Einstein had an I.Q. of approximately 160. Another source lists Woods’ I.Q. as 184. He scored a perfect 800 on the Verbal portion of the SAT and a 779 in Math.”
    Mr. Woods is known to have said “”Scratch a liberal and you’ll find a fascist … I’m not joking. You look at what’s happening in this country now.”
    According to some of his tweets he has not bought into the climatescam either.

    • The reason liberals are Fascists was found by Heinlein.
      “Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
      To be a Liberal you have to believe first that you know better than everybody else what is best for them, second that you have a moral obligation to put your ‘wisdom’ into practice in the best interests of everybody, and third that anybody who resists your tyrannical altruism is evil.

  43. I know how we fix this horse pucky. When the Ice Age starts, we take all the Climate Alarmist out back and shoot them. 75 cents a head is not to expensive!

  44. don’t believe in climate change

    2 Comments.
    #1 – Beliefs are for Religion, not science. When did the US repeal the Religious test clause for public office?

    #2 – Obama agrees with it and is waiting to see if he can come out in support, that is why the silence. If there is not a big kickback, he will do just that. This is his “trial balloon”.

  45. So we have DiCrapio spouting nonsense about climate change after Jenny McCarthy started in with the non-vaccine thing which has caused harm.

    Instead of DiCrapio’s solution, I suggest banning celebrities and actors from being allowed to talk to the public.

  46. He is entitled to his opinions, no matter how ignorant or offensive they are. And I will oppose anybody that suggests he does not have the right to express them. I suppose that is just one of many things that Leo and I don’t agree on.

  47. Democracy is just so inconvenient for the Climatists. If only they could somehow sidestep the democratic process using an unelected branch of government… Oh wait.

  48. ““Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically. It is a problem that creeps up on you,” Obama said.”

    Isn’t this a dense observation? Climate change is hard to solve in fact, leave politics aside. We have no control variable for climate, and no way to manipulate the control variable if one existed. The only solution is adaptation, which to the elite sounds too much like letting the serfs decide for themselves.

  49. Let’s quesry DeCaprio about the right of a Hollywood producer to lie and make slanderous statements in his film in order to deny that JFK was killed by Oswald and Oswald alone (such as the pathetically ignorant Oliver Stone’s JFK film), which can be proven far, far more easily than one can prove that global warming is dangerous. Stone should have been sued by Johnson’s estate , as well as others.

    • Oswald was a pigeon, who was assassinated shortly after his arrest to prevent him from defending himself.

      Johnson had the most to gain and definitely was no fan of JFK and he very badly wanted to be President and Dallas was his turf. The only thing that stood in his way was Kennedy, who had beat his out in the primaries.

      From the point of view of J Edgar Hoover at the FBI, he had huge private files on millions of Americans. A file proving that the vice president had ordered the assassination of the president would give Hoover leverage over the President and be much more valuable that arresting the vice president, which would have created huge problems at the time. Such a file would make Hoover the most powerful man in America. These files disappeared after Hoover’s death.

      The only other likely suspect was Nixon, who flew into Dallas the day before, had served as a head of the CIA while he was Vice President under Eisenhower, and knew the CIA operatives that hated Kennedy from the Bag of Pigs. CIA operatives that Nixon later used as the “Plumbers” during Watergate. The CIA had a long record of assassination of political leaders, including the leader of South Vietnam 3 weeks before the Kennedy assassination.

      • The Mafia had plenty of motive. The Kennedys got their riches from working with the Mafia and one thing you do not do with them is bite the hand that has fed you. When RFK Jr went after them they retaliated by removing both of them from power. Jack Ruby who was in debt to the Mafia was summoned to eliminate Oswald. Ruby was dying of cancer anyway so he was able to secure his family’s safety.

  50. What’s the going rate for shill appearances? And what is the bonus amount in the deal for shocking shill?

  51. Progressives in general rarely want to allow the other side a chance to speak and, in fact, actively will try to shut down, or even prosecute, ideological opponents – this is why they are no longer liberal. DiCaprio, himself, is a barely literate moron. But he does demonstrate the standard tactic used, regardless of the issue – set up the strawman – AGW is fact and so ‘denial’ is denial of reality – (or things like ‘Trump is a racist’ and so ‘anti-Trump’ is by definition, ‘anti-racism’, or a million other examples) – and completely sidestep any discussion on whether or not the premise point is valid. It saves the marching broom-followers the trouble of thinking for themselves. Of course, you can’t do this with an honest press, which we don’t have.

    DiCaprio is also the classic elitist hypocrite – a totally over-indulgent life of self-gratification and excess, while he spouts self-serving garbage from people like Naomi Klein, and says things like ‘I love money, but capitalism’s got to go’. And then, of course, he adopts some stupid cause to give his empty phony life the illusion of meaning between parties.

    • I was reading an article which pointed out that if you asked google about racism and races, you would find out that it is impossible for minorities to be racist.
      According to them, you have to have power to be a racists, and blacks don’t have any political power.
      So according to Google, I have more political power than does Obama.

      • The other power is in looking the other way on tax avoidance by Google parent company. That is the real power, mixed with periodic lip service at the podium.

      • ‘Power’ is the power to act upon your racism – and that is extremely situational – pretty much dependent upon what room you’re in. If you’re outnumbered 2-1, you’re in the minority.

        Progressive philosophy is not much more than a justification for persecution and hate.

  52. Progressives in general rarely want to allow the other side a chance to speak and, in fact, actively will try to shut down, or even prosecute, ideological opponents – this is why they are no longer liberal.

    Oh, for the good old days when “liberals” were liberal. DiCaprio doesn’t know the difference between science and religion, but since he is probably anti-religion, he cannot use the proper term for non-believers, atheist, and has to use the d-word.

  53. Per Obama:

    ” “Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically. It is a problem that creeps up on you,” Obama said.”

    “Climate change” is a term is that is incorrectly for many different meanings, sometimes intentionally misleading and sometimes not. Decaprio, Obama, and others know this … if they said “negative outcomes, as associated with changes to regional or world climate as a result of human and societal activities … ” they would lose the attention of their intended audience. Or the audience would ask them about specifics, which they don’t want.

    In any event “Climate change” is a thing; like “Sun Rise” or “Evening Mist”, it cannot be solved (politically or any other way). Obama knows this and his comment is perversely honest … he is a weasel and Decraprio is getting nuttier all the time.l

    • Obama has that Lucifer-like quality of speaking the literal truth while almost constantly lying. I call it lawyer-lingo.

  54. Hello WUWT readers. I respectfully request your consideration for posting a suitable science rebuttal or response to the following assertions presented in thread discussion of the recent Wallace Christy D’Aleo paper on EPA Endangerment Findings and the lack of a detectable Tropical Hot Spot that were posted at the DailyCaller site or Blog by disquis comment user “Bart_R”.

    // Navier-Stokes equations allow calculation of components of energy balance in the atmosphere. These are well-established tools used throughout science and industry, and considered very exact due their successful application in such diverse fields.Navier-Stokes are so successful they allow scientists to find inconsistencies in the data that indicate unknowns, which upon investigations are found — cloud differences previously not realized, weather station moves previously undocumented, missing geographical coverage, and so on.

    We know what CO2 contributes (as well as all other Greenhouse Gases — GHGs) because their saturation level and bandwidth has been accurately measured by spectroscopy in the lab. CO2 ‘shoulders’ in its bandwidth — that is, it never saturates, and it widens its width with increased intensity due the structure of the CO2 atom. This, combined with CO2’s bandwidth in an ‘open window’ among all GHG bandwidths, makes CO2 particularly powerful among GHGs other than water vapor.

    Water vapor, however, is both saturating and condensing, meaning where water and CO2 overlap, CO2 increase always makes a difference, and more importantly as CO2 warms the air, more water remains in vapor form over a wider geographic area and to a higher altitude, enhancing water vapor’s powerful Greenhouse Effect (GHE). That’s why CO2 is considered the ‘control knob’ on the positive feedback ‘amplifier’ of GHE.

    These energy components fed into Navier-Stokes equations gives reliable estimates, alongside albedo changes and circulation changes and trade wind changes and volcano and aerosol changes, allowing fair attribution.

    Presently, calculations show that CO2 increase is likely directly and indirectly responsible for 25% more warming than has surfaced in measurement, that 25% hidden by simultaneous cooling from smog pollutants. The thing is, smog falls out of the air pretty much completely within 25 years (most of it within 5 years), while CO2 will take thousands of generations to bleed out of the carbon cycle.

    As industry shifts from coal and transport shifts from oil, there will be a quarter-century period of faster warming, where the actual CO2 warming we’ve done by fossil waste dumping is revealed. And then there will be another half century of lag as land ice responds and albedo feedbacks are felt. We’re likely above 3 C degrees of warming as of today, not to be seen until the 2080’s, and there’s nothing that will stop that much global temperature rise.

    The last time CO2 levels were this high for more than 70 years, millions of years ago, sea levels were many meters higher than today, and coastlines many miles farther inland. //

    Link to comment > http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/05/three-largest-police-unions-endorse-trump-in-crucial-battleground-state/#comment-2916134359

    Thank you for your consideration.

  55. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years and DiCaprio wants to stop that ?
    Say it ain’t so . No one could possibly be that stupid .

    The thing is they can no longer even bring themselves to saying what they mean ,

    Everyone is supposed to know the code for scary global warming is” climate change ” because global warming prophesies have turned out to be such complete nonsense .

    The science fiction is settled and the real science is at the toddler stage .

    Any President or Prime Minister that thinks humans are now driving the climate bus
    are insulting Mother Nature who will continue to be running the show after global warming alarmists are long gone .

    Even a founding father of the great global warming con scientist Lovelock says it’s a religion and anyone who thinks they can forecast beyond 10 -15 years is nuts .
    He should know he was one .

    I hope DiCaprio sticks with this so his greatest role will be known as a fool .

  56. Then alarmists should not hold public office either because they too do not believe in science. It is a matter of science that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really zero.

    For many the AGW conjecture is really a matter of religion so maybe people should not be allowed to hold public office based upon their religious beliefs. All Christians should not be allowed to hold office as well as all non-christians.

    If science is the criteria then only people with advanced degrees in science should be allowed to express a political opinion and to hold public office. Does Mr. DiCaprio have an advanced degree in science?

  57. I don’t agree with your ‘titanic’ suggestion. It seems you don’t have gut to convince CC deniers. Send them to me, I will convince them without failure. I am not a CC denier. But, I defy GHG idea though. GHE due to gases is impossible. CC has nothing to do with gases. GHG idea is fake, rubbish, metaphorical and that’s why there are CC deniers. Gases are the one and only ‘gateway’ for cooling the heated dry parts of the earth. In the mean time, you may visit devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com (Solution to CC and Power crisis) to learn how to convince those stupid deniers and suggest them also to visit the blog to learn science of CC.

  58. It’s apparent that this guy knows as little about history as he does about science.

    Socialism/Communism/Fascism always ends in oppression like this. They lie to you and take away your rights, then they take you away.

  59. Dicaprio and his climate gods are the real climate deniers. These self serving blind primates deny the natural climate change/warming of the Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods that history records and data show. They deny how humanity benefited emensely from these warm periods and how humanity suffered during colder periods. Thus the label of climate change denier has been misappropriated.

  60. Power hungry politicians (e.g. Hillary Clinton), Hollywood nincompoops (e.g. DiCaprio) and crony capitalists in droves love “Carbon Mitigation” because it makes them rich and powerful at the expense of the poor who have to pay more for energy.

Comments are closed.