Young Republicans Crack, Demand Climate Action

Kiera O'Brien
Kiera O’Brien, Harvard Politics Student, Republican and co-founder of Students for Carbon Dividends

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A group of College Conservatives have sided with the Democrats and demanded climate action – though liberal media outlets are still sneering at them for being Conservative.

Young Republicans Want to Fight Climate Change 30 Years Too Late

College conservatives support a carbon dividend, but what they really need is a time machine.

By Harry Cheadle Dec 13 2019, 5:57am

There’s a climate “debate” in American politics today the same way there’s a debate between a car and the wall it’s driving toward. On one hand you have heated arguments among Democrats about whether radical, capitalism-destroying action is necessary to save the planet. On the other hand Republicans are rigidly opposed to even relatively moderate, market-based attempts to cut emissions—when one such measure was being considered by the Democratic-controlled Oregon state legislature this summer, GOP lawmakers literally fled the state to deny the Democrats a quorum and block the bill.

In that context, any sign of a hint that Republicans might be willing to even consider a compromise that leads to the federal government taking action on climate can be seen as a step in the right direction. So the formation of a group called Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends, a coalition of right-leaning college students, could be justifiably celebrated. The group, Reuters reports, launched this week and “backs a market-based solution, calling for an initial $40-a-ton tax on carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, at mines, wells or ports where it is produced.” This money would be paid out directly to Americans at the same time that what YCCD calls “burdensome regulations” would be slashed.

Read more:

The original Reuters report includes a quote from one of their leaders;

Young U.S. Republicans defy party to fight climate change

Matthew Lavietes

Drawn from Republican groups on more than two dozen university campuses, the Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends called for laws to tax oil, natural gas and coal producers of planet-warming greenhouse gases. 

The taxation plan would make fossil fuels more costly while the resulting revenues would go to taxpayers. 

We claim to be the party that cares about the future that our children will inherit, and we need climate policy that reflects that,” said Kiera O’Brien, 21, a senior at Harvard University who co-founded the group. 

“We are offering up what we see as the common sense solution and the way forward for the party,” O’Brien told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Read more:

The co-founder of Students for Carbon Dividends quoted in the Reuters article is Kiera O’Brien, a student at Harvard and former president of the Harvard Republican Club.

I’m disappointed. Not because Kiera O’Brien is worried about climate change, but because she and her group are not acting like conservatives; she wants to introduce a new tax.

Pretty much everywhere which attempts to introduce a carbon tax eventually abandons it, because carbon taxes don’t work. Energy intensive manufacturing and industry flee the cost of the new tax, manufacturing jobs crash and politicians abandon the tax once voters figure out the cause of their misery.

Kiera, why would any business person in their right mind hang around and pay your carbon tax, when they can cut costs and relocate to a “developing country” beyond the reach of your artificially inflated energy prices?

One of the main reasons so many jobs are returning to the USA right now is President Trump ditched the Paris Agreement. By renouncing the Paris Agreement, President Trump provided a credible assurance to investors that he and the Republican Party intend to stand up to the green bullies, and keep US energy prices affordable and globally competitive.

Your proposed “border carbon adjustments” would not help US exporters. It would still make sense for manufacturers to relocate, pay the border adjustment tax for exports to the USA, but remain globally competitive in other markets. And there would be enormous perverse incentives to misapply the border tax. As P.J. O’Rourke once said, “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”

If Kiera wants to campaign for a climate policy, it’s a free country. But Kiera, please put a little thought into it; at least advance a policy idea which makes sense.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 14, 2019 10:09 pm

But how to conserve the Republican core value of free market democracy while handing over control of both market and governance to the ‘benevolent’ dictatorship necessary to enforce the changes required to get us back to the Stone Age?

Reply to  Richard
December 15, 2019 1:21 am

I’m disappointed. Not because Kiera O’Brien is worried about climate change, but because she and her group are not acting like conservatives; she wants to introduce a new tax.

I’m disappointed that she is so ill-informed that she thinks such a tax may be necessary. How to implement it and whether it is effective is a secondary issue.

Reply to  Greg
December 15, 2019 4:37 am

theyre fresh uni grads arent they?
pretty much explains why theyre so daft

Pop Piasa
Reply to  ozspeaksup
December 15, 2019 10:01 am

When I was a young protester against the Vietnam war, I thought with all my heart, ignoring the conflicts that flourished in my mind. About the time Clinton was impeached, I began to actually use the critical thinking course I had completed in college. Emotion rules for these FOMO kids who want to be included in every single social fad and ignore the political paradox that they exhibit. They just have to look virtuous.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 15, 2019 8:02 pm

I remember that time, Pop. As a young guy, it never occurred to me that the left would lie, and was lying.

Nor did I realize that the conservatives never made a compelling case for why they wanted to stop the spread of the most murderous ideology ever. As they never made the case, I did not know of it.

The combination — not realizing the lies, not understanding the rationale — left me in feelings-land.

Reply to  Greg
December 15, 2019 9:51 am

I’m disappointed that she thinks AGW is a real thing that even requires action at all.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Pragmatic46
December 15, 2019 1:01 pm

I’m disappointed that she thinks aGW is a real thing that it’s a bad thing that we even NEED to do anything about it.
I used a small “a” because, as far as I know, Man’s CO2 has only been hypothesized as contributing to any GW. And it’s never been shown just how much Man’s vs Nature’s CO2 is responsible. Let alone just what other things Nature can and does do to overwhelm what this cosmic ant called “man” does.

Reply to  Gunga Din
December 17, 2019 1:03 pm

Everyone has an opinion.
But facts are a different matter. Facts are stubborn little things. It’s difficult for everyone to have his own facts. But some try to — anyway.

As the New York Times reports:
“…Yet long before then [2050], the effects of global warming could spin out of control. As the United Nations’ secretary general, António Guterres, warned in opening the meeting:
“The point of no return is no longer over the horizon. It is in sight and hurtling toward us.” “Perhaps nowhere is that more true than in the Arctic. The surface air there is warming at twice the global rate and temperatures over the past five years have exceeded all previous records since 1900. This past week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the extent of Arctic summer sea ice was at its second lowest point since satellite observations began in 1979, and that average temperatures for the year ending in September were the second highest since 1900, when record-keeping began.
What will this mean? A study published in Geophysical Research Letters in June described the catastrophic consequences of losing the Arctic’s reflective summer sea ice. The ice is a great white shield that reflects incoming solar warming back to space during the long summer days of the midnight sun. Otherwise, it would be absorbed by the ocean. Losing this ice, the study explained, would be the warming equivalent of an extra 25 years of emissions at current rates, pushing us more quickly past the threshold of warming that scientists say could lead to catastrophic damage, from more intense heat waves and coastal flooding to extinctions of species and threats to food supplies.
That sounds pretty serious. Then we have;

As my friend Sean Hannity on Fox News likes to repeatedly tell his viewers: do not to pay attention to what Scientists tell us about Climate Change (and its Subset, Global Warming).
My friend Sean says he says that because Scientists made a mistake in the 1970s, when some of them predicted we were heading into another Ice Age and did NOT.
Of course, under the First Amendment, my friend Sean Hannity is free to say whatever he wants. Since he earns $40 million a year (TV & Radio combined) saying it, and has a Real Estate Empire of $90 million, you have to say: “Hey, Sean, you have done alright –for yourself!”

The Reality is that CO2 and Methane do what they ALWAYS have done for over three billion years —WARM the Earth.
And the Oceans will continue to ABSORB over 90% of the Man-Made heat from our burning of Fossil Fuels.
And the Oceans will continue to ABSORB 25% of the CO2 we emit, becoming more Acidic and threatening the creatures we like to eat (Clams and Oysters). Jellyfish are NOT affected. I understand Jellyfish is tasty on a cracker, but would rather not test that Theory.
And the CO2 and Oceans really don’t care if some Scientists made a mistake in the 1970s!
” In the 1820s [the French Scientist Joseph] Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation.
“He [Fourier] examined various possible sources of the additional observed heat in articles published in 1824
(“Remarques Générales Sur Les Températures Du Globe Terrestre Et Des Espaces Planétaires”. Annales de Chimie et de Physique. 27: 136–167. 1824a.and 1827. [13]
“Mémoire sur la température du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires.” [14]

You don’t have to “parlez-vous Francais” since enough materiel is in English too.
“While he [Fourier] ultimately suggested that interstellar radiation might be responsible for a large portion of the additional warmth, Fourier’s consideration of the possibility that the Earth’s atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect, [Weart, S. (2008). “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect”. Retrieved 27 May 2008. [15] ] although Fourier never called it that.
[Fleming, J R (1999). “Joseph Fourier, the “greenhouse effect”, and the quest for a universal theory of terrestrial temperatures”. Endeavour. 23 (2): 72–75. doi:10.1016/s0160-9327(99)01210-7. [16]

Baum, Sr., Rudy M. (2016). “Future Calculations: The first climate change believer”. Distillations. 2 (2): 38–39. Retrieved 22 March 2018.[17]

In his articles, Fourier referred to an experiment by de Saussure, who lined a vase with blackened cork. Into the cork, he inserted several panes of transparent glass, separated by intervals of air. Midday sunlight was allowed to enter at the top of the vase through the glass panes. The temperature became more elevated in the more interior compartments of this device. Fourier concluded that gases in the atmosphere could form a stable barrier like the glass panes. [14]

This conclusion may have contributed to the later use of the metaphor of the “greenhouse effect” to refer to the processes that determine atmospheric temperatures.
[18] Fourier noted that the actual mechanisms that determine the temperatures of the atmosphere included convection, which was not present in de Saussure’s experimental device.”

Fourier, like you and me and everyone else will, eventually passed away. But others built upon the foundation that Fourier had laid.

Reply to  Pragmatic46
December 15, 2019 4:03 pm

“College Conservatives” is what, 5 people that ain’t afraid to come out from under the rug?
Too few people, frankly, to influence much of anything. Lefty professors will eviscerate them.

Our esteemed elected officials’ shots are called by lobbyists for multinationals, big banks, big food and pharma, and big tech. The only time they even pay lip service to Us Deplorables is when they need our puny votes to keep their butts in the chair, grifting all the way. And so it goes . . .

Trump is the exception that proves that rule, and why they hate him with irrational passion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Greg
December 15, 2019 10:02 am

I’d like to know what her college major is that gives any vestige of authority to her proposal.

John Galt
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 15, 2019 2:02 pm

“Harvard Republican Club”??????

I went to Harvard and I remember one Libertarian and myself. That was about it.

On the other hand my “carbon dividend” should be around $100 million give or take and I will be content. Where do I sign up for that?

nw sage
Reply to  John Galt
December 15, 2019 6:06 pm

Isn’t ‘Harvard” and ‘Republican’ in the same sentence a contradiction in terms?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Greg
December 15, 2019 10:54 am

Anyone who is surprised that a Hahvahd student or graduate calling herself “conservative” would not actually BE conservative, probably hasn’t been paying attention for a few decades.

Reply to  Richard
December 15, 2019 5:00 am

Conservative means different things to different people. I don’t consider imperialism to be a conservative value, but neo-cons do. Burdensome taxation is not a conservative value, yet we have former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr., former secretary of the Treasury (all call themselves conservatives), pushing for a carbon tax (their organization is probably behind and funding this college group), and Rep. Matt Gaetz pushing for a methane tax (he’s a co-sponsor of the 2019 Super Pollutants Act)

Reply to  icisil
December 15, 2019 7:30 am

To a communist, socialists are conservative.

Ph.D. Guy
Reply to  MarkW
December 15, 2019 8:32 am

and “useful idiots”.

Reply to  icisil
December 15, 2019 3:38 pm

Elitists are not conservatives. Elitists would like to reduce the human population to make the Earth more sustainable. How they get there isn’t important, its the goal that is.

Dr Deanster
Reply to  Richard
December 15, 2019 12:36 pm

Peel back the onion, and I doubt these kids are conservatives. Could be a front group disguised as conservatives to give the appearance that the right wing is buying the hype.

Reply to  Richard
December 15, 2019 12:49 pm

Kiera O’Brien needs to take a few courses in Economic.

Hopefully Harvard still has some great professors which will help.

December 14, 2019 10:11 pm

Is it too late to stop this infectious madness? Will no one stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes, and be supported by other rational people?

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
December 15, 2019 12:15 am

I prefer the story of Chicken Little: “The Sky is Falling”.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
December 15, 2019 2:33 am

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
December 15, 2019 3:16 am

How dare you!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 15, 2019 5:02 am

Would Greta’s face be perfect photoshopped onto the guy in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers video above?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Loydo
December 15, 2019 11:26 am

Quite right Loydo, these Young RINOs have had their minds taken over by your ilk.

December 14, 2019 10:11 pm

One word: RINO.
Kindly ask her to join the Democrat Party.

Reply to  Brian Morgan
December 15, 2019 1:20 am

The reason why this is going to crash and burn is because the average young Republican today ISN’T a 4-year college student, DOESN’T relate to Harvard University students or their fellow travelers, and WON’T vote for politicians who will destroy their jobs.

Reply to  Luke
December 15, 2019 4:47 am

The making of a Climate Alarmist is part DNA and part environment. Several years ago I had the misfortune of attending my nephew’s high school graduation. The valedictorian wasted no time attacking us for “killing the planet”, a Greta-prototype. At that time the public schools had not yet gone full alarmist so I suspect it was in her DNA. Universities are a factor only if the raw material they are given is genetically predisposed. Conservative students self-censure themselves to avoid possible troubles with their professors, the administration, and thugs.

Reply to  Brian Morgan
December 15, 2019 5:53 pm

Genetic predisposition could have something to do with the fact that conservatives generally don’t accumulate a hundred thousand dollars of nondischargeable student loan debt. It could have something to do with the fact that conservatives typically leave college with useful work skills or start businesses. The most recent polling data that I’ve seen suggests that people who have more than a Bachelors degree are the most Democrat, but people who have Associates Degrees are the most Republican. The latter is basically America’s skilled workforce.

Paul R Johnson
Reply to  Brian Morgan
December 15, 2019 5:57 am

Unfortunately, this is about as close to a conservative as one gets from Harvard.

Reply to  Brian Morgan
December 17, 2019 1:08 pm

How dare the Republican Party be infected with Climate Madness!

President Trump, on Oct 15th, 2018, told 60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl that Global Warming was happening, but he was not convinced that Man was causing it. He said “it may reverse itself in millions of years”.

So I don’t know why the Dems and Libtards and now the Young Republicans are getting their underwear all bunched up over this Global Warming Hoax.

All they have to wait is millions of years and it may reverse itself. The President said so and he must be right.

December 14, 2019 10:35 pm

I wonder what her qualifications are, or what her subject of study is? Atmospheric physics or economics perhaps – they would be my bets. hahaha.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 15, 2019 9:34 am

Her degree might be in “Liberal White Guilt” along with a minor in “Toxic White Masculinity” with special emphasis in “Gender Transition.” She will probably become an advocate for diverting all the donations that normally go to the Salvation Army to instead go to paying reparations for slavery and funding more “Reading of Fairy Tales (is that a pun?) by Transgendered Bearded Men in miniskirts in public libraries”…but she is a CONSERVATIVE.

Kyle in Upstate NY
December 14, 2019 10:36 pm

Taxing carbon is often compared to how we implemented a cap-and-trade on the pollutants emitted by coal plants in I think the early 90s. Things like sulfur-dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc…that could be filtered out via scrubbers (I think they’re called that), were taxed via a cap-and-trade program. This incentivized the power plants to scrub their coal and from what I understand, it actually lowered electricity prices in the end, or made things cheaper ultimately for the power plants. So many climate alarmists say, “Why can’t we do the same thing with carbon? Implement a cap-and-trade program.”

The problem of course is that unlike with the pollutants in the carbon emissions of the plants, there is no way to replace the carbon emissions themselves. Wind and solar and so forth are not technologically nor even financially viable. Electric cars are not viable yet either. So all that happens is that the price of energy gets increased for the everyone. So the carbon tax just serves to create more bureaucrats for no economic benefit.

I also am highly skeptical of claims to tax carbon and then the revenues would “go to taxpayers.” Maybe, maybe not. You introduce a new tax and start producing lots of revenue and politicians become like a group of starved dogs with a pile of fresh steaks placed in front of them. A carbon tax is also highly favored by the Wall Street firms because it would allow them to engage in the trading of carbon credits.

But finally, I would argue that the argument that climate change is going to be harmful is too weakly supported to be doing something like implementing a tax to try to address it. And once you implement a new tax, it can be very hard to get rid of it.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Kyle in Upstate NY
December 15, 2019 12:41 am

Pure carbon produces 34.08 MJ per kg by burning it to Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – it really has little effect what form the carbon is in, Coal, Oil, Gas, wood etc. etc. a given amount of energy produced by combustion must release a given quantity of CO2 .
All carboniferous fuels have approximately the same calorific value per kilogram of carbon content.
Example coal is 32 – 38 MJ per kg.
And 83+% of world energy is generated from Carbon.
Therefore the only way to reduce CO2 is to de-energize the world – that means collapsing our standard of living and with it health and life expectancy.
It is a direct attack on your right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.
I’m not going there on the basis of poorly crafted and untested models that fly in the face of physics.
The world has lost its mind – clearly science is in descendancy. That’s the really scary part.
How long before we start burning denialists at the stake ?

Reply to  Kyle in Upstate NY
December 15, 2019 10:04 am

Here in Massachusetts, there is a climate initiative encompassing multiple states that will threaten to raise gas to almost $5/gal. And our governor is threatening to impose it via executive order. We already have one of the highest electricity costs because they don’t want to build pipelines to bring in natural gas. And because we have some of the highest costs of living in the US, this will create extreme hardships on average folk who have to commute far distances as well as substantially drive up heating costs.

This ploy is really to promote the UN’s Agenda 30 plan where people are forced to abandon their cars because they can’t afford it anymore and move into urban sustainable apartments which, of course, will have to be very small to limit emissions. They simply want to make our current lifestyle unaffordable except for the rich elites. This might be fine for Europeans but there is no need for the US to commit suicide as well.

The other kicker to this climate initiative is that half of the revenues will go to mass transit but I don’t know where the other half is going to. No doubt, public unions and the favored identity groups of Democrats.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kyle in Upstate NY
December 15, 2019 10:22 am

I’m unclear on just how the so-called “carbon tax” is supposed to work. Perhaps one of the trolls who haunts this blog could explain it to me.

As I understand it, the desired goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. So, the idea is to make the use of fossil fuels more expensive, by adding a surcharge, to encourage conservation or substitution. The taxes collected are to be returned to the consumers in the form of a tax rebate — obviously, minus governmental handling charges. So, if the consumer pays a tax of X dollars, and then receives a rebate of X dollars, there is really no cost to the consumer and therefore no incentive to do anything differently, except perhaps, budget differently to account for having to wait for an annual rebate. It seems to me that the most probable outcome of such a scheme would the creation of yet another bureaucratic agency to monitor sales, collect taxes, rebate taxes, and pay the salaries of the employees working for the agency. What have I missed here? The potential for the “handling charges” to increase over time to where the taxpayers receive little or nothing? The potential for it being a regressive tax that falls most heavily on the shoulders of those least able to pay it? Then, the creation of yet another bureaucracy to assist the disadvantaged? The potential for Congress to siphon off funds for other social welfare projects unrelated to the supposed reduction in global warming?

Jim C
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 15, 2019 1:19 pm

“As I understand it, the desired goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. So, the idea is to make the use of fossil fuels more expensive, by adding a surcharge, to encourage conservation or substitution. The taxes collected are to be returned to the consumers in the form of a tax rebate — obviously, minus governmental handling charges. So, if the consumer pays a tax of X dollars, and then receives a rebate of X dollars…”

Well, as I understand it 🙂 there’s your error. The government charges you (indirectly) an amount for your carbon usage, but amount you get handed back is independent of that. SO you have an incentive to reduce your consumption of carbon-producing things.

Carbon taxes make sense if you believe CO2 production is a major issue (I don’t) and yes, they hurt industry, but then so do a lot of taxes, regulations, and things like minimum wage legislation.

I’d be ok with it if the carbon taxes were used to raise revenue and other taxes were eliminated, but how often does that happen?

Kyle in Upstate NY
December 14, 2019 10:44 pm

Another thing, but on that Oregon bill’s defeat, while I don’t know if I agree with the GOP’s tactics of actually fleeing to avoid voting to kill it, the claims that it was a modest measure or that the GOP are wrong to fight for the “minority rural voters” I think are wrong as well. Cap-and-trade is virtually never a moderate measure, and as for the rural voters, those almost always are outnumbered by the urban voters. But policy should not work solely based on pure democracy. Here in New York state, it is like a dictatorship where we the rural people are dictated to by the people in New York City and Albany. In theory this is supposed to be checked by the existence of our state legislature, but it doesn’t really work out that way.

December 14, 2019 10:53 pm

Making the world a colder place for everyone isn’t exactly a winning strategy, fake or otherwise, is it.

That this scam is still twitching in its death throes after so long is unfathomable. Someone put it out of its misery please …. Boris??

December 14, 2019 10:58 pm

The centre left has been destroyed by toxic carbon-dioxide-flavoured emissions (verbal emissions, that is; we hear such AGW rubbish emitted through the media daily).

The centre-right is now following suit, with the hard left cheering on, wildly. The latter hates the idea of a more rational centre.

December 14, 2019 11:13 pm

Amazing what the young will fall for. It is if the control knob were CO2 and science did not matter then I would agree. But it does, and being a Republican, residing in California I resist those efforts to control CO2. Please look at science as the tall pole in the tent as being valid and choose your starting points carefully and not just a convenient place to prove your point. Facts don’t matter anymore I suppose.

Reply to  BillyV
December 15, 2019 12:07 am

Their greenness about Green and green, can be attributed to a youthful state of innocence, imagination, and consensus.

December 14, 2019 11:54 pm

This is how conservatives become RINOs.

Doc Chuck
December 15, 2019 12:12 am

Such gumint proposals are commonly sold on benefiting most of the people. And whilst salivating over my own prospective windfall, I missed any enumeration of how much of that carbon tax (drained away from industries that has been essential for my elevated living standard, if not survival) is headed my way so that I can continue to afford the very products they provide.

Oh never mind. Just let me off this carousel forthwith!

oebele bruinsma
December 15, 2019 12:17 am

The youth, as they say, has the future. When ‘progressive and conservatives’ blend in with alarmists climate ideas, dark clouds will appear based on group control methods and what we know as a democracy will suffer.

Joel O'Bryan
December 15, 2019 1:07 am

propaganda and indoctrination works.

They crawled in bed with a snake, thinking if the snake likes them, it won’t bite.

December 15, 2019 1:16 am

Surprisingly, the BBC (an experienced reporter) have an article warming the US Democrats to pay attention to the British election result, where the move to the far left of the Labour Party was severely punished:

December 15, 2019 1:20 am

The stupid is spreading.

Len Jay
December 15, 2019 1:45 am

In the sixties my Dad (who was a rabid communist) used to tell me:
‘ Just you wait, Len one day the filthy capitalists will discover a way to bottle and sell the air so we will have to buy it just to live!”
Well he was right about that except he didn’t have the right perpetrators. It is the filthy communists who want to do it.
He died long before this carbon tax nonsense surfaced though.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Len Jay
December 15, 2019 2:20 am

We’re doing that in Aus right now, and selling to China, we we were before the bushfires!

December 15, 2019 2:15 am

I guess these Young Republicans don’t have a BS meter like I did when I was in college…
And I was in an Art College in Philly where just about all the professors were liberals…


December 15, 2019 2:34 am

Because there are far more middle class
than rich, the bulk of the dividend revenue collected will come from them.

When it gets ‘evenly’ redistributed, the bulk of the
revenue going to the poor will be from the middle class, not the rich as it should be.

I believe this is why many rich people support the dividend tax. It gets them off the hook of helping the poor and instead, puts it on the middle class.

Reply to  Kramer
December 15, 2019 6:27 am

Shared responsibility. The terms of the compromise(d) have become progressively clear.

December 15, 2019 4:23 am

And thus the value of propaganda and power of peers.

December 15, 2019 4:31 am

I believe that carbon taxes are inherently flawed. Because a global program is impractical, it is likely that emissions will just move to where there is not tax rather than get reduced. The carbon price has to be set such that revenues over time increase significantly because it gets harder and harder to implement emissions reductions. The economists who support this theory seem to be blissfully unaware of the reality of the energy market and assume everyone will act like they think they should. Based on observed results I think that indirect market signals are going to lead to less cost-effective reductions in the time frame necessary for the aggressive reduction rules. Finally, no supporters seem to understand the very real problems of actually tracking who is emitting what where.
More at:

December 15, 2019 4:43 am

You would think these supposed conservatives would figure out that practical reduction of carbon requires technology, as in small modular molten salt nuclear reactors buring either uranium or Thorium.

Reply to  ColMosby
December 15, 2019 5:02 am

+1 for molten salt reactors

December 15, 2019 5:21 am

… “We claim to be the party that cares about the future that our children will inherit, and we need climate policy that reflects that,” said Kiera O’Brien, 21, a senior at Harvard University who co-founded the group. …

A bunk pretext and a false premise, from a 21-year-old.

OK Kiera, except people do care about the future. Contrary to your implied smears and arrogant dismissal. Which is why an EPA was setup, long before you were borne, by these older generations. And stringent air, water, soil quality and pollution standards were implemented which practically eliminated most industrial pollution which existed. And has been doing to ever since.

Until a bunch of proto-communist progressives with rhetoric just like yours tried to use the EPA under Obama, to trash the US economy and business.

Do you care about that? For you should as it’s critically important if you claim to ‘care’ about the “future of children”, instead of merely aimlessly gas-bagging about things which you are far from familiar with, enough to say much that’s actually constructive.

You are borne ignorant and stupid Keira. That’s the basic human starting condition, a fact for everyone. And you are a lot closer to that condition than almost everyone you see around you. People become less ignorant and less stupid via increasing experience with life lived and increasing age. You never stop learning the most important of things Keira.

But you still have not even realized that much yet? So at 21 years you think people who are much more knowledgeable, experienced and wise, know nothing very useful, and that you, who are closest to the starting-conditions of a human life, know so much better, and can make the best choices? And formulate the smartest ideas? And act in the wisest ways? And presume that others before you haven’t been constantly doing that?

Do you think we want to hear a stream of ignorant upstarts and twerps fresh out of some brainwashing ‘school’, for a year of two, arrogantly pretend to inform those who know much more that you about such things? Those who have seen so much more of life, and experienced much that you have not the faintest inkling about yet?

Can you really be that arrogant and silly? Or is it that you’re so conceited and selfish that you know it, and have simply abandoned intelligence at age 21, and are no longer able to learn due to an overwhelming surge of personal egotism and blind political ambition? To what end?

Certainly not to do what you so speedily claim.

Do you think anyone will be impressed by that? Do you think they don’t see naked opportunism here? Do you think your peers will forget what a fool you’ve been, even if sincere? You are dishonest with your motives. And your rhetoric has been heard a thousand times. We know the words that shysters use. And we’re familiar with grandstanding phony politicians who aren’t performing in their job-description’s tasks.

Reply to  WXcycles
December 15, 2019 6:01 am

Some anecdotal evidence from a New York City metropolitan resident:

I grew up in a New Jersey suburb. In the late 1960s my father traveled to Manhattan on the weekends to rent computer time. Sometimes I would ride along. The Holland Tunnel joins New Jersey and midtown Manhattan. As we would emerge from the tunnel on the New York side my eyes would tear from the thick blue car exhaust. You could see it. It was like a blanket suspended midair between the tall buildings. Today, I challenge you to go there. The air quality is so much better.

The Hudson River was once polluted. Today fisherman and boaters enjoy the river’s bounty. That is my first-hand experience. America is a good steward of the environment. Not perfect but not the terrible ogre that some believe.

Alasdair Fairbairn
December 15, 2019 5:23 am

It is my impression that educational establishments, with exceptions, no longer educate their students to think rationally and with logic and have replaced it with politically correct box ticking methods which can digitised. The result being the media compliant generation we see today.

December 15, 2019 5:30 am


December 15, 2019 6:21 am

Ok, to be fair, even for older people… persons, a consensus is hard to resist.

December 15, 2019 6:29 am

After our daughter of fifteen years of age was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN the other day, she became angry with our generation “who had been doing nothing for thirty years”.
So, we decided to help her prevent what the girl on TV announced of “massive eradication and the disappearance of entire ecosystems”.

We are now committed to give our daughter a future again, by doing our part to help cool the planet four degrees.
From now on she will go to school on a bicycle, because driving her by car costs fuel, and fuel puts emissions into the atmosphere. Of course it will be winter soon and then she will want to go by bus, but only as long as it is a diesel bus. Somehow, that does not seem to be conducive to ‘helping the Climate’.
Of course, she is now asking for an electric bicycle, but we have shown her the devastation caused to the areas of the planet as a result of mining for the extraction of Lithium and other minerals used to make batteries for electric bicycles, so she will be pedaling, or walking. Which will not harm her, or the planet. We used to cycle and walk to school too.

Since the girl on TV demanded “we need to get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels” and our daughter agreed with her, we have disconnected the heat vent in her room. The temperature is now dropping to twelve degrees in the evening, and will drop below freezing in the winter, we have promised to buy her an extra sweater, hat, tights, gloves and a blanket.

For the same reason we have decided that from now on she only takes a cold shower. She will wash her clothes by hand, with a wooden washboard, because the washing machine is simply a power consumer and since the dryer uses natural gas, she will hang her clothes on the clothes line to dry.
Speaking of clothes, the ones that she currently has are all synthetic, so made from petroleum. Therefore on Monday, we will bring all her designer clothing to the secondhand shop.
We have found an eco store where the only clothing they sell is made from undyed and unbleached linen, wool and jute.

It shouldn’t matter that it looks good on her, or that she is going to be laughed at, dressing in colorless, bland clothes and without a wireless bra, but that is the price she has to pay for the benefit of The Climate.
Cotton is out of the question, as it comes from distant lands and pesticides are used for it. Very bad for the environment.

We just saw on her Instagram that she’s pretty angry with us. This was not our intention.
From now on, at 7 p.m. we will turn off the WiFi and we will only switch it on again the next day after dinner for two hours. In this way we will save on electricity, so she is not bothered by electro-stress and will be totally isolated from the outside world. This way, she can concentrate solely on her homework. At eleven o’clock in the evening we will pull the breaker to shut the power off to her room, so she knows that dark is really dark. That will save a lot of CO2.

She will no longer be participating in winter sports to ski lodges and resorts, nor will she be going on anymore vacations with us, because our vacation destinations are practically inaccessible by bicycle.
Since our daughter fully agrees with the girl on TV that the CO2 emissions and footprints of her great-grandparents are to blame for ‘killing our planet’, what all this simply means, is that she also has to live like her great-grandparents and they never had a holiday, a car or even a bicycle.

We haven’t talked about the carbon footprint of food yet.
Zero CO2 footprint means no meat, no fish and no poultry, but also no meat substitutes that are based on soy (after all, that grows in farmer’s fields, that use machinery to harvest the beans, trucks to transport to the processing plants, where more energy is used, then trucked to the packaging/canning plants, and trucked once again to the stores) and also no imported food, because that has a negative ecological effect. And absolutely no chocolate from Africa, no coffee from South America and no tea from Asia.
Only homegrown potatoes, vegetables and fruit that have been grown in local cold soil, because greenhouses run on boilers, piped in CO2 and artificial light. Apparently, these things are also bad for The Climate. We will teach her how to grow her own food.

Bread is still possible, but butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, cottage cheese and cream come from cows and they emit CO2. No more margarine and no oils will be used for the frying pan, because that fat is palm oil from plantations in Borneo where rain forests first grew.

No ice cream in the summer. No soft drinks and no energy drinks, as the bubbles are CO2. She wanted to lose some pounds, well, this will help her achieve that goal too.
We will also ban all plastic, because it comes from petrochemical factories. Everything made of steel and aluminum must also be removed. Have you ever seen the amount of energy a blast furnace consumes or an aluminum smelter? Super bad for the climate!
We will replace her 9600 coil, memory foam pillow top mattress, with a jute bag filled with straw, with a horse hair pillow.
And finally, she will no longer be using makeup, soap, shampoo, cream, lotion, conditioner, toothpaste and medication. Her sanitary napkins will be replaced with pads made of linen, that she can wash by hand, with her wooden washboard, just like her female ancestors did before climate change made her angry at us for destroying her future.
In this way we will help her to do her part to prevent mass extinction, water levels rising and the disappearance of entire ecosystems.
If she truly believes she wants to walk the talk of the girl on TV, she will gladly accept and happily embrace her new way of life.

Reply to  Michael
December 15, 2019 8:07 am

This is great, Michael, I will share it with everyone I know!

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Michael
December 15, 2019 8:50 am

Don’t forget to commend her for those pioneering sacrifices she’s making consistent with her rejection of odious oil!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Michael
December 15, 2019 10:33 am

You remarked, “Bread is still possible, …” Not so! Leavened bread produces CO2 from the work of yeast. Bread tends to get overlooked in the list of anthropogenic contributions to the Carbon Cycle. There is a small proportion of humans that don’t eat leavened bread and pastries daily.

Coach Springer
December 15, 2019 6:41 am

Is a Harvard Republican anything like Mitt Romney? Yes. Well, then ….

Steve Oregon
December 15, 2019 6:51 am

This is no more a movement of Young Republicans than John Kasich is of old Republicans.

December 15, 2019 7:13 am

Young …………………. and DUMB …………………… Republicans

Here’s a radical idea — do some actual research and a little study of data and scientific principles that underlie your beliefs about how modern society should be structured, as in get some real education, show some real intelligence, speak from a real rational perspective for the good of all. What a concept!

December 15, 2019 7:22 am

The left embraced environmentalism as a way to reach conservative leaning voters. In every other left wing policy area the left favors the short term over the long term. It is curious then that only when it comes to the environment that they worry about 50 and 100 years from now (climate change) and a million years from now (how long fission by products will remain radioactive). The purpose is to appeal to conservative leaning people. It’s why they are immune to accusations of hypocrisy. They don’t really care about what happens 50 years from now. The way to tell the difference between an environmentalist who really cares about the environment and one who is using it as a policy lever to achieve other ends (the demise of western civilization perhaps?) is their attitude towards nuclear power.

To a conservative,a nuclear power plant has an environmental footprint the size of a swimming pool: no sun blotting or lung clogging particles go into the air, no chemicals combine with water to make acid rain, no valleys are flooded and no birds or bats are killed. The only by-product is a lump of radioactive isotopes that may be useful when the technology becomes available. Already the technology exists to use yesterday’s waste in newer reactors. It will probably not be long before someone will find a way to economically separate out the medically valuable isotopes and so on.

Someone needs to start a movement called Environmentalists For Nuclear.

Needless to say nuclear fusion doesn’t even have the footprint of fission so we need to get on with that.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Starman
December 15, 2019 7:57 am

“Needless to say nuclear fusion doesn’t even have the footprint of fission so we need to get on with that.”

Doesn’t seem to have a footprint, or viable working version, at all.

CD in Wisconsin
December 15, 2019 7:29 am

Speaking of carbon taxes, the European Union is considering a carbon border tax to protect its domestic industries (like steel) from cheaper imports from countries where there are more lax climate policies:

I believe Trump already warned them against doing such a thing as it will trigger an Atlantic trade war. Diseases get worse before they get better.

Tom Abbott
December 15, 2019 7:43 am

From the article: “Drawn from Republican groups on more than two dozen university campuses, the Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends called for laws to tax oil, natural gas and coal producers of planet-warming greenhouse gases.

The taxation plan would make fossil fuels more costly while the resulting revenues would go to taxpayers.”

Well, if you make fossil fuels more expensive then you make everything else in the economy more expensive, and even if you reimburse taxpayers for the carbon dioxide tax they paid, you won’t reimburse them for all the other extra expenses they will incur as a result of making fossil fuels more expensive.

This carbon dioxide tax is not a taxpayer “hold harmless” tax as its proponents claim. This kind of tax will raise costs on everyone from one end of the income scale to the other because it raises prices on everything we buy, not just fossil fuels.

CO2 propaganda has caused these young Republicans to give up their conservatism. They have allowed a false human-caused climate change crisis to overwhelm their conservative ideals.

The Earth is not in an emergency situation because of CO2, young people. Wake up and smell the coffee. You have been fooled into believing something that hasn’t been shown to be true.

December 15, 2019 7:47 am
Ph.D. Guy
December 15, 2019 8:33 am

and “useful idiots”.

Steve O
December 15, 2019 8:40 am

What this means is that there is no such thing as young Republicans anymore.

It’s what you get when you allow one ideological side to control education, through illegal discrimination no less. Unless that changes, don’t bother celebrating any victories because they are all temporary.

December 15, 2019 9:12 am

From post:
Kiera O’Brien, Harvard Politics Student, Republican

Really? Hard to believe there are any true Republicans in Communist-Haaaaavard (they’d be assaulted). Maybe a RHINO (like a Mitt Romney)…..

December 15, 2019 9:28 am

rich kids with trust funds, puke.

Cathleen Vanasse
December 15, 2019 10:19 am

Just because they say they are “conservative” or “republican” doesn’t mean they are…….

December 15, 2019 11:13 am

Problem – too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Solution – take money from people and give to corrupt politicians.
My engineering/chemistry training never taught me that approach!

December 15, 2019 11:24 am

This is really sad because it is founded on a few fallacies, in my opinion. The first fallacy is that the reason climate has warmed since the end of the LIA is because of human activity. The second is that temperatures of the “pre-industrial” age were normal and today’s temperatures are somehow abnormal. The third is that there is anything the US can do, even if we took our human CO2 emissions to zero, that would have any significant impact on global CO2 concentrations. Finally, there is the notion that most or maybe even all of current climate warming is due to CO2. I don’t believe we have enough evidence for any of those notions to risk spending trillions of dollars (which always lands in *someone’s* pocket) and turning over extraordinary power to them to micromanage industry and energy.

It is also my opinion that this entire thing is based on creating an “existential crisis” so that people of a certain political ideology can justify obtaining greater control over the economy in general.

The “pre-industrial age” was probably the coldest period in the past 8200 years or so. It is a very convenient reference point to use for this. I believe what we have witnessed over the past 150 years or so is a natural recovery from an abnormally cold period. Temperatures rose just as quickly over the same period of time from 1910 to 1940 as they did from 1975 to 2005 before we were emitting enough CO2 globally to have much of an impact. In 1910 the US was still using horses in a good number of cases and most of the rest of the world would be for several decades. The mule was still an important military vehicle and sailing ships were still common. We also have a problem of people tinkering with the data so that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell what actual climate was in the past because the past records keep getting modified to in order to justify “the narrative”.

Since 2004 the rest of the world has added more emissions globally than the US produces. China now emits more than twice what the US emits and that is going to increase as their per-capita emissions continue to grow. In the meantime, the rate of global atmospheric CO2 increase is unchanged. So if an amount equal to the entire output of the US has been added and the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase did not rise, I have little faith in the notion that if the US emissions were to go to zero that the rise would reduce. What it WOULD do, however, is hamstring the US economy, much to the delight of global competitors.

Then there is the matter of exactly how much warming is due to CO2. We have a problem in how we arrive at the surface temperature. We take a bunch of temperature observations and roll them into a global average and say the entire planet is warming. In many cases this warming is very localized to specific regions and is not global at all. The USCRN, for example, still shows no warming trend at all in the continental US since 1995. Imagine if I had 100 people in a room and I measured them but one of them was a 4th grader. Now I come back and measure all the same people again 10 years later. The fourth grader has doubled in height. I now produce an average and claim that ALL people are growing taller because the average height of the people increased. That’s horse malarkey. We have a LOT of reasons for localized climate change. First there is urbanization, then there is land use change. Irrigation, building dams and creating large reservoirs even abandoning cultivation can have local impacts on measured temperatures that get blended into the “global average” as do things brought on by long term atmospheric changes on decadal or multi-decadal scales.

This is probably one of the largest thefts of resources from the people in global history. The entire “climate change” effort is meant to fleece people of their cash and their liberty.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  crosspatch
December 15, 2019 3:52 pm

I have previously suggested that instead of focusing on a ‘one size fits all’ global average, what should be presented are the changes for all the Koppen Climate Zones. It is common knowledge that the Arctic is warming two or three times faster than the global average. However, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover the some climate zones are cooling, or showing no change. Trying to stampede the lemmings with a single number is not the way that good science is done.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 15, 2019 5:30 pm

The Arctic is probably much more dynamic in change than other regions. It probably both warms and cools faster than other areas. There is ample evidence that some areas of the Arctic were up to 6 degrees warmer during this interglacial than they are today. It is likely that it was as warm or warmer in the late 1920’s and 1930’s as it is today. All it takes is a change in persistent atmospheric pressure patterns to change prevailing wind directions for a decade or three. In addition, the projections used for these maps makes a relatively small area at high latitude spread out in a huge area of the map giving the impression that this extraordinary warming is taking place over a greater portion of the surface than it really is.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  crosspatch
December 15, 2019 9:08 pm

I suspect that the tropics are the least dynamic with clouds providing natural ‘air conditioning,’ and that the mid-latitudes will be somewhere in between. However, it would be instructive to see if there are differences in the Koppen Climate Zones because it might shed light on whether CO2 or WV is more important in regulating temperature, or that something dismissed out of hand is actually the driver, such as cloudiness.

Steve Skinner
December 15, 2019 11:32 am

How about we try to understand natural variation before we buy the golden air conditioner that runs on pixie dust

December 15, 2019 11:59 am

Meanwhile democrat congressman Jeff Van Drew crosses over to join the Republicans.

Separately this weekend, the Washington Post reported that Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, an anti-impeachment Democrat, will soon join the Republican Party.

(Very end of article.)

Roger welsh
December 15, 2019 12:21 pm

A solution might be to gather a collection of these climate changelings, and ask them how they would stop it and PROVE it. Could be a lot of silence!

December 15, 2019 12:23 pm

The proposal is typical of progressive thinking. Tax everyone and everything. Hire an army of government workers and then distribute any remaining cash to people who support your policies. LOL Their ideas are antiquated with a supposedly new reason and goal.

Reply to  Walt
December 15, 2019 1:21 pm

“Their ideas are antiquated with a supposedly new reason and goal.”

‘Progressivism’ is the new Conservatism. It’s trying to conserve the tired, failed old ‘progressive’ garbage they forced on the West decades ago.

The real radicals these days are trying to throw out a century or more of Progressivism.

December 15, 2019 1:10 pm

‘Conservatives’ couldn’t conserve reliable power or little girls’ bathrooms, and are very close to not even conserving indoor plumbing.

Everyone now knows they’re just the left’s best friend and have been for decades.

December 15, 2019 1:10 pm

You can tell climate change is commie, because simply put, the climate changers are more than willing to kill as many animals, birds and as much of the earths vegetation and fish as it takes to save the earth. Their logic always involves killing those that they claim to be saving.

William Haas
December 15, 2019 1:24 pm

The problem is all the AGW propaganda the students over the years are forced to memorize and regurgitate in order to pass tests. The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing is very small and is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

Reply to  William Haas
December 15, 2019 9:31 pm

Is there a point where the comparative fitness for intellectual jobs of someone with no school education beside the basics, and one with a higher education is inverted?

That is, when the amount of not only factually incorrect but just ridiculous, illogical, incoherent, garbage ideas taught in higher education dominates the correctly structured stuff that was taught, but also makes the “highly educated” people not just unable to think clearly, but also unable to learn to think clearly because they have been confused and corrupted mentally.

December 15, 2019 2:06 pm

Dear Santa;

I’d like to confirm that coal delivery…

December 15, 2019 2:47 pm

The democrat “on deck” want to spend 70 Trillion dollars of your money to fight climate change.
As a Republican I want to see President Trump put Billions into the American Economy to reduce CO2 emissions.
The world is up in arms because President Trump is in the process of pulling America out of the Paris Climate Accord.
America has 600 years of good quality coal available and we believe this coal needs to be used to produce America’s electricity.
America’s natural gas needs to be used for building space heating and by industry to produce all those other products we use daily.
America’s oil needs to be used for transportation and by those industries that produce products requiring oil.
Doing the above will keep America into energy for over the next 100 years
America’s renewables (wind & solar) need to be connected to it’s own grid , supplying electricity to America’s growing EV market. Then when the sun goes down and the wind doesn’t blow and the batteries go dead, it’s time to call it a day. No harm done.

Our Sidel companies have since 1978 been focused toward Energy Efficiency at natural gas and LPG fuel consuming facilities and reducing coal emissions at coal fired power plants. With a Sidel Carbon Capture Utilization System a coal fired power plant can operate at a 100% firing rate and put into the atmosphere less CO2 than a new designed natural gas fired power plant. We turn the Captured CO2 into good paying full time jobs and money. This is why we have to utilize America’s coal supply. No pipelines required.

America’s natural gas can be consumed to near 100% efficiency. That is already roven in the residential market. Natural gas was combusted for a purpose. Finish fulfilling that purpose. The problem is in our standard combustion equipment. It’s not efficient. So we add a Sidel Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery Unit to recover the heat energy out of the combusted exhaust, and the recovered heat energy is utilized within the building or facility where it was combusted. Being vented is COOL exhaust, some day’s even cooler than the outside air temperature.
For every 1 million Btu’s of heat energy recovered and utilized, 117 lbs of CO2 will not be put into the atmosphere. That adds up to be tons in a hurry.
Are we concerned about water? In every 1 million Btu’s of combusted natural gas are 5 gallons of recoverable distilled water. To get at this water, take the heat out of the exhaust. The cooler the temperature of the exhaust, the greater the flow of produced water.

Please visit our websites:

Then let’s have President Trump sell these technologies to all those other countries associated with the Paris Climate Accord who do not yet know how they are going to reduce their countries CO2 emissions.
It will be Great for America’s GDP.

December 15, 2019 3:13 pm

I just read this on EESI’s website:
“The results of the climate negotiations in Madrid were disappointing. But what was even more disappointing is the lack of leadership from the United States,” said EESI Executive Director Daniel Bresette. “The Administration has relinquished its duty to lead the way on climate action. It is failing to tackle climate change with the urgency it demands. Fortunately, other Americans are taking action. In particular, I would like to thank the Congressional delegation, led by Speaker Pelosi, who conveyed a message that reflects what 75 percent of Americans know: humans are causing climate change, and we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.”

Work with me and President Trump will have so many coal fired power plants operating and emitting near zero CO2 emissions. We want to recover the waste heat energy out of the combusted power plants coal and natural gas exhaust and utilize that heat energy to heat and or cool large ranges of commercial greenhouses, in which food crops can be grown, employing more people.
Industry and large commercial buildings vent a tremendous amount of combusted natural gas exhaust. Recover the waste heat energy and vent cool exhaust instead. This is great in the battle against Global Warming!
Reducing the worlds CO2 Emissions can be The USA Republican thing. Let’s show them how it’s done!!

Linda Goodman
December 15, 2019 5:00 pm

I’m no genius, so why isn’t it obvious to everyone that the demonization of carbon dioxide is the means to establish a totalitarian world government, and the NWO ‘elites’ behind it INFILTRATE to gain control? JFK warned about them nearly 60 years ago and most are STILL ignoring the obvious. Follow the thread from the Young Republicans and it will lead directly to the psychopaths intent on enslaving humanity. INFILTRATION. Only the Truth will make us free, it’s our greatest weapon, so why is almost no one using it full bore?! We MUST fight the lies with facts and call it what it is – a totalitarian nightmare – and those who unwttingly serve it what they are – Useful Idiots! Not just one voice on occasion, ALL voices continually! The threat is far more profound than too many will consider and the window of opportunity is NOW. Lead the way and break the spell – THE EMPEROR IS NAKED! Or did JFK die in vain?
April 27, 1961
FULL SPEECH: The President & The Press
relevant excerpt at 5:17 :
“For we are opposed around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections; on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published; it’s mistakes are buried, not headlined; its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.”

carbon: 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons
the human body is carbon-based
globalists intend for a carbon chip in the hand to replace cash
prophecy or playbook? does it matter?

Chris Hoff
December 15, 2019 5:04 pm

In a way, maybe it’s better that the young people have all been completely brainwashed to believe global warming is real and CO2 is a deadly poison. They’ve been brainwashed into believing in electric vehicles, wind farms and solar panels as the answer to the imaginary danger. All the proposed solutions will end up creating even more CO2 in the long run, the only downside is they will also create far more toxic waste. Sequestering all that CO2 underground and the deep ocean will probably end up inadvertently putting even more CO2 in the air. It means even more CO2 as plant food and hence an even greener world than if we succeeded in deprogramming the next generation. Maybe ignorance really is bliss.

Pat Frank
December 15, 2019 7:51 pm

I just sent Kiera the following email:

Hi Kiera,

I hope you don’t mind an email out of the blue.

My name is Pat Frank, and I work at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, at SLAC, Stanford University.

I read about Student for a Carbon Dividend on the Watts Up With That blog, and thought to let you know that the science is not what you have been told.

Here’s a link to the paper I just published in Frontiers in Earth Science: atmospheric sciences:

It passed peer review by highly competent climate scientists, and shows that climate models have no predictive value. They are completely unable to say what human CO2 emissions will do to the air temperature.

I have attached the English version of an invited Op-Ed I wrote for Weltwoche, a leading Swiss weekly, which summarizes the message of the paper.

I have a youtube video presentation here:

No Certain Doom: On the Accuracy of Projected Global Average Surface Air Temperatures
Patrick Frank, PhD presents at the 34th Annual DDP meeting, July 10, 2016, Omaha, Nebraska.

I have been studying the problem of climate change since 2001, when the IPCC Third Assessment Report came out, and have published several peer-reviewed papers since then.

The take home message is that no one knows what they’re talking about. Not the IPCC, not Al Gore, not NASA, no one.

The failure of the scientific establishment is extraordinary.

If you’d like to discuss this further, I am happy to oblige. I can discuss the issue all the way to the bedrock.

Hoping you don’t mind that I have written, and that you find the information useful,

Best wishes,


Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 16, 2019 11:10 am

I will be surprised if you hear back from her. However, should you here back, I’d be interested in seeing what she has to say.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 16, 2019 2:03 pm

Thanks, Clyde.

I’ll post something here if I hear back. 🙂

Pat Frank
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 19, 2019 9:56 am

No reply as of this date, Clyde. No real hope left, there.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 26, 2019 8:17 pm

It has now been 10 days. I’ll quit checking here.

December 15, 2019 9:22 pm

Most colleges today are left wing indoctrination centers which have a veneer of academic authority which is very difficult for most students to overcome. After 4 years of non-stop propaganda, it takes a very strong person not to be affected. Hopefully, after a few years in the real world, some conservative students will regain their understanding of these issues. The best solution is for parents to keep their kids from going to the worst of these schools.

December 16, 2019 3:43 am

She does need a time machine. She appears not to be aware that US CO2 emissions peaked in 2005. She seems unaware that it is highly unlikely US CO2 emissions will EVER reach 2005 levels again regardless of what the central planners do. Technological innovation is driving the US to lower CO2 emissions on both the supply side (fracking and some quite modest “alternative” energy) and the demand side (the profit motive creates an incentive to constantly refine processes to improve energy efficiency; shifts to e-commerce and the digital economy; and services making up a greater share of GDP).

Since 2005, the US population has increased by 30 million people. According to the DOT, we drive 300 BILLION more vehicle miles per year than we did in 2005. Yet despite these macro variables creating pressure to increase CO2 emissions, they remain below 2005 levels in large part because of the factors I cited above.

Furthermore, the planet is greening, increasing the opportunity for greater biodiversity. Farmers set new records in corn and soybean yields almost every year, improving our lives by making low cost food available. There is zero evidence “extreme weather” events are increasing.

Kiera O’Brien needs to look at real data and stop buying into groupthink. Charlatan fear mongers can not predict the future of anything, let alone a chaotic climate and a dynamic economy, both of which undergo continuous change.

Joel Snider
December 16, 2019 9:32 am

Considering the fascist state of academia, is this really a surprise?

Justin McCarthy
December 16, 2019 9:59 am

1) It’s Harvard; say no more. 2) Most likely the organization has been infiltrated by stealth left wing operators and turned. You can see this tactic in many other organizations that used to be rational. 3) They are young and want to be liked, woke, cool, or are still emotionally vulnerable to the basic tactic of the left; ridicule.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights