Tim Ball: The Amazing And Totally Ignorant Climate Legacy Of Gov. Jerry Brown

As ex-Governor of California, Jerry Brown is seeking to solidify his legacy as an ecology crusader, but every time he opens his mouth, more ignorance and foolishness pours forth. Dr. Tim Ball explains how. ⁃ TN Editor

Jerry Brown, the recently retired California Governor, is a new form of technocratic politician. His technocratic skill is as a professional politician. Like most in politics today, they seek office because they fail at everything else, but still, want to control everyone. They are masters at getting and staying elected. Fortunately, a portion of politics requires occasional public exposure to further their control. It means they must expose themselves with public statements. At this point the old French adage becomes appropriate. The higher up the tree the monkey climbs, the more he shows his backside.

They try to control the message and are aided and abetted by the mainstream media. At that point, they become vulnerable to Marshall McLuhan’s famous observation that “The medium is the message.” My own example involved a TV station wanting ideas for a program. I sent many, but they rejected most saying, they don’t lend themselves to television. This is why virtually the only way to ‘show’ pollution is with chimney stacks belching out something. I say something, because, in North America at least, it is now mostly steam.

Recently, Brown was forced to expose himself as he left one political office and prepared the ground for another. He tried to control it but exposed enough of himself to ask if a world leader could display more ignorance in a single interview. The good news is it resides on the Internet for the world to see and analyze. It explains why he was a disaster as Governor and people are rioting across the world against such leadership failures. Brown said,

“I would point to the fact that it took Roosevelt many, many years to get America willing to go into World War II and fight the Nazis. Well, we have an enemy, though different, but perhaps, very much devastating in a similar way. And we’ve got to fight climate change. And the president’s got to lead on that.”

His reference to the Nazis was very appropriate but not because of the delay in US commitment. Normally, as Kerry Jackson noted

Generally speaking, the first person in a debate who compares their opponent to Hitler or the Nazis at that moment loses the argument.

When the Third Reich is invoked, it’s usually clear evidence that that person’s position is so weak that they have had to resort to a gross misrepresentation of the other’s position.

Brown took the risk for political advantage for the reasons Jackson identified. He had to divert attention from his economic and social failures as Governor if he wants a political future. Ironically, he identified the forest fires in California as justification for his view of climate change. In fact, that is further proof of his failure. Fires are natural and necessary everywhere, including California. They were made worse because of his forest management policy that stopped controlled and managed fires. As a result, debris built up and the fires, which continued to occur naturally, were more intense and damaging.

However, first let’s look at the Roosevelt comment. It helps if a liberal can align himself with one of the most liberal Presidents in US history. There was a reason Roosevelt delayed entering World War II. Why would Americans commit to defending colonial powers in Europe who exploited them and many other parts of the world for centuries? It was a position similar to Obama’s anti-colonial foreign policy. There were also emotional scars. US total military deaths were 116,516 in World War I just 20 years earlier, and there was little evidence Europe learned its lesson. Roosevelt didn’t hesitate to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor because the attack was on America and Americans.

Brown’s view only sounds plausible because he now knows that when America did commit, they did so effectively and exposed the true nature of the Nazi regime. It is another case of 20/20 hindsight.

Why and what is Brown saying as he loses power? Sorry, I meant to say as he leaves office. Brown is attempting to determine his legacy, to make excuses for his economic and political failures. He is apparently laying the groundwork for a presidential bid in 2020 and what better basis, than the environment and its subset climate change. He is apparently trying to align himself with the millennials who have taken over the Democratic Party. His reference to failing to deal with climate change is like failing to deal with the Nazis, was already identified by a millennial socialist, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.  He admitted he failed to get Trump and others to do more, and he had not done enough on climate change.

No, not enough, not even close, and not close in California, and we’re doing more than anybody else, and not close in America or the rest of the world,” Brown said. “The technology, the investment, the lifestyle changes, the land use changes, this is a revolutionary threat. And we’ve got to get off this idea, it’s the economy, stupid. No, it’s the environment. It’s the ecology that we have to get on the side of. And we only do that with wisdom, with investment, and widespread collaboration and working together.”

Keep those ideas in mind. I became aware of the use of the environment by the Nazis when working with Sheila Zilinsky and writing a foreword for her book Green Gospel; The New World Religion. It led me to other books, especially the 2005 work, How Green were the Nazis? Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich. This led me to a valuable website Nazi Germany and the Environment, with extensive explanation and direct quotations from the period.

 “Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was ever meant to become lord and master of Nature. A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed. Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free himself from their sway.”

Wow, a classic statement by a modern environmentalist. NO. It is a quote from Hitler’s infamous book Mein Kampf (My Struggle). Hitler wrote the book while in jail for social activism including a planned coup. He realized he went too far so became a model prisoner with special privileges, including the creation of the book. As the prison governor wrote,

Hitler has shown himself to be an orderly, disciplined prisoner, not only in his own person, but also with reference to his fellow prisoners, among whom he has preserved good discipline. He is amenable, unassuming, and modest. He has never made exceptional demands, conducts himself in a uniformly quiet and reasonable manner, and has put up with the deprivations and restrictions of imprisonment very well. He has no personal vanity, is content with the prison diet, neither smokes nor drinks, and has exercised a helpful authority over other prisoners.”

He was a professional politician. It didn’t take him long after his release to start fomenting riots and hatred such as the infamous Kristallnacht when Nazis stormed through the streets openly attacking Jews and Jewish businesses. He was behind the burning of the Reichstag, home of the German parliament. He blamed the communists, but many knew what was going on. These actions appealed to many Germany people, but many did not approve. As a child in England, my parents owned a small-holding. With the demands for food created by the war, the government ordered the land become productive. They didn’t have all the expertise or enough time. Early in the war, a German prisoner of war was brought every morning to help. We learned he was a 40-year old jeweler in Berlin who hated Hitler. Drafted into the German Army, he took the only escape possible. At the first opportunity, he surrendered to the British forces and gambled they would win. His gambled paid off. After the war, my parents visited him in his new jewelry store in Berlin.

Hitler realized he needed to step back as he had done in prison. He was scaring the population and resorted to a standard diversionary tactic of the left – the environment. As Jurriaan Maessen explained in 2009,

Once Hitler consolidated his position and that of his party, the true face of Nazism had to be masked somewhat to appease the people who generally desired an age of peace instead of another disastrous World War.

The Nazis created nature preserves, championed sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature.

The author of the 2005 book How Green were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich explained.

“The Nazis received a warm welcome by the existing environmental organisations as there was ‘an ideological overlap between Nazi ideas and conservationist agendas.’”

Once in full control, it didn’t take long for Hitler to abandon the charade.

The people of Germany understood, like the people today, that environmentalism is a necessary paradigm. It doesn’t make sense to soil your own nest. What they don’t like is when people exploit such necessary policy for political power. They also don’t like it when unnecessary policy, such as that to deal with climate change, is exploited. When you create a lie on which to create a career, as technocratic professional politicians must do because it is their only skill, you live and die with that lie.

Tim Ball: In Climate Propaganda, Normal Is Promoted As Abnormal

Almost every day there are stories in the media about weather or climate events that create the impression that they are new and outside of the normal pattern. None of them are. They are deceptions created and manipulated by technocrats. The objective is to sensationalize the story, by using a period of record that provides the desired result. It is in the practice of modern politics defined by H. L. Mencken a few years ago.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

A simple trick with a climate hobgoblin is to pick a period in which your claim is valid.

The first major and classic example occurred in Chapter 8 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1995 Report. They showed as evidence of human-caused warming a graph of the “Upper Atmosphere Temperature.”

However, the deception is exposed when plot the complete record.

This practice of cherry-picking the period of study is not exclusive to the media. It was a clear sign of corruption of climatology brought to a head with Roseanne D’Arrigo’s infamous comment to the 2006 National Academy of Science (NAS) panel that if you are going to make a cherry pie, you have to pick cherries.

That doesn’t condone the media use of the technique. All it does is illustrate why it was a convenient technique for creating a deception about what is normal.  For example, a 2017 BBC headline said “Hottest June day since summer of 1976 in heatwave.” That is 41 years, which is statistically significant but not climatologically significant. A Youtube story reports “Sydney has wettest November day since 1984.” CBS Pittsburgh reported “NWS: 2018 is the 2nd Wettest Year on Record in Pittsburgh.” The record began in 1871 or 147 years ago, but even that is not climatologically significant. The ones I like are this one from North Carolina, that says, “A Look Back at the Coldest day Ever in North Carolina.” “Ever” is approximately 4.5 billion years.

Other stories focus on a pattern or change in a pattern again with the idea that it is new or abnormal. Headlines like this one from 2012, “Why have there been more tornadoes than usual this year?” Often, they are suggestive such as this 2017 New York Times story. “The 2017 Hurricane Season Really Is More Intense Than Normal.” When you read the story, you find, as is usually the case, that the caveats at the end indicate it is not unusual. The problem is the headline already set the pattern in the public mind.

The headline says, “Forget El Nino, StormFest Is about To Hit The West Coast.” The author is talking about a series of storms tracking on to the west coast of North America. The story told us,

“Things often calm down after January 1 during El Nino years… but not this year… with the U.S. West Coast from central California to Washington State about to be pummeled by a series of storms.   Rain, snow, wind?  Plenty for everyone. A view of the latest infrared satellite imagery shows an amazing line-up of one storm after another stretching way into the Pacific.  A traffic jam of storms.”

The terms, “pummeled” and “traffic jam” are evocative and imply the pattern is unusual. In fact, the pattern is perfectly normal to the point that there is a descriptive term for it, the Pineapple Express.  This refers to the establishment of the Polar Front along the northwest coast of North America after it migrates south from its summer position off the coast of Alaska and northern British Columbia. Low pressure systems known as anti-cyclones develop along the Front all year round. The areas affected by these systems changes as the Front migrates between its more northerly summer position and more southerly winter position. The term Pineapple Express refers to the situation in the winter when these anti-cyclones generate in the region of Hawaii and track along the Front hitting the northwest coast in a series of storms. The pattern does not stop in an El Nino year but sometimes takes a different path.

These anti-cyclone systems are also the focus of exploitation of normal weather events as abnormal, in Europe. The southerly shift of the Polar Front in the Northern Hemisphere occurs around the globe. Two major factors influence the weather pattern, sea surface temperatures that fluctuate with ocean circulation, and the Rossby Wave pattern in the Circumpolar Vortex. This pattern of anti-cyclones hitting western Europe in the winter was added to the propaganda list when they started naming the storms. It linked them to hurricanes in the public mind, and it implied they were a recent phenomenon.

They are not recent, new, or of greater intensity.

A significant part of professor Hubert Lamb’s ground-breaking and monumental work on historical climatology was a long-term reconstruction of the pattern of these anti-cyclones. It fit with his claim about why he established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

“…it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.”

Once he created a long-term record of these anti-cyclonic systems, there was a better chance of determining the underlying mechanisms. From this, he could achieve his final objective of better forecasting. The ability to forecast defines science. If that is not the final objective, the work is mostly irrelevant.

Consider the destructive and history-altering impact of storms like the one that hit the Spanish Armada that attempted to invade England in 1588. Ironically, Phil Jones, who ran the CRU reputation into the ground while under his direction, wrote a good synopsis of Lamb’s work. There is also the storm of 1703 reported in great detail in the book “The Storm” by the famous author Daniel Defoe.

Marcel Leroux was an early major skeptic of the claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). His 2005 book “Global Warming: Myth or Reality” was impactful because Leroux was well qualified. As one review of his book notes,

“In the global-warming debate, definitive answers to questions about ultimate causes and effects remain elusive. In Global Warming: Myth or Reality? Marcel Leroux seeks to separate fact from fiction in this critical debate from a climatological perspective. Beginning with a review of the dire hypotheses for climate trends, the author describes the history of the 1998 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many subsequent conferences. He discusses the main conclusions of the three IPCC reports and the predicted impact on global temperatures, rainfall, weather and climate, while highlighting the mounting confusion and sensationalism of reports in the media.”

The comment about sensationalism in the media is relevant to this article because Leroux, like Lamb, also worked on a reconstruction of the anti-cyclonic systems in the North Atlantic. Leroux also worked on another later exploitation of the normal by John Holdren, Obama’s Science Advisor, the so-called “Polar Vortex.” Leroux’s 1993 work on the impact of the The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes” showed how these outbreaks of cold Polar air are normal weather events that enter the climate record because of their regular but variable appearance and impact.

An unholy alliance confronts us. It is between the political use of science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the spin doctors or, as I prefer, the professional liars, and the mainstream media, that create fake news by making the normal appear abnormal. As the Yiddish proverb observes, “Truth never dies but lives a wretched existence,” especially under such a deliberate onslaught.

Tim Ball: Radical Environmentalism And Global Warming Fanaticism Are Patently Anti-Human

The radical animal rights group PETA states, “Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.”  It’s hard to imagine such blatantly illogical anti-human rhetoric delivered by other humans, and yet the whole radical environmental movement is in sync with this ideology that man is the cause of everything bad on earth. ⁃ TN Editor

Technocratic environmentalists converted and perverted environmentalism from a necessary and better way of living in the world to a destructive, controlling, political weapon. We needed environmentalism because it is illogical to soil our nest. Unfortunately, environmentalists seized the moral high ground by claiming that only they cared. They saw the overwhelming power the guilt trip that humans are destroying the planet gave them. They said everyone else lives dissolute, polluting, Earth-destroying lives and that can’t continue. They can save the Earth if we follow their directions.  The guilt trip message became the dominant view, despite the fact it defies logic and jeopardizes sensible actions. Sadly, it was not about the environment; it was about control of the number of people and how they behave.

A subset of the destruction of environmentalism was the diversion and perversion of climatology for population reduction and control. The simple theme behind the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that the sky is falling because of how you ignorant humans behaved. Give us total control through a UN government funded by a carbon tax, and we can set things right. If you don’t act immediately, there are only 12 years left. This was the message that emerged from the technocrats and bureaucrats at the recent climate Conference of the Parties (COP24) in Poland.

Central to these claims is that the quickest and easiest solution is to reduce the number of people dramatically. They succeeded in convincing sensible people that the biggest problem is overpopulation. They achieved this because they were the ones who claimed that overpopulation is the problem. They created the strawmen of overpopulation and human-caused global warming, identified the problems they claimed it created, then offered only their solutions. Even the Pope was prey to these threats, although his socialist views, indicated he would go along.

We witnessed the bizarre political bedfellows of a Roman Catholic Pope, working with Pantheist Hans Schellnhuber Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Naomi Klein, a world-level social activist, and critic of capitalism, to prepare his Encyclical “Laudato Si.”. This is undoubtedly one of the strangest documents in history. Here is a quote that is more likely to come from an extreme environmentalist manifesto than the head of the Catholic Church.

This sister (Mother Earth) now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22).

This blindly overlooks that God also put us here and determined our behavior. In a classic example of deferential blame, the document states,

It would hardly be helpful to describe symptoms without acknowledging the human origins of the ecological crisis. A certain way of understanding human life and activity has gone awry, to the serious detriment of the world around us. Should we not pause and consider this? At this stage, I propose that we focus on the dominant technocratic paradigm and the place of human beings and of human action in the world.

Remember, this is a document with claims from a person with the ridiculous claim that he alone is infallible. He cannot be wrong. It is those damn humans who are to blame. But there it is; the solution is the “dominant technocratic paradigm.”

The assumption that humans are a blight and to blame for every change that occurs is central to their position. The Club of Rome (COR) set the foundation to this false ideology when they wrote in The First Global Revolution,

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Do as we tell you and we will save you from self-destruction. The paradox is that they believe in Darwin’s views and yet their position as stated is in contradiction to them. If we are animals as Darwin claims, then everything we do is normal and natural. In the 1990 Greenpeace Report on global warming edited by Dr. Jeremy Leggett, it says, “Carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere naturally and unnaturally. The statement is meaningless unless you are saying that the unnatural portion is from humans. Then it becomes more meaningless unless you assume that humans are unnatural.

It is illogical to say, or even imply, that humans are natural but what we do is unnatural. Nonetheless, this is the absolute contradiction created by the use of environmentalism for a political agenda. Why isn’t everything humans do part of evolution? Why aren’t development, industry, economy, or anything else we do, part of the natural order? What does the COR mean when they say, “human intervention”? Why do they claim it is a danger? 

The answer effectively began in 1859 when Darwin published the first edition of On the Origin of Species. It went through several editions as he received feedback. Herbert Spencer made many comments, but one of them Darwin thought summarized his thesis so well that he included it in the 1869 Fifth Edition. The more extensive quote from Spencer says,

The law is the survival of the fittest…. The law is not the survival of the ‘better’ or the ‘stronger,’ if we give to those words anything like their ordinary meanings. It is the survival of those which are constitutionally fittest to thrive under the conditions in which they are placed; and very often that which, humanly speaking, is inferiority, causes the survival.

Darwin particularly liked the phrase “the survival of the fittest” as a summary of his overall views. Remember, Thomas Malthus greatly influenced Darwin who took a copy of his major work, “An Essay on the Principles of Population” on his trip to the Galapagos Islands.

Darwin’s inclusion of this phrase is also likely due to the influence of Alfred Russel Wallace. Before Darwin published in 1859, Wallace sent him an essay reporting and analyzing his work in Asia. It reached the same conclusions as Darwin. The difference was Darwin, as Wallace pointed out, made no mention of humans in his First edition. Wallace said any theory that omitted humans and did not explain how they were so markedly different than all the other species, failed.

The difference is so significant that science avoided the implications of the answer ever since. Ironically, Darwin created the situation that science and society avoided when his theory became the weapon used to eliminate religion and God. Removing God removed the explanation for the difference and made it a challenge to science.  Wallace tried, like many since, to offer a compromise. He didn’t use the phrase, ‘intelligent being’ but implied such an entity might provide an answer.

The ‘difference’ problem remains unanswered. Environmentalists don’t address it but create the paradox, that we are animals like all the rest, but not behaving appropriately like all the other unintelligent, obedient, animals. Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder and president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), provides an excellent example of this thinking because it is extreme.

“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”

Newkirk doesn’t realize that the Earth only exists because of human superiority. No other species is aware that the Earth exists. Newkirk’s ‘phase out’ suggestion implies a gradual elimination. I agree, as long as we begin with Newkirk and all technocratic environmentalists. Once we get rid of them, then, as free-thinking humans, we can reassess the situation and determine that the problem no longer exists, and we can get on with evolving. Part of that will include explaining how humans are so radically different and superior to all other species, with every right to exist.

Jerry Brown Likens Global Warming To Fighting Nazis In WWII

Jerry Brown and Al Gore share a common delusion about global warming, and the resultant radical alarmism that always seems to accompany it. Is Global Warming really an enemy of humanity like Hitler in WWII? ⁃ TN Editor

California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown warned that America and the rest of the world are falling behind in the fight against climate change and likened the challenge to fighting the Nazis in World War II.

In an interview for Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” the outgoing governor called on President Donald Trump to take the lead in addressing the issue. “Instead of worrying about tariffs, I’d like to see the president and the Congress invest tens of billions in renewable energy, in more-efficient batteries, to get us off fossil fuel as quickly as we can,” Brown said.

“I would point to the fact that it took Roosevelt many, many years to get America willing to go into World War II and fight the Nazis. Well, we have an enemy, though different, but perhaps, very much devastating in a similar way. And we’ve got to fight climate change. And the president’s got to lead on that.”

President Trump has repeatedly downplayed the importance of addressing climate change during his presidency.

Last month, he brushed aside a federal climate report that warned of a “cascading effect” from climate change that could hurt both the planet and the economy, telling reporters “I don’t believe it.”

Last year, he pulled America out of the international Paris Agreement meant to align the world’s nations toward reducing emissions and curbing the effects of climate change.

And his administration has also rolled back a handful of Obama-era environmental regulations aimed at reducing the impact of climate change.

Trump visited Brown and his home state earlier this year to survey wildfire damage. Brown admitted that while he appreciated Trump approving disaster funding for the state in the aftermath of the fires, he doesn’t think he made any progress convincing Trump about the dangers of climate change.

“He is very convinced of his position. And his position is that there’s nothing abnormal about the fires in California or the rising sea level or all the other incidents of climate change,” Brown said.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire who has made climate change a key piece of his work outside of public office, also lamented Trump’s views on the issue.

“It would be a lot more helpful, if we had a climate champion, rather than a climate denier, in the White House,” Bloomberg said.

“You know, I’ve always thought, Trump has a right to his opinions. But he doesn’t have a right to his own facts. And the truth of the matter is this country and this world is in trouble.

Read full story here…

Giving Up Meat Won’t Save The Planet And Cows Are Not Killing The Climate

The claim that livestock produced 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emission was absolutely false, was corrected by the original author, but the media and eco-fascists refuse to acknowledge the truth. ⁃ TN Editor

As the scale and impacts of climate change become increasingly alarming, meat is a popular target for action. Advocates urge the public to eat less meat to save the environment. Some activists have called for taxing meat to reduce consumption of it.

A key claim underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show. And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change.

My research focuses on ways in which animal agriculture affects air quality and climate change. In my view, there are many reasons for either choosing animal protein or opting for a vegetarian selection.

However, foregoing meat and meat products is not the environmental panacea many would have us believe. And if taken to an extreme, it also could have harmful nutritional consequences.

Setting the record straight on meat and greenhouse gases

A healthy portion of meat’s bad rap centers on the assertion that livestock is the largest source of greenhouse gases worldwide. For example, a 2009 analysis published by the Washington, DC-based Worldwatch Institute asserted that 51% of global GHG emissions come from rearing and processing livestock.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the largest sources of US GHG emissions in 2016 were electricity production (28% of total emissions), transportation (28%) and industry (22%). All of agriculture accounted for a total of 9%. All of animal agriculture contributes less than half of this amount, representing3.9% of total US greenhouse gas emissions.

That’s very different from claiming livestock represents as much or more than transportation.

Why the misconception? In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a study titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which received widespread international attention. It stated that livestock produced a staggering 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The agency drew a startling conclusion: Livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined.

This latter claim was wrong, and has since been corrected by Henning Steinfeld, the report’s senior author. The problem was that FAO analysts used a comprehensive life-cycle assessment to study the climate impact of livestock, but a different method when they analyzed transportation.

For livestock, they considered every factor associated with producing meat. This included emissions from fertilizer production, converting land from forests to pastures, growing feed, and direct emissions from animals (belching and manure) from birth to death.

However, when they looked at transportation’s carbon footprint, they ignored impacts on the climate from manufacturing vehicle materials and parts, assembling vehicles and maintaining roads, bridges, and airports.

Instead, they only considered the exhaust emitted by finished cars, trucks, trains, and planes. As a result, the FAO’s comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock to those from transportation was greatly distorted.

I pointed out this flaw during a speech to fellow scientists in San Francisco on March 22, 2010, which led to a flood of media coverage. To its credit, the FAO immediately owned up to its error. Unfortunately, the agency’s initial claim that livestock was responsible for the lion’s share of world greenhouse gas emissions had already received wide coverage.

To this day, we struggle to “unring” the bell.

Read full story here…

True Technocrat: Elon Musk Pushes Self To Brink To Save World From Global Warming

The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree when you consider that Elon Musk’s grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was head of Technocracy, Inc. in Canada during the 1930s. Technocracy is just as radical today as it was in the 1930s and 40s. ⁃ TN Editor

Elon Musk has become infamous for his extreme work schedule.

When he was ramping up production of the Model 3 Tesla, he put in as many as 120 hours in a week. He slept at the factory because he had no time to go home. He called 2018 “the most difficult and painful year of my career.” “[I]t was excruciating,” he told The New York Times.

In late October Musk finally said he was working a much more manageable schedule of 80 to 90 hours a week.

This from a man who is already worth more than $20 billion, according to Forbes.

So why does Musk push himself? To hear Musk tell it, he is trying to save planet Earth. Literally. Musk wants Tesla to be successful so the world moves away from driving cars that run on petroleum-derived fuel.

“Tesla is incredibly important for the future of sustainable transport and energy generation. The fundamental purpose, the fundamental good that Tesla provides is accelerating the advent of sustainable transport and energy production,” Musk said told Recode’s Kara Swisher. “The success of Tesla is, by far, the biggest forcing function for the other car makers to get into … electric cars.”

Providing alternative methods for mass transportation that do not depend on petroleum-derived fuel is key to slowing global warming.

“Yes. It’s very important for the future of the world. It’s very important for all life on Earth. This supersedes political parties, race, creed, religion, it doesn’t matter. If we do not solve the environment, we’re all damned,” Musk told Swisher.

Building an electric car company that will one day mass produce electric vehicles is not easy, even for an entrepreneur like Musk.

“It’s trivial to start a car company,” Musk tells Swisher. “It is insanely difficult to make it successful. … So as a startup, a car company, it is far more difficult to be successful than if you’re an established, entrenched brand. It is absurd that Tesla is alive. Absurd! Absurd.”

Musk attributes Tesla’s survival to this point to “excruciating effort” and “hundred-hour weeks by everyone,” he told Swisher.

“There wasn’t some other way to do this, Kara,” Musk insisted.

Read full story here…

Dr. Tim Ball: Why Canada Must Get Out Of The Paris Climate Agreement

The world can thank the late Canadian, Maurice Strong, for leading the first Earth Summit that produced Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and alarmist calls on global warming and population reduction. Another Canadian, Dr. Timothy Ball, is leading the CLEXIT movement to get Canada out of the Paris Climate Agreement. ⁃ TN Editor

I am proud to be the Canadian representative for the climate exit (CLEXIT) movement. Canada has more culpability than any other nation in creating and perpetuating the deception. It is not hyperbole to say that Canada was central to creating and mobilizing the false claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The idea that humans were causing runaway global warming originated with the Club of Rome. Formed in 1968 by David Rockefeller, it expanded on the Malthusian idea that the population would outgrow the food supply. The expansion was that world population would outgrow all resources. They made three major assumptions.

    • The demand for resources would increase every year because the population is increasing every year.

    • Developed nations increase the demand by using resources at a much greater rate than developing nations.

    • More nations are changing from developing to developed and accelerating demand.

They produced a few books and reports to substantiate the claims about population and demand. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 The Population Bomb garnered enormous attention. Less well read but still influential was the 1972 book Limits to Growth by Meadows et al. It used a very primitive computer program that started with two components. The known volume of a resource and the current rate of use. Then, using a simple linear trend, it projected the point at which the resource would run out. It also projected the point at which the volume of the resource use peaked. Another book published in 1977, Ecoscience, Population, Resources, and Environment, influenced policy for a long time because of Paul Ehrlich’s co-author John Holdren. He later became Science Advisor in the Obama White House.

All of this activity developed around an important paradigm shift. These are major changes that occur when a society completely reconsiders the way they see the world and themselves. The two most important in the latter half of the 20th century were feminism and environmentalism. Both were necessary changes, and both went through the same sequence as all shifts. This point is important because anyone who dared to question the deception that humans were causing global warming was accused of not caring about the environment.

A paradigm shift begins, like all things, with an idea. You can call it a hypothesis, a speculation, a ‘what if,’ but it is an idea that asks people to think differently. They don’t occur very often partly because, as philosopher A.N. Whitehead said,

“It takes a very unusual mind to undertake analysis of the obvious.”

Many ideas are proposed, but few catch on because people are generally afraid of change. They know change occurs, but they also know there are always winners and losers. Since every idea is new, they lack the information and ability to decide. It is simpler to assume they will lose, and it is safer to maintain the status quo.

However, certain ideas are attractive to people who see the potential for power and wealth or both. This was the case with environmentalism. A small group seized the idea of environmentalism and immediately took the moral high ground. Only they care about the Earth, the children, and their future. Most people realized it made sense not to soil your nest but were afraid of the change. How far would or should we go? Since they knew little, it was easy for the power group to marginalize any who dared to question. I recall questions from the media prefaced with the idea that I was “giving comfort” to the polluters. This troubled me until I realized that giving false information and misleading the people was more problematic. Once the public learned that they suffered for change and made sacrifices on false information, it would give greater comfort to polluters.

If the idea has basic merit, as was the case with environmentalism, a majority of the people will adjust and accommodate. They are still unclear about the limits to the idea and its application. Those are identified by the people who started the idea and their disciples. When negative impacts, such as loss of jobs or economic downturn, appear their reaction will define the limit. They either acknowledge that it is a limit, or they become more strident and unreasonable. That is the stage we are at with environmentalism.

The claim that the world was overpopulated was false but was now established as a threat. It fits into the environmentalist paradigm shift because more people could do more damage. The question was what to do about it. There were a very strong anti-capitalism and anti-development agenda behind the idea and therefore the responses.

The overarching environmental theme provided a background to the ideas about overpopulation and exhaustion of resources of the Club of Rome (COR) and culminated in what they called The First Global Revolution set out in a book of the same name. Published in 1991, it was a follow-up and expansion on The Limits to Growth. Here is a quote that typifies the approach and the sentiment.

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

At this point, the challenge is to convert ideas to action. It is where most ideas founder. The AGW idea didn’t founder because, unfortunately, a Canadian and member of COR, Maurice Strong, became the pivotal person with the skills to make it happen.

In 2001, Neil Hrab, a Canadian who spent much time monitoring and reporting on Strong wrote,

Mainly using his (Strong) prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups…

It began in the 1977 at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm Conference. Hrab quotes from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

The three specific goals set out by the Secretary General of the Conference, Maurice F. Strong, at its first plenary session—a Declaration on the human environment, an Action Plan, and an organizational structure supported by a World Environment Fund—were all adopted by the Conference.

He also noted:

What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda.

We know how Strong, as a member of the COR, took the ideas and translated them into policy. Elaine Dewar, an investigative journalist, and another Canadian planned to write a book praising Canadian environmentalists. Her research showed that all the people on the list were more corrupt than the people they were attacking. Dewar wrote a book titled Cloak of Green with at least 20 % on Strong that included details on five days with him at UN headquarters.

After those days with Strong at the UN Dewar concluded,

“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

The overall aim was exploitation of environmentalism, using the secondary issue of global warming. Strong knew that the best way to achieve his goal was through the bureaucrats at the UN and the bureaucrats at every National Weather Office in every UN member nation. He knew what US social commentator Mary McCarthy warned.

Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, is becoming the modern form of despotism.

To McCarthy it was a threat, to Strong it was the potential for total, unaccountable control. He set up the entire COR objective under the organization he created called the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The overall control of politics and science is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

The IPCC was critical to creating the science needed to ‘prove’ human CO2 was causing global warming. It was easily achieved by the definition given it by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that limited them to only human causes of climate change. It was at this juncture another Canadian became directly involved. The founding meeting of the IPCC occurred in Villach Austria in 1985 and was chaired by Canadian scientists Gordon McBean. Later McBean became an Assistant Deputy Minister at Environment Canada (EC). In that role, he supervised and directed the department to convince politicians of the legitimacy and accuracy of the IPCC science.

Under McBean, EC became increasingly committed to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) of the IPCC sending large delegations to their meetings and assigning increasing funding to climate change research. They did this at the expense of maintaining legislated services. Budget overruns drew the attention of the Canadian Auditor General (AG) and activities to increase other sources of funding all drew public attention. For example, from 1997 to 2005 the AG reported EC spent $6.8 billion on climate change, with no results. To pay for this, they diverted funds from other legislated activities. They closed stations and replaced many with Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS). These were so bad that NavCanada, an agency set up to run the airports including the weather stations refused to accept them. It triggered an inquiry by BC Senator Pat Carney that confirmed the problem.

Much of the money EC wasted was on computer models studying AGW that produced terrible results. The EC computer model was one of dozens used in the ensemble of models that the IPCC used to make their projections. Ken Gregory of the Friends of Science group showed that the Canadian model produced the most inaccurate projections of all the models in the ensemble (Figure 2).

Figure 2

The result of all this waste and misdirection is that Canada has fewer weather stations than it did in the 1960s. The weather forecast accuracy has not noticeably improved, especially for severe weather. They continue to waste money on propaganda and attendance at the IPCC meetings – they invariably have the largest delegations at the annual Conference of the Parties meetings (Figure 1). It is time to severely limit all national weather agencies, including EC, to only data collection agencies. All weather forecasting should be done by private agencies, so they will only succeed based on the quality and accuracy of their work. No government agency should be involved in research because the potential for political bias or influence is very high.

The program to create and push the deception that human CO2 was causing global warming was primarily the brainchild and successful because of Canadian Maurice Strong. He applied it in complete form when, in 1992 he became Chairman of Ontario Hydro, the government agency that controlled all energy production in the Province. It destroyed the economy of Ontario taking it from the best performer of all Canadian provinces to one of the poorest.

People are still paying for the damage he did and will for years to come. Fortunately, Ontario voters became additionally angry about this when the Federal government of Justin Trudeau proposed a carbon tax. Now there is open revolt against the carbon tax from major Provincial governments.

In addition to Alberta, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario in mid-July announced an alliance against the carbon tax, which they believe is harmful to the economy. Ontario — Canada’s richest and most populous province — elected a climate-sceptic prime minister in June, who is working to dismantle climate change policies.

Ontario elected a new government and among the first actions Premier Doug Ford took was to seek retirement of the Chairman of the Board of Hydro One (the new name for Ontario Hydro) and ask for the resignations of all Board members. It is a step in the right direction.

Politicians still lack the knowledge about the bad science created principally by Canadians to deceive the world on AGW. They, like the US Senate who rejected voting on the original Kyoto Protocol 95-0 because it damaged the economy and would make virtually no change to global temperatures, are comfortable with the economic argument. Even if you accept the bad science, the cost of reducing global temperature by controlling CO2 is not tenable. They are still afraid of attacks from the eco-bullies. However, a majority are prepared to take an economic stand.

Bjorn Lomborg puts in even more stark terms.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100. (His emphasis).

Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030 and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

The bureaucrats at Environment Canada became a major force nationally and internationally in promoting and perpetuating the deception. The government of Canada must use them to take the lead in a return to sanity. It is time to shut them down and CLEXIT from the fiasco, deception, and devastating costs in lost opportunities. It is guaranteed to create bad science when you have scientific bureaucrats. If the evidence shows what thy told politicians were the case, they are not going to risk their job by admitting they got it wrong. As Upton Sinclair said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

The only role of EC should involve as much data collection as possible made available to anybody who needs it.

Read full story here…

Climate Alarmism Is In Retreat Across The World

Climate change has been the UN’s sole driving mantra to push its only solution, Sustainable Development. If Global Warming is indeed discredited in the people’s eyes, the global Technocrats will find another reason to implement Sustainable Development. ⁃ TN Editor

From Poland to France, from Canada to the U.S, the climate alarmists are in retreat as the public begins to tire of their taxes, their constrictive regulations, their dodgy, ugly, inefficient renewable projects and their hysterical junk science scare stories. Economics is beginning to reassert itself over green propaganda.

At the UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland, a pro-energy faction of oil-producing nations – led by the U.S. – has caused huge upset to the greenies by refusing to endorse the latest scaremongering report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

According to Associated Press:

A diplomatic standoff over a single word could set the stage for a bigger showdown during the second half of this year’s U.N. climate summit. Negotiators took time out Sunday to rest after the first week of talks ended on a sour note the previous night, when the United States sided with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in blocking endorsement of a landmark study on global warming.

The US State Department is unapologetic:

The United States was willing to note the IPCC report and express appreciation to the scientists who developed it, but not to welcome it, as that would denote endorsement of the report. As we have made clear in the IPCC and other bodies, the United States has not endorsed the findings of the report.

According to Politico there is a new scepticism abroad towards green measures like carbon taxes:

This month’s fuel-tax riots in Paris and the defeat of a carbon-fee ballot measure in Washington state show the difficulty of getting people to support a levy on the energy sources that heat their homes and power their cars. Meanwhile, even the most liberal Democratic candidates this year gave carbon taxes scant if any mention in their climate platforms, focusing instead on proposals like a phaseout of fossil fuels and massive investments in wind and solar power.

Except that renewables aren’t working either. Despite massive efforts by governments, especially in Europe, to force a transition from fossil fuels to “clean” energy, the money has been wasted and all those birds and bats sliced and diced by eco-crucifixes have died in vein.

A damning report by John Constable for the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that, despite years of propaganda and eye-watering subsidies to rent seekers, renewables still represent an all but negligible percentage of global energy production.

For almost as long as there has been a climate policy, emissions reduction has been seen as dependent on the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Policies supporting this outcome are ubiquitous in the developed and developing world; markets have been coerced globally, with varying degrees of severity it is true, but with extraordinary force in the OECD states, and particularly in the European Union. The net result of several decades of such measures has been negligible. Consider, for example the global total primary energy mix since 1971, as recorded in the International Energy Agency datasets, the most recent discussion of which has just been published in the World Energy Outlook (2018):

Figure 1: Global Total Primary Energy Supply: 1971–2015. Source: Redrawn by the author from International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics 2017 and 2018. IEA Notes: 1. World includes international aviation and international marine bunkers. 2. Peat and oil shale are aggregated with coal. 3. “Other” Includes geothermal, solar, wind, tide/wave/ocean, heat and other.

Read full story here…

Democrats Introduce Massive Carbon Tax Legislation

It’s the “The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018” and it will face an uphill battle even though the House has a majority of Democrats. The mere fact that it is being reintroduced again demonstrates the persistence of global warming activists. ⁃ TN Editor

Democrat Florida Congressman Ted Deutch has introduced a carbon tax bill to impose a new national energy tax on the American people. The bill is a massive tax increase and would increase utility bills and the price of all products and services. In true politician-speak, Deutch has dubbed it “The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018.”

Voters across the USA — even in blue areas — have consistently rejected carbon taxes when faced with the issue at the ballot box. See the timeline here. On top of that, Paris is burning as hundreds of thousands of French citizens — yes even the French — protest that country’s own carbon taxes.

Despite all this, Democrat Deutch just can’t take a hint. Let’s look at the details of Deutch’s horrible bill:

Imposes a massive and continually racheting national energy tax, allowing politicians to raise taxes without ever having to vote. Just like the French proposal that starts with a big tax that gets more oppressive with time, the bill imposes a $15 per ton carbon (energy) tax, increasing by $10 per year into the future. Within five years the tax would automatically rise to $55 per ton. For reference, the carbon tax handily rejected by blue Washington state voters in November started at $15 and ratcheted up by $2 per year. Perhaps Deutch thinks the voters just want to be taxed at even higher rates.

Shovels taxpayer money into a giant vat for IRS, EPA, and State Department bureaucrats. The IRS and EPA will develop a cozy relationship — and what’s not to love about that — to siphon funds from the vat of taxpayer funds for what the bill calls “Administrative Expenses” and “Other Administrative Expenses.” For reasons unclear, State Department bureaucrats will also have access to the vat of taxpayer funds. What could go wrong?

Gives broad powers to IRS chief to find new products and entitites to be carbon-taxed. The IRS is directed to work with the EPA in order to find more tax targets: “Any manufactured or agricultural product which the [Treasury] Secretary in consultation with the [EPA] Administrator determines” is a tax target. The newly-carbon-taxed items will be added to the long list already specified in the bill: Iron, steel, steel mill products including pipe and tube, aluminum, cement, glass, fiberglass, pulp, paper, chemicals, and industrial ceramics.

Gives broad powers to the EPA chief. The bill gives czar-like powers to the EPA chief including the power to impose “monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping requirements” on Americans. The bill also gives the EPA chief power to conduct investigations and force “information collection.”

Establishes a creepy DC-based “Carbon Dividend Trust Fund” that seeks a backdoor two-child limit on families. The “Carbon Dividend Trust Fund” leftovers will somehow be routed from DC on a per-person basis and households with more than two children are considered unworthy: The legislative language specifically imposes “a limit of 2 children per household.”

Here it is, straight from the bill text:

“A carbon dividend payment is one pro-rata share for each adult and half a pro-rata share for each child under 19 years old, with a limit of 2 children per household, of amounts available for the month in the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund.”

Gives broad powers to the Treasury Department to issue even more rules and regulations. The bill language states:

“The Secretary shall promulgate rules, guidance, and regulations useful and necessary to implement the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund.”

Imposes income tax on the carbon tax “dividend.” Yes, the government fleeces the taxpayers and sends the carbon tax money to DC, where it is siphoned off by bureaucrats. Then a leftover “dividend” is supposedly sent out to the countryside where it is then subject to income tax! Here is the bill language:

 “(D) FEE TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS. — Amounts paid under this subsection shall be includible in gross income.

A tax on a tax, which will likely increase the complexity of your annual tax filing. Here’s an idea — how about not taking the money from taxpayers in the first place?

Greases the skids for a European-style Value Added Tax, a cash cow for big government by erecting a complex carbon tax border adjustment scheme.

Authorizes armed carbon tax enforcement agents. The bill authorizes armed carbon tax enforcement agents to collect the new tax on energy used by Americans. As if customs enforcement doesn’t already have enough on its plate, the bill states:

“The revenues collected under this chapter may be used to supplement appropriations made available in fiscal years 2018 and thereafter –

 “(1) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in such amounts as are necessary to administer the carbon border fee adjustment.”

Authorizes certain government sharing of Social Security information. The bill states:

“(B) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY. — The Commissioner of Social Security shall, on written request, disclose to officers and employees of the Department of the Treasury individual identity information which has been disclosed to the Social Security Administration as is necessary to administer section 9512

Americans for Tax Reform opposes the bill. “The proposed carbon tax is a gas tax and a tax on your electric bill. Worse, it increases automatically year after year so the politicians can raise your taxes without ever having to vote,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The tax will be hidden in the price of all goods and services. A hidden tax. A permanent tax. An uncontrolled tax that increases without end.”

The text of Democrat Deutch’s carbon tax bill can be found here.
Read full story here…

Note To Technocrat Lawyers: Rules Are Not Laws

The only silver bullet to permanently ground global warming fanatics in America is to strike down the EPA’s declaration that CO2 is a harmful gas. Until this is done, the higher court’s cannot and will not deal with the issue. ⁃ TN Editor

I noticed years ago that rules are created to make society, or components of a society, function. The paradox is that when people say they are going to work to rule it means they intend to stop society functioning. America says it is a nation of laws. These were written to make the society function, but now they are used to ensure the society doesn’t function or worse, is easily controlled by an elite few. Why did they only need ten commandments while the US needs thousands of laws? Why does America have more lawyers than the rest of the world combined? Who are they serving and protecting? Most people cannot afford a lawyer, especially “a good” one, that is one who knows how to beat the law whatever it says.

That last comment was underlined for me by a former student who became a lawyer. He took a course in contract law from one of the best contract lawyers in the country. The professors opening comment to the class said, ‘If you sign a contract there is no problem. If you don’t sign a contract, there is no problem. Now we will have a course in contract law.’

The lawyers provided the ideal environment for technocrats, by destroying the keystone of society, trust. A few years ago, a Canadian newspaper ran a contest for the best humorous description of a Canadian. None of the winners was funny, least of all the runner-up. It said a Canadian is a person who will stop at a stop sign at three in the morning even though nobody is watching. Not only is this not funny, but it speaks to the very fabric of a law-abiding society. Each citizen trusts that every other citizen will obey the law when not watched. The legal profession says you don’t trust anyone. You need a contract to guarantee trust. As some people ask, whatever happened to the solemnity and trust of a handshake?

The collapse of trust created a devastating side-effect. The attitude among many and certainly most of the young is that you only broke the law if you get caught. Then, even if you get caught, the wealthy technocrats hire the best lawyers, often with other people’s money, to avoid the law.

The technocrats who construct and control the technology need to control the rules, and so they co-opt the law through the lawyers. This gives them far more control than people can imagine. Lawyers are the most prevalent profession of those in politics. Even if the politicians are not lawyers, it is the lawyer as a bureaucrat who writes the laws. The entire legal profession is a closed shop. They run the law faculties at the universities from top to bottom as Presidents, Deans, and other officers of their faculty.

The incestuous nature of the hierarchy continues in society at large. All recognition of a ’good’ lawyer is determined by other lawyers. The Founding Fathers tried to prevent this by having Senate confirmation hearings, as we witnessed at the recent Kavanaugh Hearings. I watched that hearing and other Senate Judiciary Committee hearings of Administration appointees to Federal courts. In all cases, the majority of the Senators were lawyers or even former judges.

There is little danger of lawyers replacing the technocrats because they are almost exclusively Arts majors. I wrote about this bias in an earlier article. The classic example of technocrats abusing climate science with the aid of lawyers using laws they wrote to accommodate involved the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The State of Massachusetts lawsuit, was probably in an arrangement against the EPA. It accused them of failing to fulfil their legislated duty of protecting the citizens of Massachusetts against a ‘harmful substance’ CO2. EPA lost the case, and after reading some of the case, I believe deliberately lost. This guaranteed its consideration by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

Justice Scalia asked why a science issue appeared before a court that knew nothing about science. He then said he had no choice in the ruling because it came under Administrative Law. The technocrats got the lawyers to write them back in the 1940s to protect what they were doing. Basically, it says we as ‘experts’ set the rules and define the laws, that always makes us the authority.  In this case, Administrative Law said the EPA must control a “harmful substance.” What Scalia and the Justices didn’t know was that the EPA determined that CO2 was a harmful substance. So, the EPA wrote the definitions and the laws all to give them absolute control over CO2. As Scalia said, he had no choice in his ruling.

If Trump wants to do something meaningful beyond abandoning the Paris Climate Agreement, he should get the EPA to remove the ‘harmful substance’ designation from CO2. It is a valuable gas essential to plant growth and does not cause warming or climate change.

If he wants to take back much of the control of America by the technocrats and their slaves, he can stop the lawyers by eliminating Administrative Law. He can use the abuse of the law to demonize CO2 as the perfect example. If you eliminate the biased rules, then they can’t be used to control society.