(Video) Is Global Warming really our most serious problem?

January 31, 2016

Climate alarmists like to paint apocalyptic scenarios to scare us into agreeing to their preferred “solutions”: a world warming so much that the ice caps vanish, the seas rise and flood cities, snow no longer falls, monster storms ravage our lands, crops fail, and Donald Trump becomes President of the United States.

Okay, that last probably isn’t due to global warming. Maybe.

But is the problem, if it exists, really the most serious challenge we face? With an economy in the doldrums, large swathes of the population disgusted with the political class, and foreign threats from Islamic terrorism, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China, is global warming the worst thing out there?

Per economist Bjorn Lomborg in  video from Prager University, the answer is “no.”

I’ll point out that Lomborg is what one might call a “moderate warmist.” That is, he believes there is an anthropogenic influence on global climate, that it could be harmful, but that it’s neither strong enough nor increasing at such a rate that we have to take the drastic, economically and politically devastating action the Climate Cult demands. In Lomborg’s view, mankind has plenty of time to adapt.

I may not agree with Lomborg on whether there is a climate change problem at all, but he’s at least someone with whom one could have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

Unlike, say, Al Gore or James Hansen.

Advertisements

Trump fans can be *so* sensitive…

January 25, 2016
Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

Just say no.

It’s no secret that I oppose Donald Trump’s candidacy for the presidency. In fact, it’s my belief that, if nominated, he would be a disaster for the Republican Party and the conservative movement and, if elected, an almost certain disaster for the nation. On Twitter, where one is limited to 140 characters, I’ve been rather blunt. For example:

Flippant of me, to be sure, and even uncharitable. But quite mild compared to what often passes for “opinion” there.

Still, one Trump voter took a wee bit of exception to my remark:

Then he proceeded to take his own advice and block me. A shame, really, since he seemed quite the wit. Oh, well.

In all seriousness, folks, and all joking about having my own Twitter Loony aside, I do think Trump would be a god-awful president. I’ve already been through nearly eight years of one incompetent who’s treated the Constitution and the principles behind it as afterthoughts; I cannot bear the though of 4-8 years under a successor who might outdo him.

Trump is a statist, cronyist, self-dealing egomaniac who should come nowhere near the White House, except maybe as a dinner guest. Yuval Levin was right when he wrote that Trump correctly diagnosed the rot in our political class and the public anger at it, but would prescribe solutions that are even worse. Don’t take my word for it: read National Review’s “Against Trump” symposium. Twenty-two strong conservatives representing three generations and the full range of conservative ideology –from libertarian to neocon, from religious to secular– have come out strongly opposing Trump’s candidacy.

I’ve said before that, with Governor Perry out of the race, it’s up to the other candidates to sell me on why they should be president. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I could happily vote for Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or (less happily, but still easily) Chris Christie. But vote for Donald Trump? No. He is unfit to hold the office.

If Trump is the nominee, I will, for the first time in my voting life, leave that line of my ballot blank. (1)

PS: If “Micky” ever deletes that tweet, you can find  screen capture of it here.

Footnote:
(1) No, that does not mean I must want a Hillary presidency. (My opinion of Hillary Clinton is quite clear.) It means that, in a Trump v. Clinton (or Sanders) race, I would find both candidates so egregiously unacceptable that I could not vote for either in good conscience.

 


Hillary’s Email: can she be inaugurated from inside a jail cell?

January 20, 2016
Above the rules.

Above the rules.

The latest bombshell, which begs the question, “Do we have any secrets left?”

Intelligence officials have discovered sensitive national security information on Hillary Clinton’s server that goes beyond the “top secret” level, the intelligence community inspector general told lawmakers in a letter last week.

In a copy of the Jan. 14 correspondence obtained by POLITICO, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III told both the Senate Intelligence and Senate Foreign Relations committees that intelligence agencies found messages relating to what are known as “special access programs,” or SAP. That’s an even more restricted subcategory of sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, top secret national security information derived from sensitive intelligence sources.

Emphasis added.

If this selfish, imbecilic, entitled exemplar of our governing elites (God help us) doesn’t face prosecution for this, then equality before the law for all is dead in America.

Charles Krauthammer:

A new report that Hillary Clinton’s personal server contained information about “special access programs” makes her handling of sensitive material “worse than what Snowden did,” Charles Krauthammer said tonight.

“What people have to understand is that there is nothing higher, more secret than an SAP,” Krauthammer said on Tuesday’s Special Report. “From some people I have talked to, this is worse than what Snowden did because he didn’t have access to SAP.”

“The reason it’s [so sensitive] is if it’s compromised, people die,” he said. “It also means that operations that have been embedded for years and years get destroyed and cannot be reconstituted. This is very serious.”

Emphasis added.

It’s hard for me to describe just how much that woman and her family –including her daughter, who seems to be a chip off the old money-grubbing block– disgust me. She was privy to the deepest, most sensitive secrets held by the government in trust for the American people, for our safety and prosperity in a dangerous world.

And yet she treated them like afterthoughts, with no regard to the consequences. The nation’s interests —our interests— were subordinated to her desire to avoid FOIA requests, to her Nixonian need for secrecy and control.

The closest Hillary Clinton should ever come to the Oval Office is on a bus passing nearby on its way to deliver her to federal prison.

 


Dr. Robert Carter, scientist, climate skeptic, pioneer, friend – R.I.P

January 19, 2016

This is indeed sad news. Carter wrote a marvelous book poking holes in the global warming “thesis” —Climate: the counter consensus— and was a stalwart on the side of climate realism and genuine science. May he rest in peace.

Watts Up With That?

I was shocked and saddened to read this, I’m passing it on without comment because I can’t write about this at this moment. See update below.

Dr. Robert M. Carter (1941-2016) Dr. Robert M. Carter (1941-2016)

Joe Bast writes:

It is with deep regret that I report the passing of a friend, colleague, and great scholar, Dr. Robert M. Carter. Bob died peacefully in a hospital surrounded by family and friends following a heart attack a few days ago. He was 74 years old.

Funeral arrangements are being made and it will most likely take place on Monday next week in Townsville, Australia.

This is almost unspeakably sad. Bob was the very embodiment of the “happy warrior” in the global warming debate. He was a scholar’s scholar, with impeccable credentials (including a Ph.D. from Cambridge), careful attention to detail, and a deep understanding of and commitment to the scientific method. He endured the slings…

View original post 462 more words


French President Approaches Cliff, Steps on Accelerator

January 19, 2016

France has been dirigiste since Louis XIV centralized all power under him, and the French leadership has been trapped in that intellectual straitjacket ever since. The idea of lowering the burden of government and letting market forces work is probably inconceivable to President Hollande — and most of his people.

International Liberty

When I wrote back in 2012 that France was committing fiscal suicide, I should have guessed that President Hollande would get impatient and push for even more statism.

Sure enough, the BBC reports that France’s President has a new plan. The ostensible goal is to reduce unemployment, but the practical effect is to expand the size and scope of government.

President Francois Hollande has set out a €2bn (£1.5bn) job creation plan in an attempt to lift France out of what he called a state of “economic emergency”. Under a two-year scheme, firms with fewer than 250 staff will get subsidies if they take on a young or unemployed person for six months or more. In addition, about 500,000 vocational training schemes will be created.

Needless to say, if subsidies and handouts were the key to job creation, France already would have full employment.

In reality, real jobs are created

View original post 472 more words


(Video) Is America racist?

January 18, 2016

For Prager University, radio talk show host Larry Elder explores a question that’s quite fitting for Martin Luther King Day: Is the United States a racist country? The Democrats, their candidates, and the Left (1) tell us it is over and over (and over and over). If you take what they say at face value, then America is a racist hellhole in which Blacks are regularly oppressed by Whites and in grave danger of being killed by police at any moment. Racism is so ingrained in us as a nation, they say, that even the president says it’s “in our DNA.” And, of course, this idea gets carried across the nation and the world by a largely left-leaning media.

But what’s the truth? Do the facts comport with reality? In this brief video, Elder puts reality up against the Leftist fantasy, and reality wins:

This isn’t of course to say that there aren’t any problems, some of them personal, others structural.

But, I am so sick and tired of the “America is ‘AmeriKKKa'” garbage the Left spews to make its arguments, I just wish that some major figure on their side –even just one– would acknowledge that we’ve made tremendous progress since the days of slavery and Jim Crow. (2)

But they can’t, because they rely on ethnic resentment and the lie of a hateful America to gin up votes and win elections. If it weren’t for their “America is awful” sales pitch, they’d have nothing to offer at all.

Footnotes:
(1) But, of course, I repeat myself.
(2) The former of which Democrats fought a civil war to defend, while their children and grandchildren spent decades building and preserving the latter. Just to be clear.


The Value-Added Tax Should Be Political Poison for Advocates of Limited Government

January 15, 2016

Tweeted this last night, but it’s worth its own post. There’s a lot to like about Ted Cruz, but his insistence that his new tax plan doesn’t contain a VAT, thus giving advocates of big government another revenue stream, is an annoying dodge. I wish he’d drop it, and the VAT.

International Liberty

It’s not my role to pick sides in political fights, but I am very interested in trying to make bad ideas radioactive so that politicians won’t be tempted to do the wrong thing.

This is why I’m a big fan of the no-tax-hike pledge. The folks in Washington salivate at the prospect of getting more of our money, but they are less likely to act on their desires if they’re scared that breaking their promises means they’ll lose the next election.

It’s also why I want the value-added tax (VAT) to become a third-rail issue. Simply stated, it would be a catastrophic mistake to give Washington an additional source of tax revenue. Especially since the European evidence shows that it’s a money machine to expand the welfare state.

Given my concerns, I was understandably distressed that two lawmakers (and presidential candidates) who normally support smaller government, Rand Paul

View original post 1,682 more words