Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    A Case Study in the Brutal Treatment of Climate Change Skeptics

    A Case Study in the Brutal Treatment of Climate Change Skeptics

    Eco-Activists’ #WarOnWomen target Kathleen Hartnett White, nominee for lead of White House Council on Environmental Quality.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uULeImcpjrE

    This year, the American press has suppressed news related to the near assassination of the Republican congressional baseball team by a Bernie Sanders supporter and the apparently brutal beating of Senator Rand Paul by a neighbor whose Facebook pages are filled with anti-Trump messages.

    In this environment, it is no wonder that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has rolled back many toxic climate change regulations, feels the need to direct his agency’s dollars to his own security.

    There are so many threats against the head of the Environmental Protection Agency that his security detail is being expanded from 18 to 30, it was reported Monday.

    Officials said the extraordinary measures are necessary because Scott Pruitt is getting far more death threats than anyone who has ever led the agency.

    “We have at least four times — four to five times the number of threats against Mr. Pruitt than we had against Ms. McCarthy,” Assistant Inspector General Patrick Sullivan told CNN, referring to Gina McCarthy, EPA chief during the Obama administration.

    A case study to demonstrate the toxic environment and savagery of today’s progressives is the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White, an experienced Texan politician with over 6 years of high-level administrative experience, as the lead of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Last year, she and Stephen Moore wrote the book Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy.

    Her grilling during the Senate confirmation process is a verbal burning-at-the-stake for environmental heresy. This video from the always pompous Sheldon Whitehouse will give you a sense of what White endured.

    Czech theoretical physicist Lubos Motl, who has studied the numbers and the dynamics related to climate change issues and is a skeptic himself, had a full analysis of the exchange. He concludes the questions were entirely irrelevant to energy policy and not based on credible science:

    …The questions by Whitehouse are a typical political trial designed to hurt the image of Ms White. Most climate alarmists wouldn’t know the answer to that question, either, and even most of those who would know because they just memorized a number from an article wouldn’t really know what it means, whether it means anything, and how such numbers may be estimated.

    On the other hand, White served for six years on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality as chairman. There she oversaw 3,000, engineers, scientists, attorneys, and other technical and administrative employees. White also issued 1,000 administrative enforcement orders, handled million dollar budgets responsibly, and successfully issued thousands of permits so that businesses could operate.

    I would assert that she is well qualified to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality, as she has the practical experience to do so. You can get a sense of White’s professionalism by reading this piece on “Cleaning the Air on Climate Change.

    Policies to replace fossil fuel-based electric generation with wind and solar generation necessitate massive land modification and habitat destruction. Renewable installations can require hundreds to thousands more acres of land than a coal, natural gas or nuclear power plant to produce the same power. In contrast to pre-industrial eras when forests were a primary source of energy, the density and efficiency of fossil fuels have been kind to trees -shrinking mankind’s physical footprint on the surface of the earth.

    The organized attack by environmental justice warriors also included viscious social media attacks. Perhaps my favorite is this one, because I think it’s her best selling point:

    However, most went something like this:

    Clearly, the progressive #WarOnWomen continues, as does the war on #ClimateChangeHeretics.

    Legal Insurrection readers have a chance to help, if so inclined. Please contact your Senators and voice your support for President Trump’s and Pruitt’s more sensible and realistic approach to protecting our environment without crippling our economy and destroying what’s left of our middle classes.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    There is no empirical evidence which confirms that long term, large scale climatic warming is the result of human activity. The the greatest provable fact that sinks the argument that global climatic warming is induced by human activity, or is even significantly influenced by it, is the fact that it has been occurring since before the human race ever produced any noticeable pollution. As the facts not only do not support the theory of man-made global warming, those supporting that theory are left with nothing but empty insults and ad hominem attacks.

    What drives the man-made global warming craze are three things. The first is simply profit; money and/or power. The second is a perverse need to feel important. And the third is a perverse desire for suicide, on a species scale.

    Much of the man-made global warming hoax is driven by simple greed. Third world countries are using it to steal power and money from mainly the first world countries. Entrepreneurs are getting rich selling anti-pollution devices which have little of no effect on the levels of global pollution. And researchers are making money chasing the latest end-of-the world craze [these are the same people who were predicting another ice age in the early 1970s]. And, the politicians are lining their pockets with campaign contributions and subsidies and off-the-books perks.

    Then we have the people who are so insecure that they want to believe the human race is actually capable destroying an entire planet by use of fluorocarbon propellants, passing intestinal gasses and breathing. Then you have the wanna be heroes. These people are also insecure. They need some dragon to slay in order to feel important, or even worthy of life. And, the dragon of world ending global warming is the biggest dragon in sight. Bot of these groups are classic psychological case studies. But, these people are extremely dangerous, as any proof that their belief in their own own relevance may not be accurate can cause them to react violently.

    Finally, we have the self haters. They so loath themselves that are actually attempting to commit suicide by taking the entire human race down with them. They find themselves to be inherently evil and, by extension, all of the human race is evil and must be destroyed. Again, a clear psychological case study. And, again, very dangerous. These people are willing to do almost anything to insure their own demise along with the civilized world.

    What is so intriguing about this phenomenon is that seemingly ration, intelligent people have actually listened to crooks and crazies for decades. When a rain maker could not bring rain, he was run out of town on a rail. When these people are unable to even provide a smidgen of empirical proof that man-made global warming even exists, people either ignore this or give them a second, or fiftieth, chance to prove it.


     
     0 
     
     1
    Icepilot | November 12, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    Photosynthesis – Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2/H2O into Food/O2; neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. More CO2 helps plants resist drought, damage &disease from insects & viruses. It extends growing seasons & lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using H2O more efficiently. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies, increase net rainfall & save lives. As CO2 levels rise, photosynthesis flourishes & plants take in more CO2, sparking more plant growth, photosynthesis & CO2 uptake.
    This Cradle of Life is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 50 years ago.

    And, remember, Sen. Whitehouse has been trying to get all “skeptics” INDICTED under RICO laws. Such ignorant politicians do not realize that the very crux of the scientific method is to be scepital of any theory, or model prediction, until it is validated by independent experiments. The models of the “warmest” cult, the IPCC models, have been shown to be grossly incorrect by all measurements made to date.
    Martin Fricke, Ph.D., nuclear physics


     
     0 
     
     2
    Gordon J Fulks PhD | November 12, 2017 at 6:28 pm

    Kathleen White should perhaps have realized that Senator Whitehouse was just blowing smoke during his obnoxious questioning of her. She need not know the details of alarmist arguments, because she is not a scientist. And of course, neither is he.

    Whitehouse did not know the correct answer to his own question! He just knew the answers from the climate cult. As theoretical physicist Lubos Motl said of such people: “they just memorized a number from an article wouldn’t really know what it means, whether it means anything.”

    The alarmist narrative claims tiny energy imbalances that do not show up as heat in the earth’s atmosphere, as they logically should. To solve this problem, they use either aerosols or heat absorption by the oceans as a fudge factor to bring their theory more in line with reality.

    It is all a game to avoid admitting that they are failures.

    What I like to point out when they claim to be worried about an imbalance of 1 or 2 watts/m2 is the 80 watts/m2 imbalance we encounter every year between January and July, due to the Earth’s slightly elliptical orbit. We get that much more insolation (incoming solar radiation) in January than July. Yet the planet is considerably warmer in July, because of the much greater land mass in the Northern Hemisphere. Dry land has a far lower heat capacity than our oceans.

    Whenever someone encounters Senator Whitehouse, the safest assumption is that he knows NOTHING about climate science.

    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
    Corbett, Oregon USA


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend