Worth Watching: Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and Zo Rachel | Right Angle Lightning Round

Just when you think they couldn't pack any more wisdom into one video, they do another Lightning Round.

I tagged this post with Kakistocrat of the Year, because I'm pretty sure Uncle Joe is gonna be the one.

Follow the Money (and the Dogma)

Nothing Would Surprise Me Anymore

They played us for a year in 2020; The state of fear is the new state of the state. Something better give, and soon. But the one thing I fear is that it won't. 

Stop It With the Fear Mongering!

This isn't the first heatwave we've had, and it won't be the last. The climate has always been changing. Give me a falsifiable hypothesis. The dire predictions we've had so far have been stunningly inaccurate. At some point, it's time to admit that the whole theory was bunk.

‘Jaw-dropping’ forecast is warning sign of climate change’s future impact in Washington, scientists say, says the Seattle Times. There's no excuse for this kind of political propaganda. 

Update: okay, it got up to 102.6 today, according to my weather station. I think that's hotter than I remember it ever getting around here. But that doesn't mean there's a causal link between that and human fossil fuel consumption.

Oh, Now I'm a Conspiracy Theorist!

El Guapo

Someone called me a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that NASA might have an agenda for global warming. You do not call El Guapo a conspiracy theorist!

How Many Statists Does It Take To Change a Light Bulb?

Stolen from facebook:



I don't like CFLs. I do like LEDs, but I think the free market is quite adequate for moving people to more efficient, environmentally friendly lighting. Government mandates are completely illiberal and unnecessary.

LA Times Censoring Scientific Debate

I heard on the radio yesterday that the LA Times will no longer print letters to the editor denying climate change, on the assumption, I guess, that such denial would be tantamount to racism or gay-bashing. They evidently do not understand science, the scientific method, or how these issues are settled. Did you know that Einstein's theory of relativity is still being tested? So far the tests continue to support and validate the theory, but even at this late date, we could find something that blows it away. But at least relativity is testable.

I think it’s important to note that the LA Times, as a private newspaper, may exercise their first amendment rights as they see fit. Freedom of the press means newspapers, blogs and broadcasters are free to publish, or not to publish whatever they like. The fact that they have their heads in the sand (or up their asses) is their prerogative. The appropriate response is to start your own publication. “Fair and balanced” isn't a single-publisher proposition. Competition is.

I do not deny that climate changes all the time, as it has done since the dawn of time. We have incontrovertible records of it. I do not deny that we may still be burrowing out of the last ice age. We have incontrovertible records of that too. But I do deny that there is any incontrovertible evidence that humans are in any way responsible, nor can there be. It isn't testable! That's because in order to verify anthropogenic global warming climate change chaos (AGCC) experimentally, we would need a "control planet" (a duplicate earth, but without humans, or at least not industrialized -- it doesn't seem practical to me).

The climate science community has tried to address this shortcoming through computer modeling, but computer models are simply buggy self-fulfilling prophecies. There is no natural real-world way to prove that the computer models have accounted for everything - initial conditions, seemingly negligible factors, getting cause and effect reversed, and the unknown. We can't model what we don't know, and we can't validate what we can't test. It's all synthetic.

I think it's ironic that many of the people espousing computer modeling as a reliable way to prove the AGCC hypothesis are the same ones who denounce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods, artificial flavoring, and who demand "naturally organic" foods. It's inconsistent, to say the least.

'Progressivism' is a Religion: Faith Based, Not Fact Based

Gaia Thingy

For 100 years, classical liberals* have been trying to discredit 'progressivism', A.K.A., socialism, communism, statism, whatever you want to call it. 'Progressives' resent the open market, capitalist system that is based on merit, productivity and industry, because either they, or the people they claim to sympathize with, cannot compete.

While classical liberals have always relied on charity to help the less fortunate (but not the indigent), 'progressives' want to rely on government for that function. While neither mechanism is perfect, government has been tried for the past 100 years, and all we have to show for it is more poverty and more debt. That is because government cannot produce wealth, and when it tries to redistribute wealth, that merely discourages productivity and encourages dependency.

So why has 'progressivism' continued to flourish, while classical liberalism continues to decline? Is it because people don't really want to be free? Is it because people are fundamentally lazy? Is it because people don't like the prosperity that comes with freedom? I think not. So what then?

Well, I think we have been going about discrediting 'progressivism' all wrong. We've been using facts and logic. Facts and logic don't work on 'progressives', because 'progressivism' is a faith-based dogma. It's like a religion. Nowhere is this more evident than with anthropogenic global warming climate change chaos. As I said in an earlier post,

The man-made climate change hypothesis has so many discrepancies, loose ends, untestable truth-claims and outright fraud that it is just begging for some critical analysis. Sympathetic peer review and "consensus" is not experiment. Without rigorous experimental confirmation, the climate change hypothesis is simply a matter of faith -- another religion. If it was properly called religion instead of science, the fact that it should have no role in public policy would be a no-brainer.

When the watermelons call us deniers instead of skeptics, I want to yell, "Don't you mean heretic? This isn't the Holy Roman Empire! I'm sorry about the rest of the world, but here in the United States, we have something called 'The First Amendment'. We don't have to subscribe to your religion!"

The fact is, classical liberals need to find out if anyone has ever discredited a religion before. If so, then we need to use that tactic. If there is no tactic, we need to invent one. The 'progressives' found a tactic that works well against us, namely Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. There are some books that claim to use Alinsky's rules against 'progressives' without compromising our principles, and maybe that will work. 

However, I don't think a derivative approach is necessarily the best approach. I would like to come up with something purpose-built for defeating faith-based systems. So I started looking for articles on the web that claim to discredit established religions. I found one, but this argument fails against Christians, because it makes a fundamental error as to why Christians believe in God. Now don't get me wrong, many Christians and scientists have this wrong also (as I explain here), but this guy doesn't get it right. 

So I don't have any good ideas yet, but let's all start thinking. Just remember that the same tactics that work against 'progressives' may also work on Christians and Jews. I don't want to hurt them, so we need to give them a heads-up. These are dangerous times. 

---

*Classical liberals are people who believe in liberty, as opposed to those people who call themselves liberals, but who are really illiberal control freaks, A.K.A., 'progressives'. I'm reclaiming the word, "liberal". 

When All Else Fails, Manipulate the Data

My wife received an email from Washington Conservation Voters. It goes like this:

Did you know that here in Washington, unlike many other states, we elect a Commissioner of Public Lands? Well, we do. And this year’s race is going to be a doozy!

Sign our petition to show your commitment to Washington Forests.

Four years ago, Washington Conservation Voters helped elect Commissioner Peter Goldmark, a rancher from Eastern Washington, who committed to cleaning up shabby logging practices in forests around Washington, protecting Puget Sound, and addressing the challenges that climate change is bringing to our region.

Apparently, Goldmark’s commitment to clean water and healthy forests has angered one man: Clint Didier.

Didier, a tea-party activist and ex-NFL player, has run unsuccessfully for office before and this year he is challenging Goldmark. He has made it very clear that protecting the environment is not one of his values.

You say tea-party activist like it's a bad thing! Tea parties simply want to re-acquaint American citizens with our government's founding principles. If you disagree with the founding principles, why don't you just admit it? We the People should be able to protect the environment voluntarily, without forfeiting our inalienable rights. But you and Goldmark want to force everyone to do what you happen to think is right, when there is considerable latitude for honest people to disagree about what the problems are, and what the right solutions are. In a free country, private citizens would make those decisions. Does that guarantee success? Better than government, it usually turns out. The screed continues:

• In fact, he has said, the only way to make forests sustainable is “if Man puts his footprint back in the forest.”1
• Shockingly, he believes that “science has been altered so as to make it (global warming) look like it is truly happening.”2
• He believes that trying to protect our state’s waterways from herbicides and pesticides is elitist.3

Wow. Denying climate change. Opposing a healthy Puget Sound. Clint Didier, your policies are too extreme for Washington! Sign our petition and add your name to a growing list of Washingtonian committed to protecting our water and forests.

Wow. You say "denier" like it's a bad thing! What you call "denial", I call "skepticism", and skepticism has been the fundamental truth-detector in science since the discipline was first invented. The burden of proof is on the accuser. That applies to forestry, global warming and stormwater runoff.

What's more, the science has been altered! The famous hockey stick graph was falsified and the data manipulated to present the illusion of a correlation between human industrial activity, CO2 and global warming. So the correlation is much weaker than the IPCC claims, and as any decent scientist knows, correlation does not imply causation. There is no experiment that you could run that can reproducibly and reliably prove causation for global warming, if it exists at all. Why do we have to keep debunking this fraudulent science? The email closes with:

Edie Gilliss
Political Director, Washington Conservation Voters

PS: As fires continue to rage in Central Washington, and throughout the west, we are thankful to have, in our highest environmental office, a man committed to addressing the realities of climate change, since science has shown the link between bigger and more frequent fires and climate change. Please sign our petition now.

1) July 14, 2012, Whatcom Freedom Rally. 7/14/2012. Youtube.
2) Ex-NFLer Clint Didier tackles Murray, and a lot more,” Joel Connelly, 1/11/2010, Seattle PI.
3) Angry Crowd Enlivens County Meeting,” by Mark St. J. Couhig, 9/28/2011, Sequim Gazette.

I will not sign your petition, and we would not be having nearly the problem with the fires if someone who truly understood what freedom and liberty means, was allowing knowledgeable citizens to to manage the forests intelligently and productively. Clint Didier understands what freedom truly means. Vote for Clint!

One World Government

A couple of posts back, I said that President Obama was scheming against the interests of America and its citizens. To prove that I am not some tinfoil hat fringe lunatic (well, maybe I am, but not because of this), I provide this link to a document by the Obama regime (our government until we change it in November, God willing).

While you're waiting for the 2.24 megabyte PDF to download, I'll describe the highlights. The document is entitled, "Global Governance 2025: at a Critical Juncture". If the title doesn't give you chills, maybe the first paragraph of the Preface will:

The United States’ National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) have joined forces to produce this assessment of the long-term prospects for global governance frameworks. This exercise builds on the experience of the two institutions in identifying the key trends shaping the future international system. Since the mid 1990s, the NIC has produced four editions of its landmark Global Trends report. The most recent one, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, published in late 2008, noted that momentous change was ahead, with the gap between increasing disorder and weakening governance structures widening. The EUISS produced the first EU-level report on the factors affecting the evolution of the international system in 2006, The New Global Puzzle. What World for the EU in 2025? The report stressed that a multipolar system is emerging and that matching the new distribution of power with new rules and institutions will be critical to preserving international peace and stability.

The idea that peace and stability comes from global governance is as laughable as it is spooky. I suppose a centralized government that was sufficiently domineering could suppress human nature. Humans have always had their differences. That is why we have separate religions, separate states, separate political systems and so on. It is human nature to compete, to invent, to form groups that include some and exclude others. Our founders understood that any government that attempts to govern against natural law (including human nature) is bound to fail, as we saw with the old USSR, to name just one.

Then there's this, from Chapter 1:

Climate change has trespassed the boundaries of environmental politics to become the subject of the global political, economic, and security debate and a new focus of multilateral cooperation cutting across these and other domains.

...spoken with all the usual 'progressive' assertiveness that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a foregone conclusion. Despite the fact that the AGW hypothesis is not predictably reproducible (i.e., it's untestable, and therefore unscientific by definition) -- and despite mounting evidence to the contrary, it is essential to the 'progressive' agenda.

The biggest problem that I see with global government is a lack of diversity. Today, if I want to be oppressed, there are plenty of countries where I can go to be oppressed, especially in the Middle East. If I want to be free, there are plenty... no wait... The United States... no wait... not anymore -- although the US is still one of the freest nations in the world, which explains why we have an illegal immigration problem (as opposed to an illegal emigration problem, like the old Soviet Union and Cuba).

The last time I checked, the United States was a sovereign nation as defined by The Constitution. I do not appreciate presumptuous 'progressives' taking liberties with my liberty, and nullifying our constitutional sovereignty without the consent of the governed. And I'll be damned if I'll give my consent.

Climate Panel Adopts Controversial 'Grey' Evidence

NewScientist reports, Climate panel adopts controversial 'grey' evidence. Yeah, this is new...

Climate scientists are likely to face charges of putting politics before science, following two decisions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

At a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, earlier this month, the IPCC decided for the first time to impose strict geographical quotas on the elected officials that make up its bureau. There will also be a push to increase the representation of women among its authors.

Quotas and gender preferences? Sure, why not? Objective scientists do that all the time!

It had also voted at a meeting in Kampala in November 2011 to increase the role in those assessments of "grey literature": publications not subject to peer review. Using such material in the last assessment is what led to the "glaciergate" scandal in 2010, when the report was found to have vastly overestimated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice.

I don't think "grey literature" would be any worse than the fraudulent, peer-reviewed "hide the decline" literature. What does peer review matter, when the peer review is hand-picked to rubber stamp the agenda? This saves having to cover up or falsify any dissent among the reviewers. The IPCC has finally publically admitted that it has no interest whatsoever in objective truth; only a predetermined political outcome.

The panel publishes three voluminous assessments of the state of climate science every six years, the last of which came out in 2007.

I got your state of climate science right here! Fortunately, IPCC has absolutely no jurisdiction within sovereign US borders -- right? It looks as if Orwell was only off by 28 years.

Tragic, Unhealthy and Completely Predictable

Author Brian Sussman interviews a victim of our public indoctrination system:

Her conclusion is tragic, unhealthy, and completely predictable.

Demi-God, or Demagogue?

I imagine a hypothesis in which Man releases a miniscule percentage of trapped CO2 into the atmosphere, which causes runaway climate change.

And everyone believes me without any verification.

Earth Day is April 22

Our Hero

Earth Day was first launched nationally on the 100th birthday of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union. It is not a coincidence.

Scratch an environmentalist, and in most cases you’ll find a collectivist (communist) just beneath the surface. They’re watermelons: Green on the outside, and red on the inside. They don’t trust the free market or individual citizens to do The Right Thing™. Only by central planning and coercion will The Right Thing™ be done, on earth, as it is, um, on earth. Who gets to determine what The Right Thing™ is? Why the dictators, of course!

So, let's celebrate! (And there was much rejoicing!) Yaay.

Professor Ross McKitrick testifies at the Canadian Senate Hearing - December 15, 2011

Here's some very interesting and critical testimony about IPCC and global warming climate change:

Hat tip to Small Dead Animals. More testimony at the Heartland Institute...

The Only Question(s) You Need

I have had this at the top of my sidebar for over a year:

THE ONLY QUESTION YOU NEED

"Which article of the Constitution gives government the authority to do that?"

If more and more people start asking this question, I think most of our worst political problems, in all branches and all levels of government would go away by themselves, almost overnight. When a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi that question about the healthcare bill, her deer-in-the-headlights response was, "Are you serious?" Well, we are serious, and politicians should be afraid to step out of their offices without a credible answer to that question. It is the only "litmus test" that we need.

It really takes so little effort, that it is at least worth a try. The beauty of it is, this really should appeal to honest people from anywhere on the political spectrum.

But in light of EPA Ponders Expanded Regulatory Power In Name of 'Sustainable Development', I think we have to add another:

Wouldn't it be preferable to protect our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights?

Of course, if we answered the first question, we certainly wouldn't need the second one, but as I am very fond of quoting,

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Resisting the "natural progress of things" is getting to be like pushing a gigantic oppressive sustainable boulder uphill. If we stop to rest, it will roll right over us.

The Watermelons Are Onto the Fact That We're Onto Them

I know you think, you think you know, but I think you don't. ~ Zaphod Beeblebrox

The watermelons are onto us. Lloyd Alter, at treehugger (a discovery company), writes,

This past summer I think about twelve people read my post Agenda 21: The United Nations Threat To Control Our Lightbulbs, Our Lifestyles and Our Lives, where I wrote about how historic preservation, formerly the preserve of conservative types, has morphed into socialist control of private property, a tool of Agenda 21. I called it a Tea Party Theory of Everything:

It ties it all together into one neat package, making climate change, light bulbs, transit, smart growth, fuel economy, everything a plot...It is a spreading conspiracy theory that is becoming the underlying ideology of the crazy right and that has serious legs. It is no joke.

(Continue reading Agenda 21 Wackos On The Move to Stop Smart Growth)

Lloyd concludes with,

Almost every battle over historic preservation is now becoming a property rights battle, and almost every property rights battle now has an Agenda 21 tint to it. We really have to wake up to this threat.

No, Lloyd, Americans have to wake up to this threat to their natural rights. It might not be a conspiracy, but it certainly is an agenda. Agenda 21 uses environmental bait-and-switch to up-sell its illiberal collectivist schemes.

This is no idle threat: We've had multiple executive orders, from George H. W. Bush, William H. Clinton and now Barack H. Obama (constitutional illiterates all, apparently), invoking federal agencies such as the EPA and BLM to implement key elements of the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Protocol (even though Congress refused to ratify it). It's called "soft law". Then, flying in below the constitutional radar, ICLEI organizes local governments to implement Agenda 21. Warm fuzzy euphemisms such as Smart Growth and Sustainable Development mislead otherwise skeptical community leaders, businessmen and citizens who ask, essentially, "where do I line up to surrender my civil liberties and right to self-determination?" "Non profit", non-government organizations (NGOs) with names like Sustainable Connections, ReSources, and FutureWise, take government grants (your tax dollars) to "educate" you in the ways of sustainability, and sue you if you don't get in line. You're paying for your own oppression.

Don't just take my word for it, go to their websites and explore for yourself what they have planned for us. I provided the links. Remember, these websites are selling their agenda in glowing terms. You might need some translation. "Smart Growth" is already being implemented in your cities, counties and towns, probably without your awareness or consent -- this is intentional. In the halls of government for Bellingham and Whatcom County where I live, the saying goes, "if it isn't permitted, it isn't permitted". Meaning that if you don't have a permit, you can't do it. Say what?! Hello, commissioner! Government derives its just power from the consent of the governed, not the other way around! These very expensive permits are required to ensure that any development or construction complies with very expensive requirements to satisfy environmental extremist and scientifically unverified measures to protect watershed, airshed (!), habitat and whatever other arbitrary barriers may be erected by planning and zoning ordinances to control normal human activities.

Don't think it's not happening in your town: After you've familiarized yourself with Agenda 21 and ICLEI, a.k.a., Sustainable Development or Smart Growth, start attending your city and county council meetings, and planning and zoning commission meetings. Read the ordinances. Listen for the buzzwords -- they're all over the place. Then, start asking yourself, and others, these questions:

• What does Agenda 21 say, exactly?
• What do Smart Growth and Sustainable Development actually mean?
• What is ICLEI really trying to implement?
• What are the EPA, BLM, parks and recreation, planning and zoning, etc., trying to implement?
• Do you notice any similarities?
• Do you think they're a just a coincidence?
• Does the logical outcome have anything significant to do with the environment?
• Wouldn't it be preferable to protect our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights?

And then ask,

• Have you ever tried remodeling a place you were renting?
• How much permission and input did your landlord require?
• Have you tried remodeling your own property lately?
• How much permission and input did your government require?
• Do you want to be a mere tenant on your own property?
• Have you ever wanted to own your own property?
• Why invest most of your life's work to purchase something that you have few rights to use for your own purposes?

Now that they know we're onto them, the watermelons are going to start squalling like hammered cats, calling us conspiracy theorists, paranoid nut jobs, and whatever else they can think of. They'll start renaming things -- picking new words to describe their tired old designs. Don't be deterred, because this is important: It is preferable to preserve our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights!

They'll tell you capitalism, free enterprise, self-determination cannot be trusted to save the planet. What they're saying, in essence, is that government has to force us to go where free people would not go voluntarily. Is that not the definition of tyranny and oppression? I think we can do better than that.

Public Service Announcement and Editorial Comment

This email came to me from a local technical list server that I subscribe to:

Subject: odd phone call

This scam has been going around but it's the first I've heard of it locally. Apparently they are preying upon people who aren't computer smart... they say the computer is infected and then ask for access to the computer so they can "show you the problem" and then they ask that the victim download a file. I have no idea what happens after that but you know it's not good...

As far as reporting it... this appears to be originating outside of the US, so I don't think reporting it to the FTC and/or state Attorney General (as you normally would with telephone fraud) would really be helpful... but warning friends who aren't real good with computers (and who might believe the spiel) would probably be a good idea.

Okay. Now, 'people who aren't computer smart' and 'friends who aren't real good with computers' should heed this warning. But keep in mind that legislators and even some subscribers to the tech list are 'people who aren't computer smart'. If they need a warning like this, then how susceptible do you suppose they are to being fooled by computer models as proof of a scientific hypothesis?

Public Comment – Concerns Regarding Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan

Yesterday, I sent the following letter to the Whatcom County Planning Commission:

---

December 9, 2011

Karl A. Uppiano
5988 Malloy Ave.
Ferndale, WA 98248

File Copy – Whatcom County Planning Commission
5280 Northwest Drive
Bellingham, WA 98226

Subject: Public Comment – Concerns Regarding Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan

Dear Planning Commissioners:

I want to share my impressions of the public hearing last night. You may remember me; I was the only one who spoke on the principles of good government.

All through the meeting, I kept thinking of a quote by Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park: “[they] were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.” A lot of the second part of the proceedings was devoted to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but no one questioned the forgone conclusion about whether the Birch Bay watershed actually needs fixing, and if so, whether the government should do it. Where does this authority come from?

• One commissioner noted that there was “overwhelming support” for this measure.

No, there was the predictable parade of NIMBYs, environmental extremists, vested interests (e.g., Sustainable Connections, contractors, consultants, etc., whose job it is to promote these measures), and only a smattering of people, including me, who questioned the fundamental premise – whether the proper role of government is controlling individual behavior.

• Several commissioners expressed concern about the size and complexity of the measure.
• At least one commissioner was concerned about the likelihood that the regulations would change over time.

James Madison addressed both concerns 230 some odd years ago, in The Federalist:

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

• One commissioner noted (as justification?) that if the county does nothing (or even if it does something), ever more stringent state regulations will follow.
• More than one commissioner was concerned that what is now voluntary will become mandatory.

Thomas Jefferson: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” As citizens, it is our duty to resist “the natural progress of things”. The natural progress of things is to deteriorate without maintenance. We the People must maintain our liberty at all levels of government. Government won’t restrain itself – that much is obvious, or should be.

• One commissioner mentioned that the county wants to help the people of Birch Bay, who want this.
• One commissioner suggested CAPR testimony should be disregarded. (Seriously?!)

Jefferson again: “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”

• One commissioner suggested that if this is voluntary, why not simply publish the LID materials, and leave it at that?

Why not indeed? Instead of collecting government grants, and lobbying for the government to force people to go where they would not go voluntarily, why don’t the ReSources and Sustainable Connections people (and all the rest of the ICLEI/Smart Growth/Sustainable Development crowd) manufacture environmentally friendly LID products and educational materials that they can sell for a profit, in order to purchase buffers and offsets with their own money, and fund their own environmental public awareness campaigns and how-to programs? For the answer to that question, you need to understand that for many, the environment is nothing more than a convenient tool used shamelessly to promote a collectivist, illiberal agenda.

• Several commissioners expressed concern for the amount of time, effort and expense already spent for research and development on this project and the potential waste if it fails.

That’s a valid concern, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Again, we have to question the fundamental premise: Is this necessary? Is it proper?

I realize that quoting our dusty old founders might seem quaint, except for one thing: They had a lot invested in the American form of government, and the principles that they established as necessary for good government are still the official specification for the United States: the federal, state, and local constitutions and charters. These supreme laws have not been rescinded, but merely disregarded in recent years.

Once government becomes activist, picking winners and losers, working on behalf of one special interest or another, it becomes a fraud magnet – susceptible to lobbying, special interests, waste. Those problems are much less severe when government sticks to its affirmed purpose: that of protecting the civil liberties of all citizens, equally. I believe it is possible – preferable – to protect our natural resources without forfeiting our natural rights.

Respectfully Submitted,

Karl A. Uppiano

---

You may not feel that this is relevant to you if you live outside Whatcom County. If that is the case, then I would encourage you to Google "Sustainable Development", "Smart Growth", "ICLEI" and "Agenda 21". Then, attend your city and county council meetings. Be prepared for a shock. You might discover that, at the behest of environmental extremists, the government has made you a mere tenant on your own property. You can still develop and use your land, but only in very special ways, after paying the government exorbitant fees for the permission to do so. Tried any remodeling lately?

Climategate I and II

Evidence continues to accumulate, that global warming (or the more recently adopted non-falsifiable and self-fulfilling moniker "climate change") is an outright fraud.

Jim Lacey writing in National Review Online states in his article Scientists Behaving Badly,

Last week over 5,000 new e-mails, already dubbed Climategate 2, were released. Anyone still desiring to contest the assertion that only a few persons controlled the entire warmist agenda will be brought up short by this note from one warmist protesting that his opinions were not getting the hearing they deserved: “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” Over the years this core group, led by Phil Jones at East Anglia and Michael Mann at Penn State, became so close that even those inclined toward more honest appraisals of the state of climate science were hesitant to rock the boat. As one warm-monger states: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.” Silly me, how many years have I wasted believing that the very point of science was to pursue the truth in the face of all obstacles. On the basis of this evidence the scientific method must be rewritten so as to state: “Science must be as objective as possible, unless it offends your friends.”

(Continue reading...)

One by one, scientists are beginning to speak up. Karin McQuillan writes in Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming over at American Thinker,

More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation. They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.

It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.

(Continue reading...)

But, there is a real possibility that if humans ever are legitimately linked to global warming or climate change -- anything -- that real scientists and principled public servants will have a much harder row to hoe in order to convince people to take the necessary steps to reverse it.