Fr. Schall: Does "Climate Change" Cause Hunger?

Fr. Schall writing today at Crisis Magazine:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/climate-change-cause-hunger

“Climate change” has deftly been substituted for the notorious “earth-warming” theory, the facts of which proved so difficult to sustain on the grounds of evidence about whether warming was or was not actually happening. Thus, whether the temperature goes up or down, it is “climate change”; so we can have an ecological crisis with the temperature going either direction. In grammar school in Iowa in my day, much attention was given to the Ice Age, which had once covered the state and, in fact, was one of the reasons for the richness of its black soil. We left grammar school more concerned about freezing to death than of roasting in some future Iowa desert.

Climate Change Marathon (6/1/17)

Greatest Scientific Fraud of all Time

From today's Manhattan Contrarian:

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/1/18/the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xii

Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? Prager University

From YouTube:

Published on Jul 11, 2016
Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the "97%" figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.

Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, merchandise links and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru

You can support PragerU by clicking here: https://www.classy.org/checkout/donat.... Free videos are great, but to continue producing high-quality content, contributions--even small ones--are a must!

Pope Francis: Environmentalism and Mercy

A response from Michael Matt at Remnant TV:

Prager U: Are Electric Cars Really Green?

(photo from Wikipedia)

Are Electric Cars Really Green?: Are electric cars greener than conventional gasoline cars? If so, how much greener? What about the CO2 emissions produced during electric cars' production? And where does the electricity that powers electric cars come from? Environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, examines how environmentally friendly electric cars really are.

Climate Change: Is it starting to dissipate?

Francis Menton, who blogs at Manhattan Contrarian published some good news recently, in a post in which he offered the following query:  "Is The Mass Hysteria About Climate Change Starting To Dissipate?"

Nobel Laureate, Ivar Giaever, Smashes the Global Warming Hoax

Mark J. Perry on Wasteful Recycling

Mark J. Perry, who holds two graduate degrees in Economics, is a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan's Flint campus, and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.  His popular economics Blog is called: Carpe Diem.
 Last Sunday, he published a post discussing the wasteful activity of recycling, which has become a pseudo religion for folks who more than anything want to feel good about themselves.
Here's just the opening paragraph of the post:

In 1996, New York Times science columnist John Tierney wrote an article that appeared in the New York Times Magazine about compulsory recycling titled “Recycling is Garbage.”  Tierney’s controversial argument in that article can be summarized as follows: Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America. Tierney wrote, “Rinsing out tuna cans and tying up newspapers may make you feel virtuous, but it’s a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources. Americans have embraced recycling as a transcendental experience, an act of moral redemption. We’re not just reusing our garbage; we’re performing a rite of atonement for the sin of excess.” Now you can understand why Tierney’s recycling article set the all-time record for the greatest volume of hate mail ever recorded in the history of the New York Times Magazine.

You can read the entire post of Professor Perry by clicking HERE.

To read the 1996 piece by John Tierney, go HERE.

John Steel Gordon: The Anti-Science Certitude of Global Warming

John Steele Gordon wrote an essay in today's Wall Street Journal in which he reflects on the Liberal meme: "the science is settled," and wonders how that would have worked in the days of the Greek philosopher Aristarchus, whose belief in "a heliocentric model of the solar system" in the third century B.C. was overridden by Ptolemy's geocentric model a century later, and finally resolved satisfactorily in the mid-19th century.

Gordon provides other compelling examples from history proving, unequivocally, that science is constantly evolving, and wonders why, as so many questions remain unanswered, are "many climate scientists, politicians - and the Left generally- so anxious to lock down the science of climatology and engage in protracted name-calling."  He hazards the following guess:

If anthropogenic climate change is a reality, then that would be a huge problem only government could deal with. It would be a heaven-sent opportunity for the left to vastly increase government control over the economy and the personal lives of citizens.  

You can read the entire Gordon essay by clicking HERE.

Fr. Rutler on Faith, Morals, and Global Warming

Fr. George Rutler wrote an essay today at Crisis Magazine, which is the most forthright explication of the much ballyhooed, and just published, encyclical of Pope Francis on the environment.  He addressed the historical problem of Mixing Up the Sciences of Heaven and Earth, which is the title of his essay.

Pope Urban VIII and his advisers, in the misunderstood (and sometime deliberately misrepresented) Galileo case, inadequately distinguished the duties of prophecy and politics, and of theological and physical science. St. John Paul II said that “this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.”

If you see the above as possibly analogous to the issuing of this new encyclical, you might be right.  Fr. Rutler went further, intimating that Pope Francis might have written an encyclical on a more clear and pressing problem:

While the Holy Father has spoken eloquently about the present genocide of Christians in the Middle East, those who calculate priorities would have hoped for an encyclical about this fierce persecution, surpassing that of the emperor Decius.  Pictures of martyrs being beheaded, gingerly filed away by the media, give the impression that their last concern on earth was not climate fluctuations. 

Finally, he points out that papal encyclicals are considered infallible only when they deal with matters of faith and morals such as Church teaching on contraception, abortion and marriage.  Interestingly, those who ignore encyclicals that deal with such matters, are rushing to expound on the infallibility of papal teaching on the matter which is the subject of the current encyclical which, as Fr. Rutler points out, "does NOT involve faith or morals."

Saint Peter, from his fishing days, had enough hydrometeorology to know that he could not walk on water. Then the eternal Logos told him to do it, and he did, until he mixed up the sciences of heaven and earth and began to sink. As vicars of that Logos, popes speak infallibly only on faith and morals. They also have the prophetic duty to correct anyone who, for the propagation of their particular interests, imputes virtual infallibility to papal commentary on physical science while ignoring genuinely infallible teaching on contraception, abortion and marriage and the mysteries of the Lord of the Universe.  At this moment, we have the paradoxical situation in which an animated, and even frenzied, secular chorus hails papal teaching as infallible, almost as if it could divide the world, provided it does NOT involve faith or morals.

You can read the entire essay by clicking HERE.

President Obama to Coast Guard: Denying Climate Change "Dereliction of Duty"

Today's Wall Street Journal printed excerpts of President Obama's commencement speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy yesterday.  It is hard to understand how, in the midst of the turmoil and the constant terror threat spreading around the world (that has recently reached our own shores), the commander-in-chief could make such a speech to the military organization charged with protecting the homeland.  He did, though, and here are the excerpts from the speech:

From President Obama’s commencement address Wednesday at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn.:

Around the world, climate change increases the risk of instability and conflict. Rising seas are already swallowing low-lying lands, from Bangladesh to Pacific islands, forcing people from their homes. Caribbean islands and Central American coasts are vulnerable, as well. Globally, we could see a rise in climate change refugees. And I guarantee you the Coast Guard will have to respond. Elsewhere, more intense droughts will exacerbate shortages of water and food, increase competition for resources, and create the potential for mass migrations and new tensions. All of which is why the Pentagon calls climate change a “threat multiplier.”

Understand, climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world. Yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram. It’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East. So, increasingly, our military and our combatant commands, our services—including the Coast Guard—will need to factor climate change into plans and operations, because you need to be ready.

The global warming religion continues to suffer setbacks fueled by facts, but that doesn't even slow them down.  Read THIS.

Words of Relevance: David Berlinski on Climate Change

David Berlinski, PhD, manifestly one of the most educated, and intelligent (there is a difference) men in America, sat down recently with Peter Robinson of The Hoover Institution, and expounded upon various topics, one of which was global warming or what has now become climate change.  He does not think much of the "science" of global warming or of the "scientists" proselytizing their theory (and getting government grants to do so).  His most damning quote on the subject was published at Ricochet.com, on August 26, 2013.  The quote was mentioned during the interview with Peter Robinson (on the left in the above photo), and it serves as the quote of the day today.

Here's the quote:

"Global warming?  Who knows?  Not me, for sure.  But what I do know is that climate science is and has been in the hands of intellectual mediocrities and pious charlatans."

Here's a link to a segment of the interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUI-YMmdOls&feature=em-uploademail

If you have 44 minutes, you can click below to watch the entire interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31MI5c7LYSU&feature=em-uploademail

Trifecta: More on Obama's Oil Scarcity Myth

It would be difficult to name the greatest scandal of the current administration in Washington, but the continuing lies being put out by the president and his people - especially Energy Secretary Steven Chu - about our oil reserves would have to rank pretty high on the list.  As Bill Whittle makes clear: Obama will not even admit the existence of our vast amounts of oil let alone actually drill for it, but it will still be there when he's gone.  Keep that in mind on November 6th.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=105&load=6956

Afterburner: "Love of Theory is the Root of all Evil"

Bill Whittle goes on a tear deconstructing theories (such as global warming) that cannot stand up to facts on the ground.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=6888

VDH: The End of Global Warming?

Victor Davis Hanson, writing today at National Review Online:

So what happened to the global-warming craze?

Corruption within the climate-change industry explains some of the sudden turnoff. “Climategate” — the unauthorized 2009 release of private e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom — revealed that many of the world’s top climate scientists were knee-deep in manipulating scientific evidence to support preconceived conclusions and personal agendas. Shrill warnings about everything from melting Himalayan glaciers to shrinking polar-bear populations turned out not always to be supported by scientific facts.

Of course, it didn’t help that the world’s most prominent green spokesman, Nobel laureate Al Gore, made tens of millions of dollars from his own advocacy. And he adopted a lifestyle of jet travel and energy-hungry homes at odds with his pleas for everyone else to cut back.

Over the last half-century, Americans have agreed that smoky plants and polluting industries needed to be cleaned up. But when the green movement began to classify clean-burning heat as a pollutant, it began to lose the cash-strapped public.

While the Obama administration was subsidizing failed or inefficient green industries, radical breakthroughs in domestic fossil-fuel exploration and recovery — especially horizontal drilling and fracking — have vastly increased the known American reserves of gas and oil. Modern efficient engines have meant that both can be consumed with little, if any, pollution — at a time when a struggling U.S. economy is paying nearly half-a-trillion dollars for imported fossil fuels. The public apparently would prefer developing more of our own gas, oil, shale, tar sands, and coal as an alternative to going broke by either importing more fuels from abroad or subsidizing more inefficient windmills and solar panels at home.

Click on the link below to read the whole piece.

Global Warming — RIP? - Victor Davis Hanson - National Review Online

"Scientific" Evidence Against Tar Sands Pipeline

Elmer, at the satirical site: Minnesotans for Global Warming, posted a video of interviews by The Daily Caller of those "experts" (read environmental wackos) who are out of their minds opposed to a tar sands pipeline from Canada which, according to the post, would eliminate the need to import oil from the middle east. Those in favor of the pipeline point out that it would eliminate the need to ship and truck Canadian oil into the United States, which would save millions of tons of CO2 emissions (which should make t its detractors deliriously happy). Ah, but they're anything but happy. They are, though, delirious as you can see by their recorded interviews.

Wind Turbines are Felons!

They kill federally protected Golden Eagles.

From Minnesotans for Global Warming Blog:

Federal officials investigate eagle deaths at DWP wind farm - latimes.com
By Elmer on August 7, 2011 8:20 AM | No Comments | No TrackBacks
By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times

Pine Tree facility in the Tehachapi Mountains faces scrutiny over the deaths of at least six golden eagles, which are protected under federal law. Prosecution would be a major blow to the booming industry.

Michael Ramirez on Green Energy

(Click to enlarge)

Victor Davis Hanson: The New Sophists

Victor Davis Hanson, in his latest piece on National Review Online, exposes the fallacies of the intelligentsia who live their lives devoid of any real life experience, but willing to preach to the rest of us as the sophists did to the citizens of Classical Athens.

In classical Athens, public life became dominated by clever and smart-sounding sophists. These mellifluous “really wise guys” made money and gained influence by their rhetorical boasts of having “proved” the most amazing “thinkery” that belied common sense.

We are living in a new age of sophism — but without a modern Socrates to remind the public just how silly our highly credentialed and privileged new rhetoricians can be.

One constant here is equating wisdom with a certificate of graduation from a prestigious school. If, in the fashion of the sophist Protagoras, someone writes that record cold proves record heat, or that record borrowing and printing of money will create jobs and sustained economic growth, or that a 223-year-old Constitution is 100 years old and largely irrelevant, then credibility can be claimed only in the title or the credentials — but not the logic — of the writer.

America is huge and diverse, but the world of our credentialed experts is quite small, warped, and monotonous — circumscribed largely by the prestigious university and an office in the incestuous Washington–New York corridor. There are plenty of prizes, honors, and degrees among our policy-setters and experts, but very little experience in running a business in Oklahoma, raising a large family in Kansas, or working on an assembly line in Michigan, a military base in Texas, a boat in Alaska, or a ranch in Idaho.

Are we to wonder why an angry grassroots Tea Party spread — or why it was instantly derided by our experts and technocrats as ill-informed or worse?


To read the entire article click on the link below.

The New Sophists - Victor Davis Hanson - National Review Online