The Supreme Court Speaks on Health Care Law

Obama's Ditch
Obama's Drive Into The Ditch
ALMOST FULLY GROUNDED AGAIN AFTER ALL the zetetic excitement yesterday, I say we take a more serious and sober look at what transpired yesterday, and then again, this morning as Chief Justice John Roberts read for the majority, and we boomeranged all around the Internet seeking solace in our hour of disenchantment. Of all that I have read and seen in video, TV, and slapshot Internet reporting, here is a most convincing snippet from commentator Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard. Cost seems to put the onus on the current administration to act quickly in this snatch and grab of power and policy if they want to salvage the so-called Affordable Health Care Act because a not so shabby portion of it is unconstitutional, and a greater part is vigorously disliked by the citizenry, despite its many wonderful features that heal the sick and raise the dead, or so you would be led to believe by its proponents:

[I]f you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.

First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.

Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.

Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.

Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn't think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.
If Obama loses in November, that is...

We have gotten into a bit of editorial trouble on Facebook this morning by reposting what turned out to be one of those overwrought but probably closer to the mark than the original bill's hidden intent has tried to hide, so we will just have to watch for the fall out over the next several months, but chances are Obama and his buddies in Congress are too busy running for re-election to spend too much time on an old toxic bill like this one, but will quietly work behind the scenes implementing all the necessary changes to the health care industry it deems choice and tasty while leaving the iffy parts of the bill to gather dust and excuses. Fundraising and speechifying, yep, he'll be there. And let this health bill interfere with his golf outings? God forbid. We have an absentee president, although I am sure I'm not the first one to notice this.

This Pernicious Affordable Health Care Act

Uncle Sam In Tears
Uncle Sam In Tears
Dear Citizen, and I include ALL my Leftist friends who I saw celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. Have you even READ the damn thing? Shame on each and every one of you, and if you did, and are still supporting this pernicious bill to stand as the Law of the Land, I guess I have just inherited have a full-blown “enemies list” already built into my own Internet empire, so to speak. I have checked with Scopes on a few on these items, and yes, there is some right wing extrapolation to meet the challenge of left wing sneakiness. All sides will cry foul, but it's worth a perusal. This health bill is just plain awful, if not thoroughly evil, and surprise, surprise, my little darlings, explain to me (AS IF I DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW) why sharia-spirited Muslims and Congress are exempt...

If you have read all 2700 pages of THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT (for reasons of subversion I shall no longer refer to this document as Obamacare), I would not be jumping the shark to surmise that each of you are aware of the following conditions, and now a willing slave in chains and in spirit to Federal government in all its myriad of forms:

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process).
Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None
Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN).
Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans).
Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens.
Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll.
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."

PLUS: OBAMA'S DARING MARK OF THE BEAST
There's a jarring, startling thing in the Obamacare Bill that 95% of Americans won't like.

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable." Then on page 1004 it describes what the term "data" means in paragraph 1, section B:

14 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in
15 formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
20 Secretary."

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see...

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a "implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information." The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."

This sort of device would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option. With the reform of the private insurance companies, who charge outrageous rates, many people will switch their coverage to a more affordable insurance plan. This means the number of people who choose the public option will increase. This also means the number of people chipped will be plentiful as well. The adults who choose to have a chip implanted are the lucky (yes, lucky) ones in this case.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM = CHIP

Children who are "born in the United States who at the time of birth are not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage" will be qualified and placed into the CHIP or Children's Health Insurance Program (what a convenient name). Children conceived by parents who are already covered under the public option will more than likely be implanted with a chip by the consent of the parent. Eventually everyone will be implanted with a chip. And with the price and coverage of the public option being so competitive with the private companies, the private company may not survive.

Immigration Checkpoints In Mexico Not So Casual As In Obama's America

Mexico-SC
Border Security Chaos

There's little doubt that something is very wrong with our Federal government and its inability, and what's worse, it's lack of desire to control our borders, and that means southern, northern, eastern, western, on foot, or in planes, trains, or automobiles, tanks or even tuxedos. The apathy at the top is treasonous. The ill will that we as a sovereign people have suffered at the wit of fellow citizens and foreign invaders alike whenever even broaching the subject is not even conceivable anywhere else in the world, until recently as Europe has continued to allow its Muslim problem fester and evolve into something worse.

With the Supreme Court’s decision on the Arizona Immigration Law, it brings back what happens if one travels down the interior of Mexico or Baja. We have been to Cabo by car three times and once in an RV, which is about 1,000 miles. Each trip, we were stopped four times by the Mexican military, who boarded our RV and searched every cupboard and closet while asking questions and asking to see our passports and paperwork. You have to get out of the car, and they look in the trunk and at all goods you have with you. They have huge sub-machine guns trained on you so you don’t argue. They search all vehicles, not just travelers.

They ask for all papers, which are required if you travel more than 70 miles from the border. You have to pay about $200 and have your birth certificate and/or passport to get visa papers to travel in Mexico. When crossing back to the U.S. border, you must have a passport and show proof of citizenship.

If you live in Mexico there, and if you are not a legal Mexican citizen, you are constantly stopped and asked for your papers by the police at any time, even without cause.

Yet, Mexican Pres. Calderon has the nerve to object to illegal immigrants from his country being stopped in the U.S, even once, or asked for identity or papers. Why is no one reporting this? Imagine the military here stopping everyone and boarding and inspecting all vehicles while guns are trained on us, and we have to produce papers and passports!

TWILA LE PAGE

[Immigration Checkpoints In Mexico Not So Casual As In Obama's America]

Quotes About Revolution

250px-JeanGenet-HansKoechler1983-cropped
Writer Jean Genet
Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—THOMAS JEFFERSON, Declaration of Independence

The revolution you dream of is not ours. You don't want to change the world, you want to blow it up.—JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, Dirty Hands

A people contending for life and liberty are seldom disposed to look with a favorable eye upon either men or measures whose passions, interests or consequences will clash with those inestimable objects.—GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to General Thomas, July 23, 1775

Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny. They have only shifted it to another shoulder.—GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, Man and Superman

It's the well-behaved children ... that make the best revolutionaries. They don't say a word, they don't hide under the table, they eat only one piece of chocolate at a time. But later on they make society pay dearly. —JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, Dirty Hands

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. —THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to W.S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787

Make the Revolution a parent of settlement, and not a nursery of future revolutions.—EDMUND BURKE, Reflections on the Revolution in France

9th Circuit Laugher
Some People Prefer Government Endowments
That humanity and sincerity which dispose men to resist injustice and tyranny render them unfit to cope with the cunning and power of those who are opposed to them. The friends of liberty trust to the professions of others because they are themselves sincere, and endeavour to secure the public good with the least possible hurt to its enemies, who have no regard to anything but their own unprincipled ends, and stick at nothing to accomplish them.
WILLIAM HAZLITT, Characters of Shakespeare's Plays

Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms -- lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms, because we'll never give them real ones either!!—DARIO FO, Accidental Death of an Anarchist

If we behave like those on the other side, then we are the other side. Instead of changing the world, all we'll achieve is a reflection of the one we want to destroy. JEAN GENET, The Balcony

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. —THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to James Madison, Jan. 30, 1787

I can imagine no man who will look with more horror on the End than a conscientious revolution­ary who has, in a sense sincerely, been justifying cruelties and injustices inflicted on millions of his contemporaries by the benefits which he hopes to confer on future generations: generations who, as one terrible moment now reveals to him, were never going to exist. Then he will see the massacres, the faked trials, the deportations, to be all ineffaceably real, an essential part, his part, in the drama that has just ended: while the future Utopia had never been anything but a fantasy. —C.S. LEWIS, The World's Last Night

They never fail who die
In a great cause: the block may soak their gore:
Their heads may sodden in the sun; their limbs
Be strung to city gates and castle walls—
But still their Spirit walks abroad. Though years
Elapse, and others share as dark a doom,
They but augment the deep and sweeping thoughts
Which overpower all others, and conduct
The world at last to Freedom.

—LORD BYRON, Marino Faliero

The right to rebellion is the right to seek a higher rule, and not to wander in mere lawlessness.—GEORGE ELIOT, Felix Holt

Resistance to improvement contradicts the noblest instincts of the race. It begets its opposite. The fanaticism of reform is only the raging of the accumulated waters caused by the obstructions which an ultra conservatism has thrown across the stream of progress; and revolution itself is but the sudden overwhelming and sweeping away of impediments that should have been seasonably removed.—HORACE MANN, Thoughts

The history of the human race always has been, and most likely always will be, that of evolution and revolution.—LEWIS F. KORNS, Thoughts

It is far more easy to pull down, than to build up, and to destroy, than to preserve. Revolutions have on this account been falsely supposed to be fertile of great talent; as the dregs rise to the top, during a fermentation, and the lightest things are carried highest by the whirlwind. And the practice of this proposition bears out the theory; for demagogues have succeeded tolerably well in making ruins; but the moment they begin to build anew from the materials that they have overthrown, they have often been uselessly employed with regard to others, and more often dangerously with regard to themselves. CHARLES CALEB COLTON, Lacon

A constitution imperiled justifies revolution.—EDWARD COUNSEL, Maxims

As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected ... before a drop of blood was shed. —JOHN ADAMS, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Aug. 24, 1815

If we would trace our descents, we should find all slaves to come from princes and all princes from slaves: But fortune has turned all things topsy-turvy, in a long story of revolutions.—WELLINS CALCOTT, Thoughts Moral and Divine

Revolution does not insure progress. You may overturn thrones, but what proof that anything better will grow upon the soil? —E.H. CHAPIN, Living Words

Some men hope for revolution but when you revolt and set up your new government you find your new government is still the same old Papa, he has only put on a cardboard mask.CHARLES BUKOWSKI, Notes of a Dirty Old Man

The Undeserved George Bush Reputation Nothing But Obamaspeak

Obama Equals Government
Obama Equals Government
LET'S TAKE ANOTHER GLANCE at the sad facts, shall we? Now that President Obama is visibly slipping on everything from stages from which he will speak to his own tongue with which he will speak, the public deserves to know how to whack past the weeds to get at those pesky facts that should shine light on the truth of financial matters once again.

Do we not recall that on January 3, 2007, jubilant and sassy Democrats rolled into The House of Representatives and the Senate at the very start of the 110th Congress quite proud of themselves, for now they controlled the nation's pursestrings. It was then, that for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995, the Democrat Party finally controlled a majority of both chambers, and they were literally itchin' and publicly scratching for a fight.

On January 3rd, 2007 the Dow Jones closed at 12,621.77, about where it stand today, over five years later. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%. The unemployment rate was 4.6%. Under the Bush administration economic policies set a record of 52 straight months of job growth! Look it up, child. January 3rd, 2007 was also the day that Barney Frank (D-MA) took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd (D-CN) took over the Senate Banking Committee. For the next

The 2012 Financial Services Committee unveiled the Dodd-Frank Burden Tracker, an online resource to help the public keep track of all the new government rules and red tape required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

Dodd-Frank, passed by Congress in 2010, mandates that government regulators write over 400 new rules and requirements that will be imposed on the private sector. Since the law was signed by President Obama in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Burden Tracker reveals:

  • regulators have written 185 of the 400 rules;
  • these 185 rules consume 5,320 pages;
  • it will take private sector job-creators 24,035,801 hours every year to comply with these first 185 Dodd-Frank rules
  • The catastrophic economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was to be found in what sector of the economy? The Banking and Financial Services! Dumping five to six TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a banking crisis that lead to across the board major business failures and waves of massive unemployment. Many citizens lost everything they worked for during their lifetime...

    Enter the Democrat Party's chorus of whining and finger pointing. But here's the real stinker. From 2001, the Bush administration asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie because it was financially risky for the US economy. Given our national partisan ways it comes as a surprise to no one that from his perch on the lily pad of false promises, freshman Senator Obama and the greater Democrat Congress fought vigorously against the reform of Fannie & Freddie every chance Bush offered them reformation. It also goes without saying, but why leave doubt in the minds of those who are too busy to follow the national grift culture in its day to day hijinx that many picayune Democrats took high payoffs from Freddie & Fannie while all this was transpiring, money that this government agency had no business doling out to politicians in the first place. Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) had his pockets filled under this program of theft by legislation.

    We have made it clear here at the Project in the past that we had soured somewhat on the Bush administration by this time, for his own peccadilloes which have nothing to do with his monetary policy (unsound but hardly indicative of what the Democrats impose), but the next someone tries to blame Bush for the state of America's economy during the Obama reign of serfdom for all, simply report these facts.

    Taqiyya: The Peculiar Institution of Bald-faced Lying by Bearded Islamicists

    Mohammed's Law
    Mohammed's Law
    JUST AS EGYPTIAN secularists have long argued, taquiyya-possessed Islamists like the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood hide behind a mantle of piety and morality—yet, when it comes to it, such piety and morality is apparently not something they strive to live by, but rather a weapon to use against non-Islamists, who are always portrayed as immoral and corrupt. Quick to grow beards and have a zibiba—the callous forehead mark produced by head-banging on the floor during Muslim prayers—Islamists like Sheikh Ali Wanis, an Egyptian parliament member and prominent figure in the Nour Party are more concerned with outer signs of morality, even as they engage in forbidden sexual relations, which are banned on pain of death by their own Sharia.

    Yet there is more to it than this than simple taqiyya. After all, in the words of their prophet Muhammad, "War is deceit"—and the Islamists have certainly been treating the elections as war.

    Such piety and morality is apparently something they strive to live by, but rather a weapon to use against non-Islamists, who are always portrayed as immoral and corrupt.
    Speaking of equivocation and sex, immediately before this scandal, another prominent Egyptian Salafi, Osama al-Qusi, declared that it is permissible to view sex scenes in movies—"so long as the plot calls for it," concluding, in the words of Muhammad, that "deeds are judged according to intentions."

    Sex scandals can strike any politician's career. What is important, here, however, is that a sex scandal has just struck the one political party whose only appeal is that it stands for morality, religion, and "family values." It has nothing else to offer—and now it doesn't even have this, as its thin veneer of piety continues to slip away.

    Read it all.

    Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

    We might add that most Muslims adhere to the principle that not only is lying to the infidel or kafir okay in the name of furthering Islam, but that ALL lying is good because any shameful act that gives the infidel or believer a chance to ridicule Islam is worth covering up so as to keep Islam pure from any taint. Apparently Allah is easily fooled.

    Revisiting The Climate Change Science

    impact
    Impact of Global Climate Change

    MANY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS driving the global warmists projections of future catastrophe are being debunked on a frequent basis lately. These assumptions include challenges to the theory that the Earth climate system is driven by a "greenhouse" effect, that the Sun and other galactic forces are irrelevant, that mathematics and computer science can "solve" the complex equations that the computer models use, and that the models are reasonably accurate representations of the climate system. These challenges are not being made by "deniers" but by independent and well respected mathematicians and physicists around the world.

    Facts, however, will not deter President Obama and the True Believers. As happened with the banning of DDT, another ruse unsupported by real science, the environmentalists have made it politically incorrect to disagree and exceedingly embarrassing to admit they are wrong. Obama and other politicians around the world, believers or not, see this as an opportunity to further their own Socialist agendas and extract more money from those with means to distribute to those with needs.

    —Tony M.

    I think they call it man-made climate change now, but yes, your doubts are scientifically sound, Tony.

    • Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.'s Claims. While the IPCC works overtime to spin the Rawls leak, another headache has emerged for the group. Figure 1.4 from the draft shows that the models used to predict warming have projected temperatures higher than the observed temperatures we've seen. The chart also shows that observed temperatures, rather than climbing ever upward, are where they were 15 years ago. Skeptic Anthony Watts calls the chart a bombshell. The media have yawned.
    • Man-made global warming: Even the IPCC admits the jig is up. [A] leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede.
    • New Report: Man-made Global Warming Is a Farce. The report is actually a massive compilation of scientific studies and news articles from both public and private sources, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).Together they indicate claims of "global warming," "climate change" and "climate disruption" are nothing but a ruse to usher in massive carbon taxes and crippling regulations. Like Pavlov's dog, politicians are conditioned to react to any harsh weather event by drooling for higher taxes, notes the study. Naturally, delegates at the UN conference were not interested in the conclusions of the CFACT study.
    • An assessment of current alarmist propaganda: It's been obvious for some time, that the science behind the most alarming claims about the effects of any putative global warming, is not only unsustainable but indefensible. We still of course get the occasional paper, trying to resurrect an old scare, which has already been demolished, but as happened with both the Shakun and Gergis papers, the climate skeptics simply tear them to pieces. Not only hasn't the paper succeeded in clawing back any ground, but because it gets eviscerated in public, it actually becomes a propaganda liability. This is the reason we're seeing fewer of such alarmist papers.
    • 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm. This is a gold mine of information that would take weeks to explore.
    • A global warming skeptic who's a lot smarter than Al Gore. Ever since the 1980s one of my favorite authors in the realm of science has been Freeman Dyson. The Princeton physicist has written books on a wide range of topic, from the potential perils of nuclear weapons to discoveries in the human genome. At the moment, I'm reading a book about him by his son George titled "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship. "It's impossible to delve into Dyson's career without concluding he is several orders of magnitude smarter than the Al Gores of the world.
    • The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria. Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly "alarmist" about climate change. The implications were extraordinary.
    • Global Warming's Killer: Critical Thinking. We're told that skeptic scientists lie about all of the "death by a thousand cuts" evidence. We're told that they work for big coal and oil—much like so-called expert shills were paid by tobacco industries to "manufacture doubt" about the hazards of smoking. Yet no reporter pushing that narrative bothers to show which peer-reviewed science journal-published paper written by a skeptic is an outright fabrication written in exchange for fossil fuel industry money. No reporter bothers to show how myriad examples of critical thinking reveal pre-existing—not manufactured—doubt about claims of evidence for global warming.
    • Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist. One of Germany's earliest green energy investors, is not convinced that humanity is causing catastrophic global warming. For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory.Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me.
    • Lord of the Skeptics. In the community of global warming skeptics, Lord Monckton is legendary.With his background in the newspaper industry and exceptional communications skills, the former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is often targeted as a prominent "heretic" of the man-made climate change movement.
    • New paper shows Wyoming was warmer 6,000 years ago than the present. A paper published today [5/31/2012] in The Holocene finds that the elevation of the treeline in the Rocky Mountains of Wyoming was higher than the present from 9000 to 6000 years ago, indicating the climate was warmer during that period as compared to present temperatures. The paper adds to thousands of others indicating that the current warming period is not unprecedented nor unusual compared to natural warming in the past.
    • It turns out the 'thought criminals' were right. The global warming scare has not continued to unfold as projected by those bent computer models on which it rested. Temperatures have not risen as predicted, the ice caps aren't melting, nor sea levels rising, nor hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves intensifying as we were assured they would.
    • Environmentalist Icon Says He Overstated Climate Change. Not many years ago, a celebrated scientist predicted a global warming disaster awaited humanity. Today, that same scientist admits his warning was too "alarmist." It's time Al Gore turned his limousine around, too.
    • 'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change's deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were 'alarmist'. The 92-year-old Briton, who also developed the Gaia theory of the Earth as a single organism, has said climate change is still happening—just not as quickly as he once warned.
    • Global warming icon: "we don't know what the climate is doing". Who is the latest global warming skeptic?James Lovelock, the man who 40 years ago helped develop the Gaia hypothesis. Just 6 years ago, James Lovelock forecast gloom and doom about the Earth in a fanciful article in the London newspaper, the Independent. Mankind would die off by the billions. Only a few survivors would be left, surviving in the Arctic area, which is odd since the Arctic is an ocean, not a continent.
    • More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report—updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus"—features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.
    • NASA rocked by global warming rebellion. Fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter asking the agency to cease its global warming buffoonery. The global warming emperor has no clothes, and people are finally saying so out loud and in public. The signers have a combined 1000 years of professional experience.
    • NASA rebellion on global warming.The 85th Congress and President Eisenhower set up the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to explore space.Government bureaucrat James Hansen has used his position and NASA's reputation to advance an unscientific agenda that calls for government restrictions on all major industries and any other human activity in the bane of controlling carbon dioxide production. This junk science has made him a millionaire through income outside the government. He is a rogue government agent who no one seems able to supervise.Now 50 top former and current astronauts and NASA scientists and engineers have had enough. They want this crackpot stopped.
    • Astronauts condemn NASA's global warming endorsement. In an unprecedented slap at NASA's endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists—including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center—claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world's top space agency. Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency "refrain from including unproven remarks" supporting global warming in the media.
    • Former Astronauts Protest NASA's Global Warming Activism. With proponents of the theory that human activity is the cause of global warming becoming increasingly defensive of their flawed theory, the joint letter signed by NASA veterans—including several heroes of the space program—is one more blow to a theory which has been losing ground in the realm of public opinion. And the letter is particularly critical of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, where both director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been particularly vocal proponents of the theory of manmade climate change.
    • 'Fakegate': Climate Change Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters. The rise of environmentalism, however, has generated a war on science, first by distorting it, and then by propagandizing the 'findings', studies' and resulting claims based on them. "The Heartland Institute, as a leading voice, led the effort to debunk the hoax through its sponsorship of six international conferences featuring scientists and others who presented papers demonstrating "that 0.038 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere had little or no "greenhouse" effect on the Earth's climate or weather events. "Heartland's six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC) attracted scientists worldwide, who employed science rather than pseudo-science in their presentations.
    • Queensland turns the tide of environmental lunacy. No administration was "greener" than the one run by departing Queensland premier Anna Bligh. She believed in environmentalism with such a passion she entrusted her beloved husband—Greg Withers: head of Queensland's Office For Climate Change—with the task of turning Queensland into the solar powered, low-carbon, eco-paradise it very nearly is today. I say "very nearly" because incoming premier Campbell Newman has put a stop to all that. One of Newman's first priorities—which is why, of course, Queenslanders voted him in—has been to cancel most of Bligh's green boondoggle programmes.
    • Monckton's Schenectady showdown. Traveling with Lord Monckton on the East Coast leg of his current whistle-stop tour of the US and Canada, I was looking forward to documenting the Schenectady showdown. I have had the pleasure of listening to His Lordship at previous campus events. He is at his best when confronted by a hostile audience. The angrier and more indignant they are, the more he seems to like it.
    • Poll: Most independents reject global warming. Democrats are out of the mainstream when it comes to global warming. A Gallup Poll found that only 28% of independents believe in global warming (only 19% of Republicans do). But the Democratic Party continues to languish in its unscientific superstition that the sins of man's materialism will cause Gaia to punish us by creating Hell On Earth. A plurality of Democrats—43%—believe in global warming.
    • Inhofe warns EPA moving to regulate carbon. If President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency proceeds with plans to bypass Congress and restrict carbon emissions through regulation, it will be even more costly to Americans than "cap and trade" legislation, Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK predicted in an interview with the Washington Examiner this week.Back in 2003, Inhofe stirred controversy when he declared, "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it. "Ever since, he's been one of the most recognizable and dedicated skeptics of global warming.
    • MIT prof: "there won't be much warming due to CO2". Here is one man who has studied global warming alongside all these super duper experts and he has come up to the same conclusion that 1973 Nobel Physics laureate Ivar Giaever: The science is not there to support this theory. So why are we allowing our politicians to bully us into wholesale changes in our economy? Barack Obama is using this silliness as a cover to give $35 billion in loan guarantees to "green" companies such as Solyndra, which not only went belly up but left behind a bunch of barrels of unknown goo. This nation has never had as many college graduates—or as many intellectual sheep.
    • British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax. James Delingpole of The Telegraph reports that the British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax from MIT's Richard Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.
    • Is catastrophic global warming a mistake just like the Millennium Bug?At a public meeting in British House of Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology has made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by "settled science". ... He gave us a slide with a series of familiar alarms—melting ice caps, disappearing icebergs, receding glaciers, rising sea levels. It was published by the US Weather Bureau in 1922.And one further element of the consensus:there's been no increase in temperature for 15 years.
    • AP calls out global warming scientist.For too long, proponents of the unproven and untested theory that man is causing global warming have received a free ride from the press, particularly Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. But global warmist Peter Gleick has not only turned Andrew Revkin against him, but Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press—another reporter who suspends disbelief whenever the topic of climate change pops up.
    • Germany's Top Environmentalist Turns Climate Sceptic. Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement, no longer trusts the forecasts of the IPCC. Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. "I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. I couldn't take it any more. I had to write this book."
    • Germany's top environmentalist turns skeptic."The CO2 Lies ... pure fear-mongering ... should we blindly trust the experts? "That's what Germany's leading daily Bild wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book—one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.
    • Global Warming? No Natural Predictable Change. An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth's solar system with little or no help from us.
    • 'Germany's George Monbiot' turns climate sceptic. According to the Global Warming Policy Foundation's Benny Peiser, himself a former member of the German green movement, [Dr. Fritz] Vahrenholt's U-turn represents a huge blow to the climate alarmist camp.
    • 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'. Will reduced solar activity counteract global warming in the coming decades? That is what outgoing German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt claims in a new book. In an interview with Spiegel, he argues that the official United Nations forecasts on the severity of climate change are overstated and supported by weak science.
    • U.Va. professor throws cold water on global warming. Earth might be slightly warmer, and sea levels might be slightly higher, but the changes are natural and should not be blamed on fossil-fuel emissions, a panel of scientists and skeptics said at a public forum Tuesday [1/24/2012]."Human influence on the climate is very, very small—barely detectable," S. Fred Singer, a critic of global warming and professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, told an audience at the Meyera Oberndorf Central Library.
    • Two more scientist change sides in the AGW debate. Evidence is building toward the robust climate theory, which would mean that while there may be more CO2 being emitted, it has little to no effect on the overall climate. That, of course, is contrary to the AGW crowd's theory.
    • Children just aren't going to know what sun is. So, to recap: a scientist from arguably Britain's most discredited university department—the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA—made a fool of himself and his employer by feeding to a newspaper wrongheaded disaster scenarios based on woefully inaccurate computer projections, thus lending spurious credibility to a massive media scaremongering campaign which has led to the squandering of billions of pounds on an entirely unnecessary scheme to "decarbonise" the UK economy. His reward for this was to be granted a taxpayer-funded salary to go round the world spreading more abject nonsense about a mostly non-existent threat called "climate change." [Dr.David] Viner is not the exception:he is the rule. We have a right, I think, to start getting very angry indeed.
    • Scientists: Chill on global warming. Sixteen actual scientists have joined 1973 Nobel-winning physicist Ivar Giaever in calling global warming concerns overblown. In a letter published in the Wall Street Journal today, the scientists called for everyone to remain calm—and mocked the alarmism by UN bureaucrats over global warming and carbon dioxide. They recommended that the world do nothing about global warming for the next 50 years.
    • No Need to Panic About Global Warming. A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming. "Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
    • Signing Global Warming's Death Certificate. The combined credentials of these men represent some of the best minds on planet Earth in their respective fields.What brought them together? On the surface it was just another of the countless articles that have been published over the years as scientists of real merit and courage took on the juggernaut of those for whom global warming had become a vast flow of government and foundation funding. The effort was to "prove" that carbon dioxide (CO2) was building up in the atmosphere and would soon incinerate Earth by trapping the heat from the sun. It had not done that in the 5.4 billion years of the Earth's existence, but the "warmists" claims came day after day and year after year.They permeated every aspect of society and you can go into any school in America and find textbooks still selling this garbage.
    • The Coup de Grace for Global Warming Catastrophe? It is a typically dense article filled with all of the usual qualifiers, but several things make this a bombshell and a blow to the catastrophist narrative. First, this study was conducted by the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis of Environment Canada, which is Canada's EPA, so the climate campaigners can't use their favorite talking point that this comes from a private, fossil-fuel funded skeptic outfit. Second, there is no disguising that the finding of this model, along with recent similar studies, that global warming is overestimated by roughly a factor of two in the usual models the IPCC uses.
    • Climate Change Doubts Heat Up the Classroom.Teachers reportedly are getting push-back on middle and high school curricula that fuel the speculation that man is warming the planet.Their frustration is almost worthy of a celebration.
    • Students rebel against Gorepaganda. Actually, most Americans accepted climate change/global warming on face value 20 years ago. Then came Climategate in 2009 which showed that far from being scientists, climatologists are propagandists who cherry-pick and manipulate data in concert with one another in order to push their agenda.
    • Heretics in the classroom. In the last few years school boards and state legislatures in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have introduced a requirement that science teachers acknowledge in their classroom instruction that the theory of AGW isn't "settled" science and that climate skepticism is a valid scientific position.Los Angeles Times reporter Neela Banerjee, who like so many MSM reporters starts with the assumption that AGW is an incontrovertible fact, and that skeptics are self-evidently wrong, opens her news report by begging the question with a false equivalence.
    • Progressives Crave Energy Scarcities. An all-purpose rationale for rationing in its many permutations has been the progressives' preferred apocalypse, the fear of climate change.But environmentalism as the thin end of an enormous wedge of regulation and redistribution is a spent force. How many Americans noticed that the latest United Nations climate change confabulation occurred in December in Durban, South Africa?The futility of this nullity signaled the end—probably for decades, if not forever—of a trivial pursuit that began 14 years ago with the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. Senate would not even bring to a vote.
    • Gingrich Kills Chapter on Climate Change in Upcoming Book. Newt Gingrich says he has killed a chapter on climate change in a post-election book of essays about the environment. But the intended author of the chapter, who supports the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change, says that's news to her.
    • Modern-day climate change witch hunt. Perhaps the reason the public's cynicism towards environmentalism goes up a notch whenever it snows is because for the past 10 years, before the recent big freezes set in, environmentalists told us we'd never see snow again. "Snow is starting to disappear from our lives", declared the Independent in March 2000, quoting an expert from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia—a major producer of climate-change info—saying that "children just aren't going to know what snow is". Mark Lynas, one of Britain's chief climate-change alarmists, told us in 2004 to prepare for life on a "hotter planet" in which "the traditional British winter [is] probably gone for good".
    • Tent Collapsing on Climate Change Circus. The US "has" abundant energy supplies; the EU "has not. "The EU has to depend on schemes like carbon trading, about which Rob Elsworth of the climate-campaign group Sandbag in London said: "is a pretty important revenue stream for most member states. "He asks, "If you take away this green-economy narrative, what's really left of Europe? "The EU's economic crisis provides the US with living proof that we do not want to play in the global-government game where the "haves" are expected to carry the "have nots."
    • Lead global warming author quits IPCC project. The UN's global warming unit, IPCC, is so discredited that "it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices" said Ken Caldeira in announcing that he is resigning as one of its leading authors on the next IPCC report. The previous one won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Outside of a few skeptical bloggers, you will not see this story anywhere else.
    • The Contrarians Have Better Data. Prof. Michael E. Mann writes ("Climate Contrarians Ignore Overwhelming Evidence," Letters, Dec. 5) that his 1999 "hockey stick" graph "showed that average temperatures today are higher than they have been for at least the past 1,000 years. "But Mr. Mann's paper only covered the northern hemisphere. It included the questionable use of annual bristlecone-pine tree rings for temperature reconstruction. Even then, it replaced some tree-ring data with estimates. Tree-ring series that showed a 20th-century uptick were given 390 times the weighting of other series, according to a 2005 study by Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph.
    • Climate talks, then climate tax. Meanwhile, back in America, the warmist arguments increasingly are facing challenge. Today's temperature changes are indistinguishable from historic climate cycles, and the public is beginning to notice that renewable-energy schemes are unaffordable luxuries.
    • Don't pretend we know what causes climate change. Not only is the Kyoto Protocol technically flawed, the so-called science behind it is utter twaddle. Never mind complicated things like non-linear mathematics or, indeed, mathematics of any sort. The alarmists can't possibly know how to predict the future of Earth's climate because they can't explain its past.
    • The Great Global Warming Fizzle. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe.Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise—if much at all. Greenland isn't turning green. Florida isn't going anywhere.
    • America's Energy Policy: Green or Red? Global Warming Alarmism today drives energy policy with politicized science. Consider this: What if there is no Global Warming? What if the number of drowned Polar Bears this year is fewer than the number of drowned Polar bears 1000 years ago, icecaps are not melting, there are no biblical floods, and "climate change" is simply "weather"?What if disinformation, misinformation, and politicized science are tricking us into killing jobs and destroying prosperity?
    • Scientist who said climate change skeptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague. It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all—the research that, in the words of its director, 'proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer'. It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.The Washington Post said the BEST study had 'settled the climate change debate' and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a 'cynical fraud'.But today [10/30/2011] The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller's team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST's research shows global warming has stopped.
    • How many eco-frauds can dance on a pin? Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America's prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller's claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a 'huge mistake', with no scientific basis. Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project's four research papers. Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row.
    • Time for Another Climate Science Scandal. Note well that BEST's data was drawn exclusively from land-based temperature readings, since AGW alarmists were concerned that the inclusion of cooler ocean-based readings might understate the severity of the warming "crisis. "And yet, the apparent warming trend still stalled, even within this cherry-picked data.
    • Scientific case for man-made global warming fears is dead. Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears. The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim, the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed. The only thing "worse than we thought" is the shoddy journalism of the mainstream media, which parrots global warming activists' baseless talking points.

    PREVIOUS: The Climate Science Debate Is Not Over (Or it is And The President Lost)
    NEXT: Climate Scientists Caught Fudging Again

    Reprinted With Permission
    Updated February 26, 2014.
    ©2014 by Andrew K. Dart