Tag Archives: global warming


In 2015, then President Barack Obama signed into law, the Clean Power Plan to slow the rate of climate change or global warming. It was to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants. According to townhall.com, it was the first action of the United States government to do so.

Earlier in the week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, directing the EPA to abolish this legislation. As you can imagine, the left went bonkers.

John Hawkins, in an article on townhall.com, entitled, 5 Reasons It’s Dumb to Panic Over Global Warming, listed quotes from some well-known liberals. Van Jones, Communist, and Obama’s special advisor for Green Jobs, was quoted as saying, “Trump may have just signed a death warrant for our planet (at least, a planet that is livable for humans). And the lies he told to justify it have real consequences for real Americans, her and now.”

Another quote, this time from our friend, Michael More: “Historians in the near future will mark today, March 28, 2017, as the day the extinction of human life on earth began, thanks 2 Donald Trump…Trump has signed orders killing all of Obama’s climate change regulations. The EPA is prohibited henceforth from focusing on climate change.”

Mr. Hawkins points out that the left doesn’t worry about deficits, terrorists, health care costs, out of control spending, teachers’ unions’ strong-hold over public education, the government’s out of control spending, etc. Instead they freak out and the possibility of the planet burning 100 years from now.

The 5 reasons not to panic over climate change/global warming are as follows:

1.There is Actually No Scientific Consensus on Global Warming. Whenever any of us conservatives indicates that climate change/global warming is a hoax, particularly man-made climate change, the left always throws out that 97% figure representing the percentage of scientists that think that man-made climate change is real. Mr. Hawkins says that’s simply untrue, and reflects that, “A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1862 members who responded, 59% stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed to the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter, 23 percent, said enough is not yet known to make a determination.” Then last year, it was found that nearly six in ten climate scientists didn’t adhere to the so-called consensus on man-made climate change, per a study by the Dutch government.
2.Even if Global Warming is Happening and Mankind is Responsible, it may still make Sense to do Nothing. Former Secretary of State John Kerry, called climate change, “perhaps the most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” and claims that unless we act, it could pose “the most catastrophic, grave threats in the history of human life.” Yet the UN Climate Panel found that the total cost of climate change by the 2070s is less than 2% of GCP. This means global warming is a problem, but is not by any means the end of the world. Its cost is equivalent to a single year of recession over the next 60 years. This comes from Bjorn Lomberg, of nationalpost.com in an article dated September 23, 2014. When you compare the threat, which we’re not sure is actually a threat, of climate change to what the world faces now, we acting like the person who is seriously injured in an automobile accident, but obsesses over the fact that her new Vera Wang dress was ruined.
3.Global Warming Theories are more Art than Science. Mr. Hawkins reminds us that we live in a world where scientists cannot tell us for sure whether it’s going to rain tomorrow, but we still have people assuring us of what the weather is going to be like in 100 years. Climate models used by scientists to predict how much human activities will warm the planet have been over-predicting global warming for the last six decades, according to a recent working paper by climate scientists, Michaels and Knappenberger. Climate models used to predict global warming have been consistently and egregiously wrong for decades.
4.We Don’t Have a Good Way to Even Know What Temperatures Were Centuries Ago. You often hear claims that every year is supposedly the “hottest on record.” Yet, we only started doing meaningful worldwide measurements in 1880, and many of those early numbers are considered to be unreliable. It’s been a mild winter in central Alabama. In fact, there have been very few days that I wore a winter coat, but do work out of my home. There were probably some days that I just didn’t go outside. We broke and came close to breaking a number of records for highest temperature on a number of days. It seemed like most of those record-breaking or near record-breaking days went back to the early 1900s. This leads me to think that we many have been in a warm cycle similar to the one that some say we are in today, back then. Also, when I was growing up in the North Alabama town of Cullman, about sixty miles north of where I live now, we would have at least one three to six-inch snow every winter. That’s not happening now, although Cullman did have about a three-inch winter before last. When I was in high school, our regular football season ended the first week in November. For the last two or three games, it was always cold. Now it’s not, leaving me to conclude that our climate is cyclical.
5.We’re in the Middle of a Global Warming Pause. Mr. Hawkins questions how we can be in a pause if liberals are claiming that we just broke a new record with every passing year. Because these “record-breaking years” are within the statistical margin of error.

To a reasonable and prudent individual, the above should bring to the conclusion that the validity of climate change/global warming is unconfirmed and questionable. Yet, folks like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Gina McCarthy all have insisted on many different occasions that “it’s settled, climate change/global warming exists.

Furthermore, these are other far-left zealots won’t even acknowledge studies or new statistics that affirms otherwise.

I know you’re probably tired of reading this, but I’m not going to stop. If Democrats, liberals, progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves, were the champions of the middle class and lower income individuals they claim to be, they would jump at any chance to disprove climate change, and not be in such a whirlwind to snatch us off of fossil fuels, a source of inexpensive and reliable energy, and transition us to the more expensive and unreliable green energy sources.



This is the second article I am authoring in connection with where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton side on issues relating to how we, as American citizens, should choose to govern ourselves as a nation. Many thanks to the website, diffen.com for the following information.


Donald Trump: Trumps proposed new federal income tax brackets are as follows:  0% for individuals making less than $25K and couples making less than $50K. Then 10%, 20%, 25%. Eliminate AMT, lower corporate tax rate to 15%.

Hillary Clinton: Increase taxes on high-income earners. New tax bracket of 43.6% for incomes greater than $5mm.

The Economy

Donald Trump: Declare China a currency manipulator. A one-time repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.

Hillary Clinton: Higher minimum wage. Encourage corporate profit-sharing via a tax credit for two years.

Minimum Wage

Donald Trump: This past summer, he called for a federal minimum wage of $10 per hour, departing from his past positions and his own party.

Hillary Clinton: Proposes to increase the minimum wage to $12 nationwide.

The Environment

Donald Trump: Cut the EPA, leaving it smaller and less powerful. Never called global warming a hoax, but said he would re-negotiate America’s role and obligations under the U.N. global climate accord. Initially, Trump said he would approve the Keystone XL pipeline immediately. He has now said that he would reject the pipeline unless TransCanada Corp. gave the U.S. a big chunk of the profits, or even ownership rights.

Hillary Clinton: More stringent regulation on environmental issues like fracking and drinking water. Supports a mandatory cap-and trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Has called for more regulations on fracking, but not outright bans. Expressed doubts on drilling for oil in the Arctic, but not calling for stopping. With respect to Keystone XL pipeline, Hillary Clinton’s campaign said she had no position. However, her position now is that she doesn’t think we need to have a pipeline bringing in very dirty oil, and exploiting the tar sands in Western Canada, across our border.

Gun Rights – The Second Amendment

Donald J. Trump: Supports Second Amendment rights, opposes new gun control laws; instead, enforce the laws that now exist. He also supports fixing out broken mental health system. Defend the rights of law-abiding gun owners, allow military personnel to carry weapons on military bases and recruitment centers.

Hillary Clinton: Supports a stricter assault weapons ban, and background checks being required for a greater number of gun sales. Wants more legislation for gun safety.

Marijuana Legalization

Donald Trump: Has said that marijuana for medicinal purposes is okay, though he has criticized those states who have legalized marijuana. Decades ago, he also claimed that the DEA is a joke and all drugs should be legalized to take the profit away from drug dealers.

Hillary Clinton: Wants to reclassify marijuana to be a less restricted drug than it currently is, but do not legalize it. Medical marijuana should be available, but only in extreme conditions.

While the above only serves as a brief over-view, I encourage you to do some research of your own to determine where you align with each candidate on the campaign issues.



According to the Daily Signal in their article entitled, “The Fraud Factor of Obama’s New Climate Agenda,” the current president in his recent visit to Alaska, was seeking to scare up support for his climate agenda. In proving that man-made climate change does exist, the president sought to emphasize a major proponent of climate change: When the weather is warm, ice melts (that’s powerful stuff, y’all).

The current president even had a photo op in front of the retreating Exit Glacier. However, there is one little fact about the Exit Glacier. It started retreating more than 100 years before the start of significant man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Another interesting point to note is that the Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska shows that there has been no warming trend in Alaska since 1977. In fact, the trend is slightly negative.

The president is promoting an agenda whose most prominent part is the Clean Power Plant (CPP). But, the agenda and the CPP are based on three bits of fraud.

The first is the assertion that carbon dioxide is dirty. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, and non-toxic gas. The president and his supporters keep referring to it as “carbon pollution.” The also assert that, until the CPP, there were no regulations on the amount of “carbon pollution” power plants could emit.

Carbon pollution does exist, but it is not carbon dioxide. The common name for carbon pollution is “soot,” and there have been regulatory limits on soot for decades. Due to these limits and the general improvement in technology, a modern coal-fired plant cuts soot emissions by more than 99 percent compared to plants without the new technology. In spite of the phenomenal increase in power production since the late 1970s, total air pollution has actually declined significantly.

Second, virtually all current extreme weather is blamed on global warming/climate change, with the inevitable prediction of worse to come. However, data from NOAA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contradict this fear-mongering. No trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods show. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, we were warned by the global warming/climate change alarmists that we would be seeing numerous stronger hurricanes.

According to NPR, yes, NPR, no major hurricanes have hit the U.S. since 2005. Well, what about “Super Storm Sandy that caused major destruction in the northeast in 2012? Sandy was a Category 2 storm when it was hugging the northeastern coast. It was also a large hurricane. It swept through the most densely populated areas in the United States. Of course, since it was in the northeast, it got boatloads of media attention. If Sandy had made landfall in Mississippi, Alabama, or the Florida panhandle, it wouldn’t have received near the media attention it did, nor would it have reeked the devastation that it did.

On April 27, 2011, the state of Alabama witnessed the worst tornado outbreak since a 1930s outbreak. Mississippi, Tennessee, and Georgia were also hard hit. This was also caused by global warming/climate change and it was George Bush’s fault. Prognosticators indicated that outbreaks like the one of 4/27 were a taste of things to come. We’ve had some tornadoes since then in Dixie Alley and in the Midwest. This year, though, in the spring, Dixie Alley was quiet. November is secondary tornado season in Dixie Alley. We’ll have to see what November brings. The tornado outbreaks of 4/27/2011 plus the 1930s outbreak, and the outbreak of 1974, are generational. Again, there appears to be no evidence of increase in tornadoes and their intensity.

The third bit is that the CPP is a climate change policy. Using the EPA’s own climate model, climatologists at the Cato Institute calculated the impact of the CPP on world temperature. Results showed that by the end of this century, the CPPs maximum impact would reduce world temperature by 0.019 degrees, well within the margin of error. The projected impact on sea level rise is equally ridiculous, just 0.01 inches by 2100.

Furthermore, according to the Daily Signal’s article, the CPP’s climate benefit may be negligible and distant, but the CPP’s economic cost will be large and immediate. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the decade of the 2020s, lost GDP will total $1 trillion, and total employment will fall by as much as 500,000 jobs.

This should be so obvious to anyone with a breath of air left in them that the CPP is just another plan to grab power and money, your money. Just like the ACA? Absolutely.

Every time I hint that man-made climate change is a fraud, liberals come out of the woodwork indicating that there are so many more articles by scientists confirming man-made climate change than there are scientists who refute man-made climate change. It appears to me, though, more and more articles are being written refuting it.

If the liberals/progressives are the staunch supporters of middle and low income earners, you would think that they would be searching for facts that would support man-made climate change as not real. Instead, liberals/progressives desire to eliminate fossil fuels in favor of green energy sources. Fossil fuels provide inexpensive and reliable sources of energy which certainly benefits the middle and lower classes. To date, green energy has a long way to go. It’s expensive and not reliable.

The direction that liberals/progressives are taking us doesn’t make sense, unless they have a hidden agenda. And, of course, they do. As I said above, it’s to simply snatch up, from the private sector, as much as possible, and place it under the government umbrella. Thus just another power and money grab.



Within the last week, the Administration’s Interior Department designated nearly all of Alaska’s 19.6 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as untouchable wilderness lands, making it off limits to oil and natural gas exploration. And if that wasn’t enough, the administration has put in place oil and gas restrictions, reducing Alaska’s Arctic Ocean presence to one exploration site each in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The United States is now left with the lowest number of prospects in the history of the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program.

Republicans, including Alaska’s two U.S. Senators and its Representative, have vowed to fight the President’s offshore decision. Yes, Alaska has been screwed by the current President and his administration. Alaska’s not the only one screwed, though. I think all Americans are screwed by these moves.

I hear over and again how Republicans/conservatives hate the poor and are racist bigots. I have a liberal friend who used to talk about nothing but “rich Republicans.” That stopped when it was finally determined that Democrats are richer than Republicans. I haven’t heard her say “rich Republicans” in years. I have another friend who is an Obama zombie and anything anyone says against the current President is racist. You can say that’s not true until you’re blue in the face and liberals will not believe you. Yes, liberals, who are supposed to be so tolerant and open minded, will not believe a person when that person says that the reason they do not support the current President is because they don’t support his policies.

The current President of the United States along with his liberal henchmen are not only anti-middle class, they are anti-American. They hate the United States of America and they hate you and me. Furthermore, their purpose is to destroy this country. When the current President, during his campaign, said that he wanted to fundamentally change the United States of America, my blood ran cold. And while my blood was running cold, the liberals/Democrats were worshipfully slobbering all over themselves. The goals of this President are to turn this country into a socialist, Islamic leaning nanny state.

The current administration’s actions toward Alaska should signal to any reasonable and prudent person that this was a direct hit on the good people of Alaska, especially the middle/working class residents of that state. Jobs will be lost and people are sure to suffer. Furthermore, it is most likely going to be a hit on everyone else.

The current administration, along with the extremist environmentalists, claims that the ANWR is one of this country’s treasures and shouldn’t be damaged. Furthermore, oil and gas exploration is this area would only exacerbate global warming or climate change, depending on what the liberals want to call it on any given day. From my research, the arctic ice sheet is thickening. Also, I’ve read that the caribou population has increased. In fact, I also read that they like the drilling rigs. It’s warmer there.

We’ve all seen pictures of the rigs and they are not unsightly. Furthermore, protecting the environment has been a major factor in oil and gas exploration for decades. Oil companies and various other corporations do strive to develop safe and effective ways to extract oil and natural gas from beneath the earth’s surface.

The ANWR is not exactly in the same category as the Grand Canyon or Yellow Stone National Park. It’s not a big tourist draw. Visiting there is not on my bucket list. It makes perfect sense to use the vast resources present in the ANWR and on the Outer Continental Shelf to continue to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

If the current President was really a champion of the middle class, he would examine both sides of the coin. Instead, he is against fossil fuels of any kind and continues to take steps to destroy our way of life by eliminating our usage of these vast resources which God has provided for us. Sure, there’s going to be an accident every now and then because we’re human. When there is an accident, we clean up our messes. Also, planet earth is a living organic thing. Just like our bodies do when we’re injured or sick, the planet has built in mechanisms that enable it to heal itself. God created the earth and he created crude oil and natural gas that is beneath its surface. I believe that he created the crude oil and natural gas for us to use. Do you think that our God was so short-sited that he didn’t anticipate that humans would err?

As a Christian, I believe that God put these substances in the ground for us to extract, refine, and use for the enhancement of our lives. Obviously, this President doesn’t agree.

The above is just another reason why this administration, when it says that it’s a champion of the middle class is lying. Again, they want to destroy the United States of America.

Earlier this week, there was an article on al.com, a website that is a compendium of several newspapers across the state of Alabama. In this article, it was indicated that contributions made to a college or University for the purpose of then being able to order game tickets after the contribution was made, would no longer be tax deductible.

For those that may be a bit confused, I’ll use my school, the University of Alabama, as an example. Other schools such as Auburn, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Southern California, Oregon, etc. do have similar programs. In order to be able to purchase season tickets for football games at my school, you first have to make a contribution to a foundation called Tide Pride. The amount of your contribution depends upon how many seats you have and the location of those seats within the stadium. After making the contribution, you are then entitled to purchase season tickets for the home games and perhaps for certain away games. Generally 75% of that initial contribution is tax deductible. This is what the current President wants to do away with in his 2016 budget. This is an important deduction for me. I got news for you, current President; it’s not all rich people who attend major college football games. I certainly consider this an assault on the middle class.

Why do liberals continue to be liberal? Why do they incorrectly think that this administration and the Democrat party are champions of the middle class and the poor? Why do they think that just because someone works hard and creates wealth, that person doesn’t deserve to enjoy his or her wealth and doesn’t have the right to do with it as he or she pleases? Why do they think that big government is the answer to all problems? When the top 1% of wage/salary earners pay almost 40% of all income taxes and the bottom 50% of all wage/salary earners pay 1% of all taxes, why do they think that everything that this administration wants to do can be paid for by further taxing the rich? WHY? WHY? WHY?

How many times have our parents, our teachers, our aunts and uncles, our ministers told us to think things through, don’t accept anything at face value, don’t believe everything you hear, there’s no such thing as a free lunch, etc. The current president is going to further tax the rich to pay for all of the things he wants to do for the middle class. We’re going to give you two free years of college tuition, we’re going to give you access to health care, we’re going to make it possible for you to have a house, we’re going to provide you with free birth control, we’re going to give you forty (or was it twenty?) acres and a mule. And do you know why? Because we’re your friends. Yea, right!



Want to make a Democrat mad? Just accuse them of the things that they accuse Republicans of day in and day out. Democrats just love to say that we don’t care about the poor or that we don’t want the folks to have access to health care. Of course, we’ve all heard the rhetoric that we’re nothing but a bunch of racist bigots who dislike the current President of the United States just because he’s black. Well, he’s actually half black. His mother was white and his grandmother was a “typical white woman.”

About a year ago, I had the audacity to comment on a liberal friend’s Facebook post to the effect that it was really the Democrats who view women as inferiors. It’s the Democrats who are of the opinion that the Federal Government should pay for every woman’s birth control because women don’t have the self-control to manage their own libidos. In other words, it’s not the Republicans who have declared a war on women; instead, it’s the Democrats. Instead of engaging in reasonable discussion with me on the issue, I found myself subject to accusations that were not even related to the nature of my post.

Now this particular liberal/progressive/Democrat is an informed voter. She’s very active in the Democrat party and believes that big government is the only way to solve our nation’s problems. Needless to say, she is pro-choice, pro-illegal immigration, claims to be on the side of the poor and the down-trodden, yada, yada, yada. When I opined in my comment that I felt that it was the Democrats who were engaging in the war on women, she seemed to go into some kind of trance and commented back to me “canned verbiage” that she may have been taught at some progressive leadership seminar. It was really laughable.

The point that I’m attempting to make with this post is that Democrats seemed to get very mad and start hurling false accusations and begin name calling when you point out that the very things in which they accuse Republicans; they are even guiltier of.

Low information voters and those who get their information from the network news and other mainstream media outlets are apt to believe that Republicans dislike the current president because of his skin color. They are also apt to believe all of the garbage that is global warming/climate change. The mainstream media and this Democrat administration tell the low information electorate that the ever changing climate of the earth is a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, and if the low information voters don’t have time or are not inclined to look into the other side, they’re going fall for this lie; hook, line, and sinker. There are many, many more examples similar to the ones above that I could cite.

Then when they hear Democrats calling Republicans all sorts of names indicating that they are bigots, don’t care about the environment, don’t care about the poor, and want people to die because they are against socialize medicine, they think all of that is true. Then if you have the audacity to point out to them that it’s the Democrats that want to take our healthcare away from us resulting in more people dying earlier, they go crazy and call you even more names.

And forget even suggesting getting together and having a rational discussion of the issues, they’re not about to do that because they know they’re wrong and you’re right. All they’re capable of is name calling and hurling insults. And it’s frustrating that it seems to work on low information voters.