Covering Platte County, Missouri Weekly Since 1865
Legal Notices
County Foreclosures
Local News
Between the Lines
by Ivan Foley
The Rambling Moron
by Chris Kamler
The Right Stuff
by James Thomas
Parallax Look
by Brian Kubicki
KC Confidential
by Hearne Christopher
Off the Couch
by Greg Hall
Letters to the Editor
"Send Your Letter"
Weekly publication dates are Wednesdays
52 Main Street0
P.O. Box 410
Platte City, Missouri 64079

Fax :816-858-2313
by email
Click Here!
by phone



Parallax logo

by Brian Kubicki
Landmark columnist




•I wonder, for all those that claim President Trump should be impeached and removed from office because he asked a foreign country’s leader to investigate former VP and current Democrat candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter over the Ukraine controversy, on the grounds that he was asking a “foreign country to help him against a political rival……if Joe Biden exits the presidential race, would Trump be exonerated from the threat of impeachment?

•Activists with the Extinction Rebellion movement blocked roads and staged demonstrations in big cities around the world last week as part of a wide-ranging series of protests demanding urgent action against global warming.
Demonstrators stopped traffic in European cities including Berlin, London, Paris and Amsterdam. In New York, activists smeared themselves — and emblems of Wall Street — in fake blood and lay in the street.

London police said some 135 climate activists had been arrested.
In New York City, protesters doused a famous statue of a charging bull near Wall Street with fake blood. One protester waving a green flag climbed on top of the bull. Other activists splashed with red dye staged a “die-in” in front of the New York Stock Exchange — lying down as if dead while tourists gawked.

“The blood of the world is here,” said Justin Becker, an organizer who made a link between the fossil fuel industry and the financial interests of Wall Street. “A lot of blood has been spilled by the decisions of the powerful and the status quo and the toxic system that we live in.”

•Did you know that flamingos stand on one leg in water to preserve body heat?

•In some cities, activists chained themselves to vehicles or pitched tent camps and vowed not to budge.

Members of Extinction Rebellion, a loose-knit movement also known as XR that started last year in Britain, have staged a series of flashy protests this year to demand action on manmade climate change, often featuring marchers in white masks and red costumes and copious amounts of fake blood.

•In the clown car of weirdos that is the Democrat field for president, Elizabeth Warren comes across as the absolute weirdest by a LONG way! Her mannerisms, tortured explanations for past controversies, to just plain awkwardness before the cameras, she’s just bizarre.

In Berlin on Monday, around 1,000 people blocked the Grosser Stern, a traffic circle in the middle of the German capital’s Tiergarten park dominated by the landmark Victory Column. That protest began before dawn. Another 300 people blocked Berlin’s central Potsdamer Platz, placing couches, tables, chairs and flowerpots on the road.

Over the weekend, demonstrators had set up a tent camp outside German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office to prepare for the protests, reflecting dissatisfaction with a climate policy package drawn up last month by her government.

Merkel’s chief of staff, Helge Braun, criticized the group’s tactics.

“We all share an interest in climate protection, and the Paris climate targets are our standard in this,” he told ZDF television. “If you demonstrate against or for that, that is OK. But if you announce dangerous interventions in road traffic or things like this, of course that is just not on.”

He dismissed the idea of declaring a “climate emergency,” saying that the German constitution doesn’t provide for such a thing and it wouldn’t translate into “concrete action.”

Around 1,000 protesters blocked the area around Chatelet in central Paris and vowed to stay at least the night in the makeshift camp they had
pitched. Some were seated, some chained to a barrel.

Demonstrators playing steel drums marched through central London as they kicked off two weeks of activities designed to disrupt the city.

•It’s a good thing for President Trump and the Republicans that there are so many Democrats still in the race and they are doing nothing but trying to “out-left” each other. People who are advising them are making a major mistake by not attempting to carve-out a moderate message, because MOST of the electorate is not weird-left.

•In Amsterdam, hundreds of demonstrators blocked a major road outside the Rijksmuseum, one of the city’s most popular tourist attractions, and set up tents. The protest went ahead despite a city ban on activists gathering on the road. The protesters ignored police calls for them to move to a nearby square.

In Spain, a few dozen activists briefly chained themselves to each other and to an elevated road over a major artery in the Madrid, snarling traffic during the morning rush hour. The National Police said 33 activists were taken to their premises and three were arrested for resisting orders by anti-riot officers.

A few hundred other protesters camped out in 40 tents at the gates of Spain’s Ministry of Ecological Transition.

•After last week’s Colts-Chiefs game, does anyone in Chief fandom believe that teams are just going to run the ball and pass-rush Mahomes? Chiefs’ defense is a mess...still!

Founded in Britain last year, Extinction Rebellion now has chapters in some 50 countries. The group said the protests Monday were taking place in 60 cities worldwide in countries including Turkey, Canada, South Africa, Mexico and elsewhere.



•Wind farms in Wyoming are partnering with the Casper Regional Landfill to dispose of their old wind turbine blades.

More than 900 blades will be brought to the landfill beginning now until the end of next spring.

The Casper Solid Waste Manager, Cynthia Langston, said that though most turbine blades can be reused, there are some that are simply un-recyclable.
Langston said that though the motor houses can be crushed, the blades are too strong.

To save space, they cut each blade into three separate parts before transporting them, then stack them on each other to be buried.

Langston said that Casper was the only facility in the region that could handle such a project.

"These blades are really big, and they take up a lot of airspace, and our unlined area is very, very large, and it's going to last hundreds of years."

They are making a pretty large profit from the deal; $675,485 to be exact.

"So the revenue from the special projects, um, that go in the unlined area, help with the whole cost of our facility so it keeps all of our rates low. Helping with the revenue source, so absolutely, we're making money on it."

Expect to see more blades come to the landfill at least until the end of next spring as more turbines are replaced or decommissioned.

Now THAT'S renewable energy!

•I wonder when NASCAR is going to ban internal combustion engines in their race cars.

•A Russian climatologist published a paper that made some interesting points.
“Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is 'not guilty' and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.

Life on earth completely depends on solar radiation, the ultimate source of energy for natural processes. For a long time it was thought that the luminosity of the Sun never changes, and for this reason the quantity of solar energy received…was named the solar constant.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, German and Swiss astronomers Heinrich Schwabe and Rudolf Wolf established that the number of spots on the surface of the Sun periodically changes, diminishing from a maximum to a minimum, and then growing again, over a time frame on the order of 11 years…(the) number (of sunspots) has been regularly measured since 1849…Today, the reconstruction of this time series stretches back to 1611. It has an eleven-year cycle of recurrence as well as other cycles related to onset and development of individual sunspot groups: changes in the fraction of the solar surface occupied by faculae, the frequency of prominences, and other phenomena in the solar chromosphere and corona…

…English astronomer Walter Maunder in 1893 came to the conclusion that from 1645 to 1715 sunspots had been generally absent. Over the thirty-year period of the Maunder Minimum, astronomers of the time counted only about 50 spots. Usually, over that length of time, about 50,000 sunspots would appear. Today, it has been established that such minima have repeatedly occurred in the past. It is also known that the Maunder Minimum accompanied the coldest phase of a global temperature dip, physically measured in Europe and other regions, the most severe such dip for several millennia, which stretched from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries (now known as the Little Ice Age)…

…Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop…many meteorologists predicted that 2007 would be the hottest of the last decade. This did not occur, although the global temperature of the Earth would have increased at least 0.1 degree if it depended on the concentration of carbon dioxide. It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming…

…Consequently, we should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic…consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming…”

•After witnessing the temperature drop from 90 degrees to 50 degrees in a matter of hours last week due only to natural climate forces, can there be any doubt?

•Buzz Aldrin (Twitter handle @TheRealBuzz) is one of the best feel-good follows on Twitter

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)




•You can't make this stuff up!

A Tesla electric patrol car with the Fremont, Calif., police was forced to back off from a pursuit after the vehicle's battery ran low in the middle of the chase.

“Just slowed down to six miles of battery on the Tesla, so I may lose it here in a sec,” the officer in the pursuit said, according to police radio transmissions obtained by KPIX 5….If someone else is able, can they maneuver into the No. 1 spot?”

Other officers then took over the pursuit. The chase was called off after it was deemed unsafe because of the reckless driving of the suspect. The suspect's vehicle was later found abandoned in San Jose.

The department is in the midst of a pilot program using 2014 Tesla model S 85 vehicles as part of Fremont's push to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from its 2005 baseline by 2020.

Only in California!

•Our great British mentor and climate change skeptic, Lord Christopher Monckton penned a superb piece summarizing the real motivation behind all this Swedish teenager nonsense we've seen in recent weeks. Some excerpts:

“Once upon a time, some very naughty grown-ups made up a wicked story to frighten all you little ones with. They said it was going to get hotter and hotter and hotter. It was going to be ever so hot. Really, really hot…But, you see, children, you can't always believe what grown-ups say. Part of growing up is learning to work out when you are being told the truth and when you are not. So today, children, I'm going to have to tell you that quite a lot of what…your science teacher has been telling you about global warming turns out not to be true…
…By now, kiddiwinks, you'll be wondering why all those experts got it so wrong

Well, here's the thing. They made some big mistakes. Yes, Greta
(Thunberg – the scowling Swede), I'm saying they screwed up, but we don't use language like that in class.

You see, they forgot the Sun was shining. But if you look out of the window you can see for yourself that it is. Yes, I know it seems strange that they forgot the Sun was shining, but that's exactly what they did. Silly of them, wasn't it?

Yes, Greta, there are 'feedback loops.' But that doesn't mean the feedback loops will make the climate run away to a 'tipping point.' What it does mean is that the feedbacks don't just respond to warmer weather caused by the fact that there are greenhouse gases in the air. They have to respond to the fact that the Sun is shining. Not much choice about it.

But the experts more or less completely forgot about the feedback response to the sunshine. They made the mistake of counting it as part of the feedback response to greenhouse gases. And that made them think there would be a whole lot more warming from greenhouse gases than anyone sensible would ever expect.

How do I know? Well…if there were [X amount of] global warming, which the experts now predict, the feedbacks would have to make 350 times as much more warming for each degree of greenhouse-gas warming than they did for each degree of the emission temperature that would keep the Earth warm even if there were no greenhouse gases and no feedback loops. And they can't do that. It's impossible.

But the trouble…is that the experts calculate it by imagining that the Earth is flat. Then they divide the sunshine by a kludge-factor of 4 in a clumsy attempt to adjust their sums for the fact that the Earth is round. Not very clever, are they, acting as though the Earth was flat?

But that's not the only mistake they make when they try to calculate emission temperature. They calculate it by imagining there would be clouds in the air, just as there are today, reflecting almost a third of that lovely sunshine harmlessly straight back into space.

But clouds are made of water vapour, and water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and it is only in the air because of feedbacks. But at emission temperature there would be no water vapour in the air and no feedbacks. Oops! Aren't the experts silly, children?...

…The truth is that there's no chance the world will come to an end by 2100 because of global warming. After correcting all the experts' scientific mistakes, there will only be about 1 K of global warming this century, and sea level will rise by about 4 inches, and the world will carry on spinning much as it does now, even if we do absolutely nothing at all to make global warming go away.

Well, that's all we have time for today, children. But don't worry, Greta: your future will be a rosy one. The world will be a little warmer, but that's a very good thing, not a very bad thing. Now, stop worrying about the weather, go out and play, and enjoy the sunshine!”

•Truth…if you want to really depress teenagers, explain what Greta Thunberg's agenda means for them:

Cycle, walk, or stay put
No lifts to school
No holidays or weekends away
No private cars
No central heating
Access to flights only for the wealthy
Rationing of electrical power.
That should realign their priorities.

(Reach The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki via email to bfkubicki@gmail.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•To elucidate a point made in an earlier column about the obvious nonsense in young people not wanting to have children because it would be bad for the planet and the environment, in case the reasoning is not so plainly obvious, please read the following: major parts of the world are underpopulated.

Their birth rates are below replacement levels.

Now, not that this presents a direct threat to the human race's existence, much of the world is socialist, with government providing the lion's share of care and feeding of their citizens, or in the case of the US these days, anyone standing on US soil!

These programs are funded by people working and paying taxes. The fewer people we have, the fewer taxes that can be paid, and the fewer people that can be taken care of by government.

You'd think since I am all for small government and want government control over our lives discouraged, I'd go along with the having fewer children so socialism and communism can finally be destroyed, but at the end of the day, children represent our future as a human race.

We need more of us, not less, to advance as a society.

•CAFE standards are the government-enacted requirements that cars be made to meet extremely high MPG efficiency standards. Obama increased them. Trump is reducing them.

What's often overlooked is the fact that making cars lighter in weight to meet these standards kills people.

The lethal effect has been recognized by authorities ranging from researchers at Harvard and Brookings, to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, to a federal appeals court. A 1999 USA Today study calculated that, since its inception a quarter-century ago, CAFE has resulted in nearly 50,000 traffic fatalities due to the cars being made lighter and lighter in weight to meet the standards. Last year alone CAFE was responsible for between 2,600 and 4,500 additional deaths.

If CAFE were to rise, so would its death toll.

Before large cars became so politically incorrect, both Ralph Nader and the Center for Auto Safety made it abundantly clear that larger size means more safety. In a 1989 Women's Day interview, Nader expressly recognized the trade-off between safety and fuel economy, stating that "larger cars are safer - there is more bulk to protect the occupant. But they are less fuel efficient."

Clarence Ditlow's Center for Auto Safety (CAS) once took the same position as well. In 1972 the Center published an extensive critique of the VW Beetle titled "Small on Safety.”

Page after page in this book describes the inherent safety risks of small vehicle size - that "the likelihood of serious or fatal injury goes up exponentially as the weight of the car decreases," that "because of the Beetle's small size, there is little space between the occupant and the windshield," that small size leads to a "lack of effective collapse distance, which is necessary to absorb some of the forces generated by a crash," that the "one compensating advantage" of small cars, their supposedly greater maneuverability, is in fact a "myth."

Funny how environmental nutbags cherish life so little.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•You know, it's kind of tough being a media sponge in the midst of a campaign for president with 175 candidates vying for the Democrat nomination, with each vying to be as weird and outrageous as the next one.

I know who I'm voting for, and the Democrat that ultimately wins the nomination is going to be so far left and liberally-extreme, they won't have a chance at beating Trump.

Yet we endure.

•The leader of one of the world's foremost weather science organizations issued a slap-down to climate bedwetters last week.

Petteri Taalas, the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), told the Talouselämä magazine in Finland that he disagrees with doomsday climate extremists who call for radical action to prevent a purported apocalypse.

“Now, we should stay calm and ponder what is really the solution to this problem,” Taalas said. “It is not going to be the end of the world…people have survived in harsh conditions.”

The remarks came as a “total surprise,” especially coming from Taalas, who has himself made alarmist statements about the climate, according to Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London.

“I think they're beginning to realize that the whole agenda has been hijacked by extremists and undermining the economy and the social stability of European countries,” Peiser told The Epoch Times.

Taalas said that establishment meteorological scientists are under increasing assault from radical climate alarmists, who are attempting to move the mainstream scientific community in a radical direction. He expressed specific concern with some of the solutions promoted by climate alarmists, including calls for couples to
have no more children, which as we all know is really bad advice and abject nonsense on the scientific level.

“While climate skepticism has become less of an issue, we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists. They make threats,” Taalas said.

Could not have said it better!

“The latest idea is that children are a negative thing. I am worried for young mothers, who are already under much pressure. This will only add to their burden.”

According to Myron Ebell, the chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition—an organization that challenges climate alarmism—Taalas's remarks are significant because he heads the WMO. The WMO is one of the two organizations that founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. Since being formed, the IPCC has become the leading institution worldwide to promote the theory that human activity contributes to global warming.

“It's a major international organization. It has a lot of credibility, and for the head of it to say that the alarmists have gone too far is important, or potentially important,” Ebell said.

“We'll have to see what the impact is and also what the blowback is,” he said. “Because, in the past, when people have stepped out of line in a more realistic or skeptical direction, the alarmist establishment has been pretty effective—and often in a very brutal way—in punishing or forcing people back into line.”

While Taalas limited his examples in the climate debate to Finland, some of the extremism Ebell references is akin to the rhetoric employed by climate alarmists in the United States. Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cowfart has become one of the key faces of that movement. The New York congresswoman regularly promotes the theory that the world will enter an irreversible downward spiral toward end-of-days unless the United States takes radical action to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions in 12 years.

The deadline that Ms. Cowfart references comes from a special report by the IPCC, which states that “global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.” The report concludes that risks of long-lasting or irreversible impact on the earth's ecosystems are higher if warming breaches the 1.5-degree mark by 2030.

Taalas pointed out that climate extremists are selectively picking out facts from the IPCC reports to fit their narrative.

“The IPCC reports have been read in a similar way to the Bible: you try to find certain pieces or sections from which you try to justify your extreme views. This resembles religious extremism,” Taalas said.

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore called Taalas's remarks the “biggest crack in the alarmist narrative for a long time.”

“The meteorologists are real scientists and probably fed up with Greta, Mann, Gore, & AOC catastrophists. Good on him,” Moore wrote on Twitter on Sept. 7

The IPCC has previously admitted that climate models can't be used to accurately predict long-term changes in the climate.

•You HAVE to try Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken over on 47th Street close to KU Medical Center. It is unbelievable!

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•In a stroke of anti-regulatory brilliance, President Trump rolled back regulations on so-called energy-saving light bulbs.

The filing from the Energy Department would prevent new efficiency requirements from implementation on January 1, 2020 under a previous law passed during President George W. Bush's administration in 2007. That law phased out inefficient incandescent and halogen bulbs.

The issue turned contentious during the Obama administration as the more efficient light bulbs began to hit the market. Those include the LED bulbs that look more like the traditional pear-shaped incandescent bulbs.

Over the past decade, incandescent bulbs, which are the largely recognized glass orbs with glowing wire centers, have been rapidly replaced with incandescents and fluorescents in as the Washington Post calls it, “America's fight against greenhouse gas emissions.”

The Trump administration's new rules will likely be met with pushback from environutbags and be challenged in court, as usual, because liberal ideas cannot stand scrutiny on the logic scale.

Juliet Huddy, one of the women that accused Bill O'Reilly of sexual harassment, blocked me on Twitter last week because I told her after she called me a bot, “I am a real human who adulates original thought, particularly from strong women. You this far do not fit that description. Keep trying though. I have hope for you. Don't be defined by hate of a bad man.”

She didn't like that, apparently.

•A Swedish scientist suggests that it may be necessary to turn to cannibalism and start eating human flesh to “save the planet.”

A conference about the food of the future called Gastro Summit being held
in Stockholm Sweden featured a presentation by Magnus Söderlund claiming that we must get used to the idea of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combating the effects of climate change.

In a talk titled: “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh,” behavioral Scientist and Marketing Strategist Magnus Söderlund from “Handelshögskolan” (College of Commerce) argues for the breaking down of the ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and eating human flesh.

Söderlund refers to the taboos against it as “conservative.” He claims those who don't want to eat dead people are old fogeys who don't want to save the planet. He adds that people can be sold on the idea little by little, first by persuading people to just taste it.

Conflating resistance to eating human flesh with capitalist selfishness, the seminar's talking points ask:

“Are we humans too selfish to live sustainably?

Again with sustainability!

•Here's more…In 2014, Jonas Anshelm and Martin Hultman of Chalmers University published a paper analyzing the language of a focus group of climate skeptics. The common themes in the group, they said, were striking: “for climate skeptics … it was not the environment that was threatened, it was a certain kind of modern industrial society built and dominated by their form of masculinity.”

“There is a package of values and behaviors connected to a form of masculinity that I call 'industrial breadwinner masculinity.' They see the world as separated between humans and nature. They believe humans are obliged to use nature and its resources to make products out of them. And they have a risk perception that nature will tolerate all types of waste. It's a risk perception that doesn't think of nature as vulnerable and as something that is possible to be destroyed. For them, economic growth is more important than the environment.”

The corollary to this is that climate science, for skeptics, becomes feminized—or viewed as “oppositional to assumed entitlements of masculine primacy,” Hultman and fellow researcher Paul Pulé wrote in another paper.

These findings align with similar ones in the United States, where there is a massive gender gap in views on climate change, and many men perceive climate activism as inherently feminine, according to research published in 2017. “In one experiment, participants of both sexes described an individual who brought a reusable canvas bag to the grocery store as more feminine than someone who used a plastic bag—regardless of whether the shopper was a male or female,” marketing professors Aaron R. Brough and James E.B. Wilkie explained at Scientific American.

“In another experiment, participants perceived themselves to be more feminine after recalling a time when they did something good versus bad for the environment,” they write.


•Did CBS really switch KC audiences from the Chiefs game Sunday in the 4th quarter because, as network studio anchor James Brown said when they made the switch to the Cleveland game, “…because the Cleveland game is more competitive…”? Later, he did admit it was switched because of “technical difficulties.”

I'm going to need to see some proof, James.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•So where is all the pearl-clutching today over the Amazon burning to the ground? Last week, it was all the liberal media could talk about. Climate change alarmists spread fear over wildfires in the Amazon rainforest almost daily, apparently because they had nothing else to wail about.

Meanwhile, data from NASA shows there is no reason for concern.

From liberal media outlets to liberal politicians, the wildfires sparked a wave of misinformation and hysteria. The wildfires are so frightening, they claimed, because the Amazon produces 20 percent of the world's oxygen. Others alleged the fires could speed up climate change.

The Amazon was referred to as "the lungs of the planet."

However, the panic appears to be completely overblown.

According to NASA, fires are common in the Amazon due to the arrival of a dry season in July. Fire activity typically peaks in September before ending in November.

And even though fires are common, NASA analysis shows that current fire activity is at or below average.

As of Aug. 16, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. (The Amazon spreads across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.)

Though activity appears to be above average in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, it has so far appeared below average in Mato Grosso and Pará, according to estimates from the Global Fire Emissions Database, a research project that compiles and analyzes NASA data.

Still, although large wildfires are concerning, the claim that the Amazon is responsible for producing 20 percent of the world's usable oxygen is simply not true, despite being commonly cited to intensify hysteria.

The truth is, the Amazon forests produce only about 6% of the planet's oxygen.

•Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is back. Her sudden muteness seemed to coincide directly with the “reassigning” of her Chief of Staff, who had long been speculated to be the “brains” behind her and the other Justice Democrats. He's the one who started the movement from the ground up and he's the one who was directly controlling all of AOC's communications.

Without him, she suddenly went dark, only further feeding rumors that she relied heavily on Saikat Chakrabarti to deliver her “wisdom.”

Well, she's back and she's basically confirming those rumors to be true, gauging by the nonsense she spewed in a recent video.

She claimed in an Instagram video:

-every coastal city is going to be underwater
-the majority of the country is going to experience drought
-we won't be able to grow food due to scorching sun
-everyone will die
-horrible diseases will be released from glaciers.

She then goes on to rant more about climate change, asserting that every coastal city is going to be underwater, not in hundreds of years, but soon. As if she's reading from some kind of Biblical prophecy, she then predicts droughts and the human race dying out.

"There are a lot of diseases that are frozen in some of these glaciers that scientists fear that there is a potential that a lot of diseases could escape these melted glaciers, things that were frozen for thousands of years, and that they're going to get into our water, and that humans could contract them, and they're going to be diseases that are thousands of years old that have vectors that we are not prepared for, that we have never seen," Ocasio- Cortez continued. "Even if there are no diseases frozen at all in these glaciers, you have diseases that are spread by mosquitoes, and now mosquitoes are starting to fly further north that carry diseases like malaria, and a whole slew of other things.”

Ocasio-Cortez claimed that the coastal cities were all going to end up underwater and that the rest of the U.S. would experience severe drought.

"You think artificially having to create our food supply because the Earth no longer can sustain growing foods naturally, or the sun is scorching the earth so much, that we can't grow the food that used to be able to grow, that's going to be a lot more expensive," Ocasio-Cortez claimed without evidence. "So we need to bite the bullet on the cost, because the alternative to not spending the money is death and spending even more money."

She actually believes what she's saying. This is her cult and she's all in. Her level of anxiety about the doomsday predictions she's spouting should necessitate psychological therapy.

The best part though was her reaction to people pointing and laughing at her nonsense.

She said in response to a criticism of her nonsense, “Republicans underestimate my intelligence bc I invite people into my home & talk about policy in plain English instead of DC jargon.

They think that's dumb, so they end up paying for ads that spread & explain our policy positions.

I understand this completely, obviously, even while I was on vacation I woke up in the middle of the night at 3:30 in the morning just concerned about climate change," AOC said in the livestream. "I'm 29-years-old, I really struggle sometimes with the idea of how to be a policymaker, and potentially have a family in the time of climate change."




•Barack and Michelle Obama are working on buying a huge Martha’s Vineyard estate.

TMZ reported last week that the former president and first lady are in contract to purchase a 29-acre beachfront plot with a 6,892-square-foot main house. The Obamas were initially just renting the seven-bedroom, 8½-bathroom spread for summer 2019, but apparently loved it so much that they made an offer.

It was most recently on the market asking $14.85 million, but the Obamas are apparently paying less.

The property in Edgartown, Massachusetts has a living room with vaulted ceilings and a stone fireplace, a chef’s kitchen and a formal dining room with giant windows. Outside, there’s a pool with a huge fireplace — or they could swim on the private beach, which has a boathouse.

Beachfront? I guess we can now admit finally that Obama knows global warming is nonsense and simply a vehicle for enacting socialism in America. Why else would he buy beachfront property if all the planet’s ice is going to melt and raise the sea levels to leave his property worthless?

•Liberal media outlets were awash in pearl-clutching over Pres. Trump’s “order” last week for American companies to stop buying goods and services from communist China and find outlets in other countries, preferably America.

Of course the president doesn’t have the power to order American companies to do anything, but he is using his megaphone of the bully pulpit to encourage people to stop rewarding communists in China from stealing the intellectual property of free Americans, and he is dead right to do so.

China has been stealing the hard-earned work product in the form of technology – software, high-tech electronic components, etc. – for decades, and it is overdue and welcoming for an American President to stand up to it.


•Women are apparently increasingly opting out of heterosexuality because it is “the bedrock of their global oppression,” according to NBC News in a bizarre opinion piece this week.

“Men need heterosexuality to maintain their societal dominance over women,” writes Marcie Bianco for the NBC News website. “Women, on the other hand, are increasingly realizing not only that they don’t need heterosexuality, but that it also is often the bedrock of their global oppression.”

Ms. Bianco lumps together a series of recent news stories, “from Jeffrey Epstein to the Dayton and El Paso mass shooters, to Miley Cyrus’s separation and Julianne Hough’s declaration that she’s ‘not straight,’” which, she says, “together have laid bare the strictures of an American patriarchy on the edge of a nervous breakdown.”

“As the status quo, heterosexuality is just not working,” she concludes, before explaining just how evil men are and how women are learning to live without them.
“As a snapshot of 2019 America, these stories present a startling picture: Men continue to coerce, harass, rape and kill girls and women — and go to extreme lengths to avoid responsibility for their actions,” she states. “On the other side of the issue, girls and women are challenging heterosexuality, and even absconding from it altogether.”

Abscond? Abscond means to leave hurriedly and secretly, typically to avoid detection of or arrest for an unlawful action such as theft.

So if women are leaving heterosexuality “hurriedly and secretly” are their men even noticing?

“Patriarchy is at its most potent when oppression doesn’t feel like oppression, or when it is packaged in terms of biology, religion, or basic social needs like security comfort, acceptance and success,” Ms. Bianco declares.

“Historically, women have been conditioned to believe that heterosexuality is natural or innate, just as they have been conditioned to believe that their main purpose is to make babies — and if they fail to do so, they are condemned as not ‘real,’ or as bad, women,” she idiotically claims.

A series of new role models are emerging, she suggests, whose lives and choices — as dysfunctional as they may appear to the general public — are teaching women how to take back power from men.

“Celebrities are not always at the vanguard of feminist thought, but both Julianne Hough and Miley Cyrus have recently spoken out about sexuality in ways that puts the power — and responsibility — back into their own hands,” she declares.
Men, on the other hand, particularly heterosexual men, are a blight on the earth and a source of unending woes, one infers.

“Where men seem to never to have to take responsibility for their actions, women always must take responsibility for not only their own actions but the actions of men,” she states.

“Absconding from responsibility is the quintessential strategy of the patriarchy; it’s how men stay in control and never lose their power.”

“While men stew in their mess, women are rising,” she continues. “They are taking back control of their lives and their bodies and they are questioning the foundation of the patriarchy — heterosexuality — that has kept them blindly subordinate for centuries.”

Reminds me of the Jack Nicholson line from the movie, “As Good As It Gets,” when his character – a writer - is asked by a woman fan, “How do you write women so well?” Nicholson responds, “I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”



•Isn't it aggravating to listen to the constant lamenting of the NeverTrumper RINOs that hate how Pres. Trump Tweets everything that is on his mind, including personal criticism of vocal critics?

I personally find it refreshing to know what is on the President's mind at various times of day.

Lord knows we haven't had that luxury with other presidents, Obama particularly, who may have been the most disingenuous and devious U.S. President in history.

•The Democrats are playing their stupid name-change game again.

First, in 2015, President Obama changed the name of North America's tallest peak from McKinley (honoring the Republican president from Ohio) to Denali. After the 2016 presidential election, President Trump wanted to reverse the name change, but the two Alaskan RINO senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, told the president that they did not want this to happen, and Trump agreed not to reverse the name change.

Suffice it to say that Murkowski herself submitted a January 2015 bill to re-propose renaming the highest peak to Denali. As for Sullivan, a senator from 2015, he forgot that, during his 2013 year-end campaign finance report, out of the $1.2 million total campaign contributions, more than $400,000 came from Ohio.
Both Murkowski and Sullivan have been well-known Trump opponents since the 2016 presidential race.

After that, the Democrats were struck by the mania of changing the names of schools and streets named after “undesirable” statesmen, like President George Washington or Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Confederate general Robert E. Lee.

Dumb local counselors, blinded by fury after Trump won the presidential elections, wanted to flex their muscles in front of their communities. They organized ad-hoc meetings where they proceeded to change the “undesirable” names, ignoring the will of their communities and the additional expenses that such decision would involve.

Now, the last scheme the Democrats are cooking is to rename the street Trump Tower is on after Barack Obama. A petition on MoveOn.org, delivered to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York City Council, seeks to rename the stretch of Fifth Avenue between 56th Street and 57th Street “President Barack H. Obama Avenue” and to change accordingly any addresses on that stretch of Fifth Avenue. Started around October 2018, the petition has recently garnered over 250,000 signatures online.

If the effort proves successful, Trump Tower's 725 Fifth Avenue address would become 725 Barack H. Obama Avenue. However, there is one little problem: regulations require that honorees be dead for two years before they can be considered for a street name. These name-change games will continue, because Democrats once again exhibit that they are devoid of ideas that help American people and serve only to try to punish their political opponents.

•Al Gore is at it again.

When asked Sunday about his 2006 prediction that we would reach the point of no return in 10 years if we didn't cut human greenhouse gas emissions, Gore implied that his forecast was exactly right.

“Sea level increases are going to continue no matter what we do now. But, we can prevent much larger sea level increases. Much more rapid increases in temperature. The heat wave was in Europe. Now it's in Arctic. We're seeing huge melting of the ice there. So, the warnings of the scientists 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, unfortunately were accurate.”

So what has Gore been predicting for the planet? In his horror movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” he claimed:

Sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet. He didn't provide a timeline, which was shrewd on his part. But even if he had said 20 inches, over 20 years, he'd still have been wrong. Sea level has been growing for about 10,000 years, and, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, continues to rise about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Storms are going to grow stronger. There's no evidence they are stronger nor more frequent.

If we have truly fallen this far down the rabbit hole, there'd be no reason to maintain hope.

A year after the movie, Gore was found claiming that polar bears' “habitat is melting” and “they are literally being forced off the planet.” It's possible, however, that there are four times as many polar bears as there were in the 1960s. Even if not, they've not been forced off the planet.

Also in 2007, Gore started making “statements about the possibility of a complete lack of summer sea ice in the Arctic by as early as 2013.” Left-leaning “fact-checker” Snopes, concluded that “Gore definitely erred in his use of preliminary projections and misrepresentations of research.”

Gore has been making declarative statements about global warming for about as long as he's been in the public eye. He has yet to prove a single claim, though. But how can he? The few examples above show that despite his insistence to the contrary, his predictions have failed.

Even if all turned out to be more accurate than a local three-day forecast, there's no way to say with 100% certainty that the extreme conditions were caused by human activity. Our climate is a complex system, there are too many other variables, and the science itself has limits, unlike Gore's capacity to inflate the narrative to the point of lunacy.



•I could not make this up folks…

Heterosexual men are avoiding “saving the planet” (in the form of carrying cloth bags to the supermarket) because strangers might think they're gay, a new study has suggested.

Researchers at Penn State University in America discovered that everyday steps to help the environment such as using reusable carrier bags were often “gendered,” driving men away.

In the study of 930 people, psychologists found that using a reusable carrier bag or drying laundry on a line instead of using a tumble dryer were seen as traditionally female. Men would then dodge “reducing their carbon footprint” in case it threatened their masculinity and sexuality. This caused the men in the study to avoid being environmentally friendly just in case strangers thought they were gay, which they viewed as a bad thing.

The researchers also found that men and women were more likely to question a man's sexual orientation if he was seen performing these “feminine actions.” Psychology professor and study author Janet K. Swim said: “There may be subtle, gender-related consequences when we engage in various pro-environmental behaviors…People may avoid certain behaviors because they are managing the gendered impression they anticipate others will have of them. Or they may be avoided if the behaviors they choose do not match their gender.

“If being seen as heterosexual is important to a person, that person may prioritize gender-conforming over gender-nonconforming pro-environmental behaviors in anticipation of how others might see them.”

All I can say is, “WOW!”

•I'm not a big proponent of looking back, because life is too short, but I was intrigued by something I wrote in this column space 14 years ago…

“ The new movie Fantastic Four made a highly successful debut last weekend, with no holiday props, no whacky star jumping on a daytime couch as he hits his first mid-life crisis, no preachy premise, no shoving of an alternative religion down the public's unwilling gullet, no examination of our greater significance in the world. Just old fashioned entertainment.

The movie out gained Speilberg's War of the Worlds at the box-office, which was only in its second week, and the F-4 had no props from a holiday weekend. Pretty cool.

I caught Fantastic Four last weekend with the family and I loved it. I never read the comic book or watched a Saturday cartoon interpretation of the Fantastic Four. I saw heroism, self-sacrifice, elevation of intellectualism, healthy and normal levels of titillation, and old fashioned good vs. evil interplay. It was a fine way to spend two hours on a Saturday evening.

If there a message here?

Hollywood will continue its much-publicized downward spiral until it remembers what made movies special in the first place. The cinema is supposed to be a place where we go to escape the world of reality, but keep true to the basic tenets of our human existence. Stop trying to blur the lines between good and evil. Keep material in movies age-appropriate. Stop trying to mature my kids faster than I want them matured. Personally, I'd like another John Wayne on the scene, but perhaps I'm unrealistic.”

•I deeply love my wife, but sheesh-a-mighty she does like to live in precarious surroundings. Her dresser and dressing table are surrounded by lightweight glass bottles that are all much longer than they are wide. The shower is surrounded by moisturizers, chemical removers, shampoos, and conditioners for every day of the week all set upon apparent ledges along the shower walls that aren't really there. Cabinets harbor stacks-upon-stacks of paper boxes and bags of cotton that fall-out when disturbed by nothing more than the draft created by the opening of the cabinet door!

I'm a rhinoceros tip-toeing through a freaking house of cards!

•Green tea ice cream may be the most tasty and innovative after-dinner dessert ever encountered. I tried it recently at the Kona Grille on Barry Road near I-29 and I can't get that intriguing flavor outta my head! I've got to go back!”

I fully admit it – I'm old.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•Famed physicist Neal DeGrasse Tyson is drawing some ire on social media for stating the following:

“In the past 48 hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.

On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…
500 to Medical errors
300 to the Flu
250 to Suicide
200 to Car Accidents
40 to Homicide via Handgun
Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.”
Rare that I would say this about anything Tyson has to say, but he is correct.

•Came across this piece last week and it has loads of common sense reality. Some excerpts…

“Pedal to the Metal: Why California can't ban gasoline-powered cars”
Unhappy with the imminent rollback of the Obama fuel economy standards and the so-called 'California waver' by the Trump administration, California environment chief Mary Nichols is threatening to ban gasoline-powered cars. Is this possible?

This media release reports on a letter delivered by UK metals experts to the UK government's Committee on Climate Change. It sets out the energy and metal requirements to replace UK gasoline-powered cars with EVs (electric powered vehicles):

This translates to California as follows. As of 2018:

The UK has about 38.2 million cars.
California has about 25.6 million cars.
So the resource requirements of a 100% California EV mandate would be 67% (25.6/38.2) of the UK.
Replacing gasoline-powered cars with EVS in California would then require: 134% of current global cobalt production; 67% of current global neodymium production; 50% of current global production of lithium; 34% of current global production of copper.

The letter also discusses various energy requirements and scenarios. California will require 67% of all that.

Not possible.

A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow expert members of SoS MinErals (an interdisciplinary programme of NERC-EPSRC-Newton-FAPESP funded research) explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world's lithium production and at least half of the world's copper production.

A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars…

...Over the next few decades, global supply of raw materials must drastically change to accommodate not just the UK's transformation to a low carbon economy, but the whole world's. Our role as scientists is to provide the evidence for how best to move towards a zero-carbon economy – society needs to understand that there is a raw material cost of going green and that both new research and investment is urgently needed for us to evaluate new ways to source these. This may include potentially considering sources much closer to where the metals are to be used.'

The challenges set out in the letter are:

The metal resource needed to make all cars and vans electric by 2050 and all sales to be purely battery electric by 2035. To replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles (not including the LGV and HGV fleets), assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811 batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE), at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copper. This represents, just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world's lithium production and at least half of the world's copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry.

The worldwide impact: If this analysis is extrapolated to the currently projected estimate of two billion cars worldwide, based on 2018 figures, annual production would have to increase for neodymium and dysprosium by 70%, copper output would need to more than double and cobalt output would need to increase at least three and a half times for the entire period from now until 2050 to satisfy the demand.

Energy cost of metal production: This choice of vehicle comes with an energy cost too. Energy costs for cobalt production are estimated at 7000-8000 kWh for every tonne of metal produced and for copper 9000 kWh/t. The rare-earth energy costs are at least 3350 kWh/t, so for the target of all 31.5 million cars that requires 22.5 TWh of power to produce the new metals for the UK fleet, amounting to 6% of the UK's current annual electrical usage. Extrapolated to 2 billion cars worldwide, the energy demand for extracting and processing the metals is almost 4 times the total annual UK electrical output.

Energy cost of charging electric cars: There are serious implications for the electrical power generation in the UK needed to recharge these vehicles. Using figures published for current EVs (Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe), driving 252.5 billion miles uses at least 63 TWh of power. This will demand a 20% increase in UK generated electricity.

In other words, it can't be done.



•I have just one thing to say about the Robert Mueller testimony before the two House committees last week.

Mueller stated that the Russians he indicted for hacking into the DNC computers were “innocent until proven guilty.” It follows then that if they are not proven guilty after trial then they must be presumed innocent.

In the same way, Trump has had a “trial” in the form of the Special Counsel investigation. As a result of that investigation, Trump has not been charged with any crimes. Therefore, Trump is to be presumed innocent.

I wish one of the Republicans on that committee got Mueller to admit that.

•Did you see where climate protesters from the activist group Extinction Rebellion glued themselves to sites around Capitol Hill?

13 activists had been arrested after they had superglued themselves to the tunnel connecting the House to the Capitol building "so that lawmakers are forced to face up to the climate crisis." Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), who filmed the protest as he went to meet with staff, called the action "a futile effort."

One of the most ominous contradictions of the environmental left is the way in which they champion the rights of nature while going along with the rest of the left in denying human nature, let alone the natural rights of humans—which is the central premise of democratic self-government.

•This week Foreign Policy offers the straightforward headline: “Democracy Is the Planet's Greatest Enemy.” Nice to have freedom and self-government so openly attacked. From the article:

“If electoral democracy is inadequate to the task of addressing climate change, and the task is the most urgent one humanity faces, then other kinds of politics are urgently needed. The most radical alternative of all would be to consider moving beyond democracy altogether. The authoritarian Chinese system has some advantages when it comes to addressing climate change: One-party rule means freedom from electoral cycles and less need for public consultation. Technocratic solutions that put power in the hands of unelected experts could take key decisions out of the hands of voters.”

Yes, you read that accurately, they are advocating for authoritarian communism!

•The notion that democracy and free enterprise are enemies of the environment is absurd. Experience shows that democracies keep things clean and socialist dictatorships create the worst environmental conditions on Earth.

“Climate Apartheid” is just the latest round of garbled messaging from the environutbags whereupon people with no clue about anything make up a meaningless buzz-phrase to tell us we are about to lose something we never had.

The kindest thing we could do for any nation is to help them use their own resources and produce more CO2. It will increase their quality of life more than nearly any other thing we could do.

A particularly dire report from the United Nations Human Rights Council has upped the ante in the fight against climate change, warning that a potential “climate apartheid” could fracture the global population, splitting the planet between the wealthy and the rest of the world who will be “left to suffer.”

It combines 100 other dubious studies to produce a new dimension of nonsense.
The report, published on June 25 and written by U.N. human rights and poverty specialist Philip Alston, combines the work of more than 100 other studies and reports. It goes into particular detail about what will happen if there is too great of a reliance on the private sector to combat the changing climate.

“Rather than helping the world adapt to climate change, privatizing basic services and social protection may be a form of maladaptation,” Alston wrote in the report.

”When hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc in New York in 2012, stranding low-income and vulnerable New Yorkers without access to power and healthcare, the Goldman Sachs headquarters was protected by tens of thousands of its own sandbags and power from its generator.”

Alston likened it to a coming “climate apartheid,” where the wealthy are able to mitigate some of the potentially catastrophic effects, such as food insecurity, disease and death, and the poor, “who have contributed the least to emissions and have the least capacity to react, will be the most harmed.”

The answer is to help everyone get rich, not to “get the rich” instead.

It's all another UN analytical train-wreck — if only we put up enough solar panels and gave the government power over everything, then we'd all be happy together, and have equal incomes? Death by double-starvation instead by Gulag. Some “progress.”

The UN report by Philip Alston supports the Paris agreement — paradoxically encapsulating all the most useless, toxic and harmful solutions, destroying wealth, reducing CO2 and, based on the last million years of history, guaranteed to reduce human rights.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•You want to see media bias at work? Watch a supposedly unbiased newsperson describing President Trump's tweets last week ripping the “Squad,” consisting of Andrea Ocasio Cowfarts, Rashida Talib, Ilhan Omar, and whoever the other lady sharing the King of Rock & Roll's last name is, and make note whether they call the president's tweets “racist Tweets” or they call them “Tweets that some are calling racist.”

That's all you need to identify media bias.

•As we roast through the hottest days of the summer months, it's appropriate to once again do homage to the man that made relief from heat a possibility and welcome reality for most of the developed world.

In July of 1902, Willis Carrier designed a machine to help a printing plant operate more efficiently. A happy outcome from that invention, we can keep cool in the summer.

Air conditioning, or more specifically, the vapor-compression cycle, is a process and machine that was invented 117 years ago. But it was not invented out of a desire for comfort from the elements, but necessity. (Remember, necessity is the mother of invention?)

"It's allowed our society or any society that's fully adopted to air conditioning like we have to flourish in different ways than if you didn't have it," said Richard Rackley, CEO of Fountainhead College of Technology.

•There's nothing racist about what Trump said in his tweets. The members of the “Squad” openly tout their foreign foundations, even the ones born in the US. Trump simply told them if they do not like living in the greatest country in the world, kindly return to the country their families emigrated from, fix the problems inherent in those countries, and kindly return and tell us what you did to fix those problems.

•In July of 1902, an engineer named Willis Carrier designed the world's first modern air conditioning system. The design was to cut the humidity level at the Sackett & Wilhelms printing plant in Brooklyn, New York.

"It was so hot that summer that the ink would not stick to the paper. It was too humid," said Rackley. "So he developed a device that would pass air over coils that were cooled by a refrigerant, I guess it was called water then, that pulled the moisture out of the air and they were able to print."

There was a happy side effect from that design. The temperature inside the factory became more pleasant and pretty soon they were installed at other factories and businesses.

"When it first came out, movie theaters are where folks would show up," said Rackley. "You would go to the movies not only to watch a movie but to stay cool. It was dark and cold. You could sit comfortably and get out of the heat."

•What was brilliant about Trump's tweets was up to that point House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was publicly trying to separate the “Squad” from the Democrat Party as a whole, calling them out as a minority voice and not the mainstream of the party. Enter Trump's tweets and the “Squad” is right back in the party ripping Trump as racist. Magnificent!

•It would be years before homes had air conditioning but when it did, there was no going back!

"Before A/C, you had larger patios because that was in the shade. You had more ventilation, more doors and windows that you could catch a breeze." said Rackley.

Carrier's invention not only changed the way people felt but also how they lived.
"People don't sit in their window to catch a breeze anymore so neighbors don't talk as much anymore. Kids don't play outside as much anymore. Television took off because we sit inside and watch TV instead of sitting outside where we can catch a breeze," said Rackley.

Over the years, Carrier's design has remained almost the same. Rackely says the big changes are with the thermostats that control the temperature.

"When I think of latest technology in air conditioning, I think about thermostats and how they can be controlled by your cell phone now or whatever smart phone you have," he said.

•Trump's re-election victory in November of 2020 depends on the Democrat Party being linked to the radicalism of the “Squad.” The American people need to know that the Democrats are as far left as these women are. America will not accept that degree of nuttiness.

•There's been a lot of social media love for Willis Carrier and the invention that changed the world 117 years ago.

"Other than fire, it might be the most important technology that man has ever developed," Rackley said.

Not to overlook that this very same process and machine brings food and medicine to places of the world than would not have access to these modern essentials of life!

Thank you Mr. Carrier!

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•It's hot outside in case you hadn't noticed. However, the “air conditioning is sexist!!” argument is getting trotted out by feminists who firmly believe the patriarchy is behind the frigid AC temperatures they have to endure in the summer months in their offices.

This year's example comes from Taylor Lorenz of The Atlantic. Last Sunday, Lorenz tweeted out a piece on the debate from style writer Penelope Green at the New York Times.

“Air-conditioning is unhealthy, bad, miserable, and sexist. I can't explain how many times I've gotten sick over the summer b/c of overzealous AC in offices.”
In another tweet, she chided male colleagues for having the audacity to want to be cooler in the summer even if it meant she might have to cover up a little more in the office:

“Like buy a fan. Ur not gonna die lol. I should be able to wear dresses in the summer and not get hypothermia. Weird that making women slightly more comfortable and productive at work causes so many men to have a mental breakdown”

Twitter users promptly schooled Lorenz on some of the main reasons why men typically want it cooler indoors than women do in the summer. And after all was said and done, it was Lorenz who came off as the one making a sexist argument:
“The majority of men in business settings are wearing multiple layers of clothes to conform to dress code.”

“'Ugh! I want to wear my cute summer dresses to work and you sexist men literally dehydrating in full suits are making me less productive with your insistence on turning the temperature below 85°!!'”

National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke got to the heart of the matter on why the #BanAC movement is all wrong:

“And it's boring because it's always couched in up-to-the-moment woke
language when, in fact, the argument is insufferably insular and privileged. Know who suffers the most from a lack of air conditioning? Elderly people. Poor people. Minorities in the South.”

“#BanAC? I spent the summer of 2003 in France. There was a heatwave. I saw some of the consequences with my own eyes. Nearly 15,000 people died. per the NIH.”

“Alternatively, air conditioning has bettered the lives of hundreds of millions of people and saved tens of thousands of lives, and you're just arguing over the thermostat.”

This is anecdotal to be sure, but many have experienced office environments that reaching a happy medium with your co-workers usually works – in the coldest months of the year and the hottest. In the summer, if the guys want it at 74 and the ladies prefer it at 78, propose 76.

Perhaps bring a sweater? This really is not rocket science. It's called “working together.” Instead of trying to find fault in everything, people should try reason instead.

•The chief of staff for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) admitted what the true goal of the Green New Deal is, and it's not to defeat global warming.
Saikat Chakrabarti made the startling admission in a conversation reported in the Washington Post.

"The interesting thing about the Green New Deal," Chakrabarti said, "is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all."

Chakrabarti was speaking with Sam Ricketts, the climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?" Chakrabarti asked.

"Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-
economy thing," he concluded.

Government control of the entire economy is a feature of totalitarian communist nations, and critics of the Green New Deal have often lobbed that accusations against the plan.

Chakrabarti is also the source of the feud between Ocasio-Cortez and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) after he tweeted a criticism of moderate establishment Democrats and compared them to segregationists.

The Green New Deal was largely ridiculed after Ocasio-Cortez published a FAQ document on her website containing outlandish and extreme policies in support of the plan. The document was later deleted and Ocasio-Cortez blamed the embarrassing episode on an unidentified staffer.

Told ya!

•A study published in 2016 in Nature Climate Change proves that the earth has become considerably greener over the past decades.

For their study, the researchers led by Zaichun Zhu evaluated vegetation data recorded by three satellites between 1982 and 2009. The evaluation showed that since 1982, the plant world has become more luxuriant and thus greener on a large part of terrestrial land surfaces.

“The biggest greening trends can be seen in the southeast of North America, in the northern Amazon region, in Europe, Central Africa and Southeast Asia,” said Zhu and his colleagues.

“This greening, which we have observed, is comparable in scale to an additional green continent twice the size of the USA,” says Zhu.

Told ya!

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•How about that 4th of July parade and exhibition of appreciation for America’s armed forces? Did that not stir your pride in being American?
There’s nothing wrong with that.

•No straws? Sorry dude, but paper straws suck.

No pesticides? What will you do with all the pest-infested produce?

No fossil fuels? Why do you want to chain poor people to perennial poverty?
Stop the nonsense. Follow the science.

•To produce the electric power needed to offset what the left wants us to give up in fossil fuel energy, Canada would have to build 2.5 hydro-power dams the size of British Columbia’s $13-billion Site C project somewhere in the country “every year for the foreseeable future” leading up to the proposed 2050 carbon reduction targets. The geographic and cost obstacles send that prospect into the realm of the impossible.

Globally, the magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort takes us into the world of junk science fiction. In 2018, world consumption of fossil fuels rose to 11,865 million tons of oil equivalent. To get that down to near zero by 2050 would require a lot of alternative energy sources.

University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers.

“There are 11,161 days until 2050.” On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years. If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.

Canada and the world appear to be on track to ratchet up renewable energy and begin the rapid scale-down and ultimate phase-out of fossil fuels. Most energy analysts consider the fossil-fuel phase-out to be a scientific, economic and political fantasy, but the movement keeps making news.

Governments everywhere — from Canada to the United Kingdom to states in Australia — are declaring climate emergencies and committing to variations on zero emissions. The international organization promoting emergency declarations claims “a fast transition to zero emissions is possible.”

Canada’s Green Party, said to be gaining ground, has a new platform plan, headlined “Mission: Possible,” to eliminate fossil fuels by 2050. A proposed Green New Deal in America aims to eliminate fossil fuels from the U.S. power grid by 2030 and phase gasoline out of the transportation sector.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says Canada’s oil industry is on its way out: “It’s the direction the world is headed.” The newly announced Liberal and Conservative programs are leaning in the zero-carbon direction, although less explicitly.

The magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort takes us beyond the possible and into the world of junk science fiction.

So what are they talking about? Aside from massive amounts of government intervention — almost a total takeover of the economy — the practicality of it all looks a bit impossible, to put it mildly. The required technological and economic change could be a little overwhelming.

The general scale of the operation is hinted at by Climate Mobilization, an organization promoting climate emergency declarations: “Only WWII-scale Climate Mobilization can protect humanity and the natural world.”

In Canada, Vancouver energy consultant Aldyen Donnelly calculated that to achieve the “deep decarbonization” Canada is aiming for will require massive expansions of non-fossil fuel sources of energy.

To produce the electric power needed to offset the lost fossil fuel energy, Canada would have to build 2.5 hydropower dams the size of British Columbia’s $13-billion Site C project somewhere in the country “every year for the foreseeable future” leading up to the proposed 2050 carbon reduction targets. The geographic and cost obstacles send that prospect into the realm of the impossible.

On a global basis, the magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort illustrated in the graph takes us beyond the possible and into the world of junk science fiction. In 2018, world consumption of fossil fuels rose to 11,865 million tons of oil equivalent. To get that down to near zero by 2050 as proposed would require a lot of alternative energy sources.

University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. “There are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires…” building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years.

If not nuclear, then maybe solar?

According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.
So far, other tested technologies do not exist to offset the fossil fuel energy that would be lost under the green zero targets. Maybe this is a world war that should be stopped before it gets out of control?

That seems like wise advice.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•It was truly stunning last week to see 810 AM WHB's legendary drive-time sports talk host Kevin Kietzman agree to leave the station, and the company he helped found Union Broadcasting, over his controversial comments last Monday about the Chiefs' Andy Reid and his past handling of players with off-the-field troubles.

I believe most had expected a brief suspension and an apology would boil things over, but apparently the controversy, which went nationwide thanks to social media, had a chilling effect on the station's sponsors. That will certainly do it!

Like Kietzman or hate him, he had plenty in both camps, but no one can deny his effect in transforming KC sports talk radio from a small player to a major player in local media. It will be interesting to watch where he lands after the smoke clears.

•O.K., back to dispelling global warming nonsense. In case any of you still wonder why we in climate skeptic land laugh so heartily at the warmists rantings, read below…

“U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked


UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco- refugees,' threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt's arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

'Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what's worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn't have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?' he said.”

They were claiming the world would end in 10 years, THIRTY YEARS AGO! This is why we laugh at their claims of the world ending if we do not act NOW.

•Is it time to fire Ned Yost?

•I had to chuckle at this too…

A landmark piece of climate change legislation in Oregon that stalled after Republican senators fled to Idaho to avoid a roll call is likely dead, the top Democrat in the Oregon Senate said Tuesday.

But despite the Republicans' stunt, the Senate president said it was his own party that did not have the votes to pass the sweeping legislation. It appears Republicans hiding in the hills with police in hot pursuit are more
organized than Democrats who actually show up to work.

“What I'm about to say, I say of my own free will. No one has told me to say this,” said Democratic Oregon Senate President Peter Courtney, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting. “House Bill 2020 does not have the votes on the Senate floor. That will not change.”

Gov. Kate Brown, who last week ordered state police to track down missing Republicans, also conceded Tuesday that the legislation was dead, but she blamed Republicans for blocking a bill “that provides a better future for our state and for our children, and the tactics they employed to do so are not just unacceptable, but dangerous.”

Climate activists turned their backs on Courtney as he spoke on the Senate floor. Democrats who supported the law appeared frustrated and even “livid” with Courtney's declaration, OPB reported. They wouldn't even speak to reporters.

Apparently, just like when Democrats in the US Senate universally voted down Andrea Ocasio-Cowfart's New Green Deal, even Democrats know that they will be voted out of office if they increase taxes to blindly attack global warming.
Incidentally, remember when the media scolded Democrats in Wisconsin for doing the exact same thing that Republicans did in Oregon – run away and hide to avoid voting on legislation they opposed? No, neither did I, because they didn't scold Democrats. They praised them as heroes.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•Pink Floyd frontman (and the man behind one of the greatest guitar solos in rock history – Comfortably Numb) David Gilmour auctioned 120 instruments from his massive guitar collection for a $21 million windfall that he is (unfortunately) donating to fight global warming.

Christie’s auction house hosted the auction, the largest guitar sale the seller ever held.

Gilmour’s auction haul will be donated to liberal activist group ClientEarth, a non-profit organization dedicated to environmental law, according to NBC News. On its Facebook page, ClientEarth claims that it works to “combat climate change” and also to “defend habitats and wildlife.”

After the auction, David Gilmour took to his Twitter account to tell fans about his reasoning for the donation.

“We need a civilized world that goes on for all our grandchildren and beyond in which these guitars can be played, and songs can be sung,” Gilmour tweeted on Wednesday. “The global climate crisis is the greatest challenge that humanity will ever face, and we are within a few years of the effects of global warming being irreversible.”

“One of the 126 items sold at the auction was Gilmour’s “Black Strat” guitar, which he reportedly used to record “Dark Side of the Moon.” The item was expected to sell for around $150,000, but ended up selling for almost $4 million.”
So you see, you don’t have to be that smart to play guitar REALLY well!

•A global warming debate in New York recently resulted in the crowd flipping from pro-warmist to pro-skeptic.

The moderator announced after the debate concluded: "We have the final vote. The yes vote on the resolution that there is no evidence that's causing dangerous global warming: It began at 24% (of the skeptical yes vote supporting that position) and it went up to 46% (after the debate). So [skeptical argument] gained 22% points. That's the number to beat (46%).

The no resolution (warmist position) started at 29%. It went up to 41% or up 11 points." The winner of the debate is skeptical scientist Dr. Craig Idso with his resolution asserting that "There is little or no rigorous evidence that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous global warming and threatening life on the planet."

•Young Swedish teen climate messiah Greta Thunberg has a problem. She desperately wants to attend climate conferences in New York (September) and Santiago (December), but unlike most warmists she is serious about avoiding air travel.

How do you cross the Atlantic Ocean without flying?

Travelling by luxury transatlantic cruise liner is probably not the “down to earth” minimalist image she wants to project.

Some of her fans have suggested telecommuting, but if this was a solution surely all warmists would be telecommuting to climate conferences, instead of violating their sacred code with distasteful but ecologically necessary air travel.

Quite a dilemma!

•We’ve all seen those awful pictures of seagulls, turtles, and fish caught in the plastic rings that package beer and soda. We’ve also no doubt seen bartenders and wait staff painstakingly cutting the plastic rings (that go into the landfill since we don’t have any oceans nearby!).

But now several beer manufacturers are looking to biodegradable six-pack rings to prevent such gruesome wildlife deaths.

Pioneered by Saltwater Brewery in Delray Beach, Florida, the new packaging is made out of barley and wheat that can actually be eaten by fish, turtles, and whatever other animal finds it.

Peter Agardy, Head of Brand at Saltwater Brewery, said, “It’s a big investment for a small brewery created by fishermen, surfers and people that love the sea.”
“We hope to influence the big guys and hopefully inspire them to get on board,” added brewery President Chris Gove.

Well it turns out that the “big guys” may finally be catching on.

Recently, beer giant Corona announced that they are experimenting with trials of the revolutionary plastic-free packaging, specifically in Mexico first and then in the United Kingdom later this year.

Although Corona is primarily packaged in glass and fiberboard, the brand sees an opportunity to help redesign a common source of plastic in the category: six pack rings. The plastic-free rings being tested are made from plant-based biodegradable fibers, with a mix of by-product waste and compostable materials.

If left in the environment, they break down into organic material that is not harmful to wildlife, whereas the industry standard plastic six pack rings are made from a photodegradable form of polyethylene that results in increasingly smaller pieces of plastic if not recycled.

What remains to be seen is whether the new six-packs are cost-effective and withstand stress during deliveries. If Corona finds success, it may encourage other large beer or soda producers to follow suit.

So, the next time your spouse gets on your case for drinking too much beer, just say “Hey, I’m saving the turtles!”

I’m sure the bigger fish and eagles and hawks that eat the seagulls, turtles, and fish will appreciate the effort.

Reach The Landmark's Brian Kubicki via email to bfkubicki@gmail.com)



Christopher Monckton, a former advisor to UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, wrote an open letter to Pope Francis retorting to the Holy Father once again blaming mankind for climate changing. Some of the more entertaining excerpts are provided below.

“A few days ago, at yet another meeting about global warming, er, climate change, um, climate disruption, aargh, climate emergency at the elegant palace of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican gardens, Your Holiness saw fit to stray from the missio canonica of the successors of St Peter, which is to uphold the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

Your Holiness is reported as having told chief executives of oil companies and investment houses that inflicting heavy taxes on their corporate emissions of the satanic gas carbon dioxide was 'essential' to prevent dangerous 'global warming.' With respect, that was off message.

What is more, Your Holiness proclaimed that 'we have collectively failed to listen to the fruits of scientific analysis, and doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain.'”

Can we still laugh at them?

Monckton continues…

“Well, I have listened carefully, and I can inform Your Holiness that science is divided on the climate question. A small number of totalitarian profiteers of doom in various self-serving national academies have issued pompous statements about it, but a large number of papers from reputable scientists, and a larger amount of hard data, suggest that global warming is and will continue to be a non-event.

Consider the warming from 1850-2011. It was just 0.75 degrees, equivalent to 1 degree of warming in response to doubled CO2 concentration. That is less than a third of the 3.35 degrees that is the totalitarian scientists' grossly inflated
midrange prediction.

The totalitarians got the science wrong. They made a strikingly elementary error of physics. They forgot the Sun was shining. So they misallocated the feedback response to the Sun, erroneously counting it as part of the feedback response to greenhouse gases. Their predictions should be one-third of their current midrange estimates…”

Then, Monckton moves to the main attack…

“The same cannot be said of the insane policies currently being inflicted upon the world's blameless population by crazed Western extremists, now unwisely supported by Your Holiness.

Why has Your Holiness never spoken out in condemnation of the World Bank, which, from 2010 onward, refused and still refuses – citing global warming as their rationale – to lend to developing countries so that they can build coal-fired power stations? This dismal institution has decided that from this year it will not lend for oil or gas projects either, for the same reason.

And what is the effect of this wicked policy? Let me repeat the figures I gave recently here.

According to the International Energy Agency, 1.3 billion people – one in six worldwide – has no access to electrical power, even though the Agency defines 'access' as the ability to turn on no more than one 60-Watt lightbulb for an average of just four hours a day.

The WHO estimates that 4.3 million people die every year from particulate pollution in open cooking fires because they have no…electricity or gas, and that another 500,000 women die in childbirth each year because they have no electricity. These are just a small fraction of the tens of millions who die in developing countries each year because they can’t turn on a light.

In darkest sub-Saharan Africa, where there is hardly any electricity, life expectancy is about 65 years, compared with 80 years in the electrified West.

And it's no good telling third-world countries they should install solar panels and windfarms: the electricity produced by these boondoggles is up to five times costlier than proper electricity from coal-fired power stations.

They can't afford it (and nor, come to that, can we).

A few more scientific facts. First, sea level, the mother of all scares. The sea is not rising at a rate equivalent to 33 cm/century, as the totalitarians claim. It is rising at only 11 cm/century.

Floods?...According to the IPCC, neither the frequency nor the intensity of flooding has changed or will change as a result of global warming.

Droughts?...The most comprehensive survey ever conducted, just five years ago, showed that in the previous 35 years the percentage of global land area under drought had declined.

Food production? Output of all staple crops is increasing rapidly worldwide. Warmer weather is good for them, because they breathe in carbon dioxide. CO2 is not a satanic gas. It is plant food.

Forest fires? The acreages destroyed in forest fires have been declining worldwide for 30 years.

Deaths from extreme weather? Over the past 100 years, the number of weather-related deaths has plummeted worldwide…More people will live than will die if the world continues to warm, because warm weather is better than cold weather.”
Lord Monckton concludes:

“Given the egregious lack of evidence for harm caused by warmer weather, and the overwhelming evidence that current global-warming policies are killing tens of millions, I invite Your Holiness to speak up for the poor who are poor, and dying, because the policies Your Holiness imprudently advocates are not just scientifically unjustifiable, not just theologically off message. They are – not to put too fine a point on it – actually genocidal.”



•Amusing to hear that Pres. Trump mentioned that Prince Charles spent an hour and a half trying to convince him that climate change was an existential threat to the world. Trump told him that even if global warming is real it isn't America's fault.

Trump said he was scheduled to meet Charles for 15 minutes on Monday but the meeting overran with the prince doing most of the talking.

My favorite quote though is when President Trump was asked by Pierce Morgan if he believed in climate change, Trump replied, “I believe there's a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways. Don't forget, it used to be called global warming. That wasn't working. Then it was called climate change. Now it's actually called extreme weather, because with extreme weather you can't miss.”

He nailed it!

•Michael Shellenberger with Fortune wrote an excellent piece about the HBO miniseries about Chernobyl.

My fear about uber-liberal HBO taking this subject on was that they would make it a rip screed on nuclear power, and that appears to have been the case.
Shellenberger says it's obvious that the mini-series terrified millions of people about the technology.

Many thought the mini-series was, indeed, about nuclear power.

In one episode, three characters dramatically volunteer to sacrifice their lives to drain radioactive water, but no such event occurred.

“The three men were members of the plant staff with responsibility for that part of the power station and on shift at the time the operation began,” notes Adam Higginbotham, author of, Midnight in Chernobyl, a well-researched new history. “They simply received orders by telephone from the reactor shop manager to open the valves.”

Nor did radiation from the melted reactor contribute to the crash of a helicopter, as is strongly suggested in “Chernobyl.” There was a helicopter crash but it took place six months later and had nothing to do with radiation. One of the helicopter's blades hit a chain dangling from a construction crane.

The most egregious of “Chernobyl” sensationalism is the depiction of radiation as contagious, like a virus. The scientist-hero played by Emily Watson physically drags away the pregnant wife of a Chernobyl firefighter dying from Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS).

“Get out! Get out of here!” Watson screams, as though every second the woman is with her husband she is poisoning her baby.

But radiation is not contagious. Once someone has removed their clothes and been washed, as the firefighters were in real life, and in “Chernobyl,” the radioactivity is internalized and not contagious.

Why, then, do hospitals isolate radiation victims behind plastic screens? Because their immune systems have been weakened and they are at risk of being exposed to something they can't handle. In other words, the contamination threat is the opposite of that depicted in “Chernobyl.”

There is no good evidence that Chernobyl radiation killed a baby nor that it caused any increase in birth defects.

“We've now had a chance to observe all the children that have been born close to Chernobyl,” reported UCLA physician Robert Gale in 1987, and “none of them, at birth, at least, has had any detectable abnormalities.”

Radiation is not the superpotent toxin “Chernobyl” depicts. In episode one, high doses of radiation make workers bleed, and in episode two, a
nurse who merely touches a firefighter sees her hand turn bright red, as though burned. Neither thing occurred or is possible.

“Chernobyl” is as misleading for what it leaves out. It gives the impression that all Chernobyl first responders who suffered Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS) died. In reality, 80 percent of those with ARS survived.

There is a human cost to these misrepresentations. The notion that people exposed to radiation are contagious was used to terrify, stigmatize, and isolate people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, Chernobyl, and again in Fukushima.

Women in the areas that received low levels of radiation from Chernobyl terminated 100,000 to 200,000 pregnancies in a panic, and those who were exposed to Chernobyl radiation were four times more likely to report anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

In the end, HBO's “Chernobyl” gets nuclear wrong for the same reason humankind as a whole has been getting it wrong for over 60 years, which is that we've displaced our fears of nuclear weapons onto nuclear power plants.

As for our exaggerated fears of nuclear weapons, the last 74 years have been the most peaceful of the last 700. As the nuclear bomb has spread, deaths from wars and battles have declined by 95%.

If Hollywood ever decides to tell the true story of nuclear, and explain for viewers the paradoxical relationship between safety and danger, it won't need to resort to sensationalism. The truth is sensational enough.

To read more, go to https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong/#7e98257c632f



As we enter tick season, consider the following before you run over a possum in the road…

Opossums attract and then kill thousands of ticks per acre, per week, making them one of our best allies in stopping the spread of Lyme disease.

A study compared squirrels, mice and opossums, which all eat ticks, and found opossums were the most effective exterminators.

Opossums work as a tick magnet, attracting twice as much as other rodents, researchers from Syracuse University found.

The good part for us humans though is opossums are also the most effective at killing the disease-carrying pests.

Opossums kill almost every tick that occupies them, the study found. A single opossum kills over 5500 ticks per week.

“Opossums are extraordinarily good groomers it turns out – we never would have thought that ahead of time – but they kill the vast majority – more than 95% percent of the ticks that try to feed on them,” disease ecologist Rick Ostfeld explained.

“So these opossums are walking around the forest floor, hoovering up ticks right and left, killing over 90% of these things, and so they are really protecting our health.”

Worldwide, more than 1.3 million people die each year of infectious diseases transmitted by a vector, such as a mosquito, sand fly or tick, according to the World Health Organization.

Vector-borne diseases also inflict heavy tolls on crops, livestock and wildlife, the study's authors wrote.

•As springtime flooding and tornadoes take center-stage in the river valleys, like clockwork, the clown car of 2020 Democrats are all blaming the typical disasters on man-made climate change.

Democrat Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has taken her climate change message to Iowa, saying “those who deny climate change” are putting Americans at risk of being harmed by supercharged extreme weather.

Warren also was called the “White Racheal Dolezal” last week when she appeared on "The Breakfast Club" radio show where the host likened the Democratic presidential candidate to Rachel Dolezal, a woman who was born white but pretended to be black.

Anyway, Warren said, “The consequences of climate change are severe, and they are already affecting places like Burlington, Iowa. We have a moral responsibility to act—now.”

Warren's remarks come after a meteorologist fact-checked Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (A.K.A. Alexandria Ocasio-Cowfarts) in her attempt to link tornadoes to man-made climate change. We talked about that last week.

So, are Inslee and Warren correct? Is there a strong link between tornadoes, floods, and climate change?

The Daily Caller News Foundation examined the last two National Climate Assessments reports (NCAs), released in 2017 and 2018.

The NCAs may have some problems, including reliance on unlikely extreme warming scenarios, but the report is generally regarded as “consensus” science about climate change's effects on the U.S.

The 2018 NCA says that “scientific understanding is not yet detailed enough to confidently project the direction and magnitude of future change” in tornadoes and severe thunderstorms.

The 2017 NCA report went into more detail, noting a decrease in the number of days with tornadoes since the 1970s, but “an increase in the number of tornadoes that form on such days.”

“One important implication is that the frequency of days with large numbers of tornadoes — tornado outbreaks — appears to be increasing,” reads the 2017 NCA.

And that's apparent in reports of EF-0 tornadoes, the lowest level on the Enhanced Fujita scale that measures tornado damage.

An EF-0 tornado measures between 65 to 85 miles per hour and does light amounts of damage, like breaking off tree branches.

But there's a problem with historic tornado data, experts say. Tornadoes, unlike other events, are confirmed by eyewitness accounts, meaning we're more likely to see them today than in the past.

Likewise, even if a tornado is not observed, meteorologists can survey damaged areas to determine whether or not a tornado indeed touched down.

Add in population growth, technology changes and better storm knowledge, and you've got a massive observation bias.

However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tried to get around this problem by counting EF-1 and higher storms that would be harder for people to miscount.

When doing that, NOAA found “there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.” In fact, NOAA reports a decreasing trend for the most violent tornadoes, EF-3 and higher.

Climate activists and some media outlets made similar claims when historic floods hit the Midwest in March. However, linking climate change to river flooding doesn't seem to be supported by the NCAs.

So there you go.

(Brian Kubicki can be reached at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•“Eco-anxiety” is apparently a thing today.

Young people are not saving for retirement, and not because they can’t afford to, but because they don’t expect it to matter because of global warming.

Almost 90% of millennials accept that climate change is happening, and 69% say it will impact them in their lifetimes. Ensnared by a constant barrage of depressing news stories in the mainstream media, many young people are skeptical about saving for an uncertain future.

Millennials are also said to suffer from “eco-anxiety,” according to a 2018 report from the American Psychological Association, with 72% saying their emotional well-being is affected by their perceived inevitability of climate change.

Meanwhile, two-thirds of millennials have nothing saved for retirement. While most millennials say they are not saving because they simply can’t afford to, for others it’s about the feeling that they may not have a future to save for.

From the chaos of World War II to the draft for the Vietnam War and the looming threat of nuclear conflict during the Cold War, every generation has its own source of doubt about the future, but millennials seem to be taking the concerns with massive urgency.

An even bigger problem is that a larger number of millennials have chosen not to have children and have done so due to climate concerns, according to a 2018 report by the New York Times.

The truth though is many millennials can’t afford to save anything.

Most non-saving millennials say financial constraints are the top reason. The average student-loan debt is nearly $40,000.

Erin Lowry, author of “Broke Millennial Takes On Investing,” recommends preparing for retirement no matter what you believe will happen, referencing the Y2K phenomenon, when some people sold their belongings and made other rash choices in the belief that the world would end with the dawn of the year 2000.

“Even if you have a defeatist mind-set about the future of the planet, it’s better to prepare as though you, and the planet, will survive into your retirement years because the alternative is also bleak,” she said. “Failing to properly plan for a future means guaranteeing yourself a more difficult life.”

•Another recent United Nations report that predicted mass species extinction got destroyed last Wednesday at a Democrat-led House subcommittee hearing by Republican-called witnesses blasting the claims as “highly exaggerated” and “authoritative propaganda.”

The executive summary released May 6 by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services concluded that “transformative change” was needed to save as many as 1 million species at risk of extinction.

“The evidence is unequivocal. Biodiversity, which is important in its own right and essential for human well-being, is being destroyed by human activities at a rate unprecedented in human history,” Robert Watson, former chairman of IPBES, told the Natural Resources subcommittee on water, oceans and wildlife.

Rep. Jared Huffman, the California Democrat who chairs the subcommittee, said Earth is “currently in what they call the sixth mass extinction, and species are disappearing 100 times faster than historic rates, mostly because of things that we are doing.”

Enter Patrick Moore, a former Greenpeace leader, who argued that there was “zero evidence that any such event is occurring now or has even begun to occur.”

“As with the manufactured ‘climate crisis,’ they are using the specter of mass extinction as a fear tactic to scare the public into compliance,” Moore said in his prepared remarks.

Republicans at the hearing revealed that Democrats heading the committee based their extinction claims on a document that nobody had read.

The report was prepared by 145 authors over three years, but the full document remains classified and has yet to be released.

“Right now, I feel like I’m part of a book club, and we’re going to give opinions on the book, except we’re all making it up because no one has actually read the book,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, Utah Republican. “If you’d actually waited until the report was released and people could look at it, maybe there would be a point at that point that this could be a legitimate hearing.”

The “extinction crisis” claim met with skepticism from Rep. Tom McClintock, California Republican, who ticked off previous apocalyptic extinction predictions, including a 1970 warning by a Smithsonian official that 75% to 80% of all animals would be extinct by 1995.

He also challenged the report’s claim of an estimated 8 million animal and plant species, including insects, noting that the International Union for Conservation of Nature has cataloged only 1.8 million.

“You cannot call yourself a scientist if you pretend that there are 6.2 million species that have no names and have never been identified,” said Mr. Moore.

"That is not science. That is fiction. Fairy tale stories. And that’s what we’re being told here.”



•The liberal U.K. Guardian newspaper has recently decided to change the name 'global warming' because apparently it doesn't sound scary enough.

From now on, the Guardian's editor-in-chief has ordered, 'global warming' is to be called 'global heating.'

This, apparently, will more closely reflect the “scale of the climate and wildlife crises” now afflicting Planet Earth.

The use of the names 'climate science denier' or 'climate denier' for 'climate sceptic' makes a nonsense of the paper's that the Guardian is trying to be more 'scientifically precise and rooted in facts.'

For a start, it presupposes that 'climate science' is a field with a fixed view of how climate works – which simply isn't true. There are lots of competing theories on what it is that drives climate. While climate alarmists insist that recent warming is primarily man-made and driven by anthropogenic CO2, many other respected scientists believe it is due to a combination of factors, ranging from solar activity to cycles in the deep ocean.

There is, in essence, no such thing is a 'climate science denier' because not even the most ardent sceptic denies the existence of 'climate science.'

Even more problematic is that use of the word 'denier,' which implicitly invokes the Holocaust – and in doing so, weirdly and irresponsibly puts 'being skeptical about anthropogenic global warming' in the same category as 'denying that Hitler murdered six million Jews.'

In recent years, climate alarmists have tried to backtrack on the origins of the 'denier' slur by pretending that they never intended to invoke Holocaust denial.

But here is Guardian environment journalist George Monbiot writing in 2006:
Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.

Perhaps the Guardian editors should pay more attention to the great Thomas Sowell on this subject:

“The next time someone talks about 'climate change deniers,' ask them to name one — and tell you just where specifically you can find their words, declaring that climates do not change. You can bet the rent money that they cannot tell you.

Why all this talk about these mythical creatures called 'climate change deniers?' Because there are some meteorologists and other scientists who refuse to join the stampede toward drastic economic changes to prevent what others say will be catastrophic levels of 'global warming.'

There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crusade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one.”

Sowell's point is spot-on – and he drives a stake through the heart of the climate alarmist new lexicon for its climate change reporting.

The Guardian is tacitly admitting that this is not an argument it is capable of winning on the science or indeed the facts. Therefore, it has decided to ramp up the rhetoric instead.

This is not journalism. This is propaganda.

•Our favorite nutbag House Representative Andrea Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat from New York, now says that she was just joking when she said the world was going to end in 12 years. She even went so far as to insult the people that took her at her word.

In a Twitter message last week, she said, “This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and 'fact check' it. Like the 'world ending in 12 years' thing, you'd have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it's literal. But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows.”

This was her original Twitter message on the subject, “…on millennials and social media: 'We're, like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change…'

So folks, you heard it from the Millennial Albert Einstein yourselves, don't listen to her dire warnings about why we have to let government take over our lives and property, because she's only using “dry humor + sarcasm” and we have to be as dumb as sea life if we were to actually believe the words coming out of her mouth.

(Reach The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki by email to bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•With all the idiotic nonsense spewed by Rep. Andrea Ocasio-Cortez – beyond her ignorance that plants “magically” springing out of the ground in her rooftop garden are in reality doing so in no small part to the carbon dioxide she and her fellow humans belch out daily – about how we only have 12 more years left before the planet ceases to support humans, you might wonder if she really believes this nonsense why she wouldn't be advocating doing nothing about “global warming” because in just 12 short years, man will become extinct anyway and the Earth can get back to thriving?

I'm not sure these enviro-nuts have thought this thing all the way through!

•Kevin Williamson at National Review penned a superb piece at National Review titled, “The Case for Being Born.”

He points to figures such as: ”…Ocasio-Cortez, who has suggested that having children may be immoral. Utilizing the familiar 'Science says!' rhetorical formulation, Travis Rieder of the Berman Institute of Bioethics insisted that people should forgo having children because of the impact those children might have on climate change. 'Science proves kids are bad for Earth,' NBC headlined the essay, 'Morality suggests we stop having them.' Writing in the New York Times under the headline 'Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?' Clemson philosophy professor Todd May concludes that the disappearance of Homo sapiens 'might just be a good thing.' The cultivated folksiness of the expression adds a special horror to the display of moral illiteracy…”

Unless . . .

Various prominent environmentalists, from Johns Hopkins University bioethicist Travis Rieder to bow-tie-wearing nutbag entertainer Bill Nye, support the introduction of special taxes or other state-imposed penalties for having 'too many' children. In 2015, Bowdoin College's Sarah Conly published a book advocating a 'one-child' policy, like the one China abandoned. Even after that policy's collapse, she maintains it was 'a good thing.'

Socialists – and communists - forget that if you stop having children, you will eventually not have enough workers to pay all the taxes they need to run all the social programs they want government to enact.

They don't seem to think things through completely!

•From radical feminists to radical environmentalists, the word from the political Left has come down: Children are not the future, but the future's enemies.
“…The Left's war on children is by no means restricted to the project of maximizing the scope of opportunity to [eliminate them] prior to birth, preferably at public expense. From radical feminists to radical environmentalists to academics and such mainstream figures such as Bill Nye, the word has come down: Children are not the future, but the future's enemies…”

An interesting fact about our political discourse is that Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich is still a part of it, commanding some attention in spite of his having been spectacularly wrong about every single major claim of his long public career. Erhlich has been delivering homilies on overpopulation since before I was born. Population Bomb, published in 1968, garnered a great deal of attention (and brisk sales!) for its claims that overpopulation made it inevitable that hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation in the 1970s. He was awfully sure of himself, as progressives so often are — “science says!” and all that — writing: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date, nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”
Of course, he was spectacularly wrong.

What happened, of course, was the opposite. Extreme poverty worldwide has been reduced by more than half in the past few decades; to the extent that famine exists at all in the world today, it exists almost exclusively as a political phenomenon, the product of failed states rather than failed crops.

But the cult that proclaims overpopulation takes no notice of the facts. Never mind, for the moment, the fact that there are many American families looking to adopt children, so much so that they go all over the world looking for children to adopt.

“…One of the fundamental differences in our public life is between those who see human beings as liabilities — as mouths to be fed and souls to be policed — and those of us who see human beings as assets. The economist Julian Simon ran the numbers and made the case for human beings as assets. His 'Simon Abundance Index' measures the availability of resources relative to population and finds that with more people there are more resources. The Malthusians always forget to count the most dynamic and productive of all human resources: humanity.”
Children are our future; they are not our Armageddon!

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Los Angeles' roads will be devoid of internal combustion engine-run care within decades, according to a green reform package unveiled by mayor Eric Garcetti last week.

Speaking a week after New York City mayor Bill de Blasio announced his own climate legislation, Garcetti presented plans to radically alter local car culture and “green” the city's buildings.

The legislation calls on the city to hike its percentage of zero emission vehicles from 1.4% in 2018 to 25% by 2025, 80% by 2035 and 100% by 2050. To do this, the City Town Hall intends to raise its number of publicly available electric-vehicle chargers from 2,100 to 28,000.

Let's think about that for a minute…

Steve Milloy at @JunkScience made a wise observation last week upon hearing this news.

“…Los Angeles has 6.5 MILLION cars.

They plan to replace 25% of those with electric cars, to be re-charged by 28,000 public charging stations.

It takes 8 hours to fully charge an electric car.

That's 60 cars per station.

How does this work?

These people are nuts…

Mayor Garcetti proposes to launch a regional advocacy campaign in 2021 to encourage car-sharing and inspire residents to walk as much as possible by making pathways safer and promoting pedestrian-friendly design. The plan also calls to expand subway and light-rail, a year after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority gave the go ahead to a line snaking through the East Valley. By 2028, every resident ought to be able to access “high-quality mobility options within a 10-minute walk from home.” All buses will be electric by 2030, the plan claims.
Garcetti said he was aware that the plan was bound to face opposition, quipping that Angelinos “like the way they suffer in their single-passenger, stuck-in-traffic, gas-guzzling cars.”

The mayor also pledged to equip the entire building stock with zero-emission technologies by 2050, achieving carbon neutrality by 2030.

The package, which Garcetti calls LA's Green New Deal, also takes aim at social inequality the plan. Committing to create 300,000 “green” jobs by 2035, and 400,000 “green” jobs by 2050.

The City Town Hall claimed it would attract $750 million of private investment by 2025, and $2 billion by 2030.

Popularized by congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the term Green New Deal is attempting to leech into American politics.

But climate activists from the Sunrise Movement Los Angeles said that the “plan for net-zero emissions by 2050” was “not a Green New Deal.”

Uh-oh…dissention in the ranks!

“By the year 2030, we will reach a “point of no return,” wherein planetary feedback loops driven by carbon emissions will propel beyond our control,” the group wrote on Monday. “Our city is on the brink of destruction, and it seems as if no one is listening. Our generation's future, as well as the future of Los Angeles and of the world, depends on us reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. This is not a goal?– it is a deadline.”

The plan meant that Los Angeles was “on track to be twenty years too late,” the nutbag group said.

Instead, the group urged Garcetti to “stay true” to the Green New Deal resolution submitted by council member Nury Martinez in April, which urges the city to “create a Green New Deal that mirrors the principles and priorities of the national resolution.” (See @ClimateHome for more)

•The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee published a poll on Twitter asking users if they would prefer more Supreme Court justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or like Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh received overwhelming support, marking an almost 70-30 split in favor of President Trump's second pick for the highest court. The tweet has since been deleted.

The poll was posted Friday afternoon and, as of reporting, had just shy of 160,000 votes with two days remaining before the poll closes. While the DSCC, one of the only organizations whose sole goal is electing Democrats to the Senate, has yet to comment on the state of the poll, the group posted a tweet Saturday evening claiming "progress" was being erased by Trump's picks for the judiciary, proclaiming the importance of Democrats gaining control of the Senate.

The poll caught the attention of media members and even Republican politicians, including Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, who tweeted a screenshot of the poll after voting, showing the vast gap between votes for Ginsburg and Kavanaugh followed with just "#SundayMotivation."

Donald Trump Jr. also chimed in.

Outside of users mocking the DSCC for the poll gone awry, users also showed support for Judge Amy Barrett who is believed to be on Trump's shortlist for another SCOTUS opening if a seat is vacated during Trump's presidency. A report in March said Trump had actually chosen not to nominate Barrett when he nominated Kavanaugh, because he was "saving" her in the eventuality that Ginsburg's seat became available.

By the way, why are there no recent photos of Ruth Bader Ginsburg out there?

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



Now the enviro-loons have REALLY lost it!

When a loved one dies, you now have another option for final disposition; "natural organic reduction," also known as human composting, which was just signed into law in Washington state.

The technique accelerates the decomposition process, turning bodies into soil within 4 to 7 weeks. The practice “boasts” a smaller carbon footprint than cremation or burial, supporters say.

"With cremation, you have the burning of fossil fuels and emission of carbon and mercury particulates into the atmosphere. With conventional burial, there is quite a carbon footprint from the manufacturer and transport of caskets, grave liners, and then the upkeep of cemeteries," supporters say. Re-composition uses about an eighth of the energy of cremation, and also has a significant carbon reduction thanks in part from the sequestration that happens of the materials during the process," she said, referring to the sequestration of the body's carbon underground.

Once a body is "composted" through this process, the end product is about a cubic yard (0.76 cubic meters) of soil, or about enough to fill two large wheelbarrows, the AP reported. Just like cremated remains, friends and family can choose to keep the soil in urns, repurpose it in a garden, or spread it on public land, as long as they comply with local laws.

Or flush it down the toilet!

Seems to me that we already have this form of “re-composition.” It’s called burial. You don’t have to be lined in concrete and can be buried in a pine box or even a plywood box or cardboard, or you can just be wrapped in a blanket and rolled into a 6 ft deep hole in the ground!

The stupidity on the Left never ends!

•If you think you’re saving the environment by driving a Tesla, you likely emit less carbon if you drove a diesel car.

The findings of a new study by a group of German scientists seem counterintuitive at first. They found that electric vehicles in their home country accounted for more emissions than those “smoggy” diesels.

Until, that is, you realize that “zero emissions” vehicles aren’t really so zero emissions.

“When CO2 emissions linked to the production of batteries and the German energy mix — in which coal still plays an important role — are taken into consideration, electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts, according to the study, presented on Wednesday in Munich,” the Brussels Times reported.

“Mining and processing the lithium, cobalt and manganese used for batteries consume a great deal of energy,” the report said. “A Tesla Model 3 battery, for example, represents between 11 and 15 tons of CO2.

“Given a lifetime of 10 years and an annual travel distance of 15,000 kilometers, this translates into 73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometer, scientists Christoph Buchal, Hans-Dieter Karl and Hans-Werner Sinn noted in their study.”

When you factor in the energy needed to charge the batteries, this ups that total to 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometer.

This is not the only study that’s questioned whether electric cars are really as environmentally friendly as their proponents claim.

A 2017 study by researchers at the University of Michigan found that the amount of CO2 emitted by electric cars varied wildly by country, but it certainly
wasn’t zero.

“The report — authored by Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle — notes that an electric car recharged by a coal-fired plant produces as much CO2 as a gasoline-powered car that gets 29 miles per gallon,” Investor’s Business Daily reported. “(For context, the average mpg of all the cars, SUVs, vans and light trucks sold in the U.S. over the past year is 25.2 mpg.) A plug-in recharged by a natural gas-powered plant is like driving a car that gets 58 miles per gallon.

“Solar, wind and geothermal do far better on this score, but they generate a small portion of the nation’s electricity. More than 64% of electricity is generated by coal, natural gas or other fossil fuels.

In China, which has been pushing widespread adoption of electric vehicles, the cars put out as much CO2 as a car that gets 40 miles per gallon.

“And even this exaggerates the environmental benefits of electric cars because the report doesn’t take into account the additional CO2 emissions involved in making batteries,” the IBD report said.

“A separate study from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that, depending on the type of plug-in being built, manufacturing a battery-powered car generates anywhere from 15% to 68% more CO2 emissions than a conventional gas-powered car,” the report said. “The reason is that producing the batteries is incredibly energy intensive.”

The idea that these vehicles have “zero emissions” might be one of the biggest scams of the 21st century, particularly given how expensive renewable energy currently is.


(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



Saw a piece last week that compared the Climate Change movement to a religious cult.

Rick Ross, an expert on cults and intervention specialist, developed a list of ten warning signs for unsafe groups, which is published by the Cult Education Institute.
Some highlights:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while demanding everyone else do without. Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

The conclusions of the Climate Change movement may not be challenged or questioned under any circumstances. Those who dare scrutinize the conclusions, methodology, or prescriptions of “climate scientists” are categorically dismissed as a “Climate Denier,” an excommunicated untouchable whose opinion is no longer valid on any subject.

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

Hardly anyone knows just how much money is spent on “Climate research” every year. The cost is spread out among laughably useless study grants, wind and solar farm subsidies, carbon offset credits, “green” building code evaluation and enforcement, salaries for bureaucrats solely dedicated to “climate concerns.” It's a lot of secretive spending.

The abhorrent practice of “sue and settle” was a flat-out money laundering scheme that allowed sympathetic government officials to transfer millions of tax dollars to radical leftist environmental groups. The practice only ended when the Trump administration used executive power to clamp down on it.

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions. “The world will end in X years if we don't do X” is the constant refrain. The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave the movement, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

Climate alarmists who leave, step back from, or even lightly criticize the movement are immediately subjected to vicious smear campaigns. Dutch professor Richard Tol experienced this phenomenon firsthand when he removed his name from an IPCC climate report and criticized the reports excessively apocalyptic predictions.
The smear campaign was led by Bob Ward, director of policy at the London School of Economics' Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change “This has all the characteristics of a smear campaign,” Tol said. “It's all about taking away my credibility as an expert.”

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

Professor Tol is not an anomaly. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, and countless other former IPCC in-crowd climate experts were subjected to smear campaigns from their colleagues and the news media for the crime of throwing cold water on the outlandish predictions of the Climate Change movement.

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

The abuses of the Climate Change movement are loud and proud. They vociferously attack their perceived enemies for public consumption and are cheered on by fellow travelers in the journalism class. Most recently they brainwashed a bunch of kids and marched them into Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein's office to beg not to be murdered by a 'No' vote on the New Green Deal.

These tantrums and protests are a form of intimidation, a tactic used to silence those who question the gospel.

8. Followers feel they can never be “good enough.” The atonement process for Climate warriors always demands more. It started with using a recycling bin and grocery bags. Now, in 2019, being a good follower means imposing veganism on the masses and issuing fatwahs against innocuous objects such as plastic straws and grocery bags. Despite all the efforts of the faithful, Climate minions maintain a constant state of dread and despair, knowing they can never truly do enough to stop the coming doom.

9. The group/leader is always right.

When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.

Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change.

Tornado? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.

If a skeptic points out the window during a blizzard, the climate cult followers will cry “Weather isn't climate!” It's a game they can never lose, one in which they are never wrong and always right.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•They are now claiming that we allergy sufferers need to blame global warming.
Between 1995 and 2011, fewer freeze-free days meant 11 to 27 days added to pollen season for most of the United States. The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, which does an annual survey of allergy season, noticed that it's been growing each year.

With warmer temperatures, parts of the country are going to get even worse for allergies because ragweed will start migrating north. New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine will probably see a lot more pollen in the future.

"Warmer temperatures allow the trees to pollinate earlier and for longer times," said Angel Waldron, the director of communications for the allergy foundation. "We didn't used to see our cars covered in pollen before March, but we do now, and we hear from people all the time who are dealing with allergies for a lot longer than they used to when they were little. That's definitely connected to climate change."

They say that it's not just the warmer temperatures adding to our misery. Plants love carbon dioxide, and when there is more of it in the atmosphere due to the greenhouse gases causing climate change, they flourish. Studies on ragweed show that the amount of pollen the plant produces actually doubles with higher levels of CO2. The pollen becomes more potent too, according to the US Department of Agriculture. There are similar patterns for grass pollen and other plants.

Spend as little time as possible outside between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., especially on days when the EPA's Air Quality Index says the pollen count is high in your area.
To keep from tracking pollen inside, leave your shoes at the door. Change
your clothes if you've been outside for a long time. Wash or brush pets who have to go out.

As far as pollen, vacuum cleaners with HEPA filters are helpful. Standalone HEPA filters improve indoor air, too. Be sure to look for the asthma & allergy friendly certification mark to make sure they will be your best defense against the yellow stuff.

Take heart, winter is only eight months away.


•The United States approved nearly 40 percent more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands in 2018 than it did the previous year thanks to an automated online system introduced in the waning days of the Obama administration, helping reduce a big backlog of applications.

President Trump has made it a priority to speed permitting and reduce regulation as a way to boost production of oil, gas and coal from public lands - an agenda that has pleased the energy and mining industries but outraged environmentalists concerned about pollution and climate change.

The Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management approved 3,991 drilling permits in fiscal 2018, up from 2,887 in 2017, the agency said, an increase of 38 percent. The average time to process an application to drill with BLM was cut nearly in half to 63 days from 120 days in 2017.

A BLM spokesman, Derrick Henry, attributed the permit approval increase in 2018 to “using increased automation and flexible staffing to make decisions more quickly.”

The numbers were first revealed by Brian Steed, deputy director for policy and programs at BLM, in Congressional testimony earlier this month. BLM said the figures were not yet finalized and could still change.

BLM in 2017 set a goal of eliminating its backlog of permit applications that have been pending for three or more years by October of this year, and in the first nine months of 2018 slashed it by 47 percent from 551 to 288, according to a BLM document reviewed by Reuters.

Under the Obama administration, BLM undertook a major effort to improve its system for processing permits to address long delays and inefficiency. In 2016 it shifted to all electronic filing. Permit approval times were around 200 days prior to the introduction of the new system, according to BLM data.

The Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas industry trade group, said speedier permit approvals were due to both increased automation and a more supportive administration.

“The improvements in automation were started under President Obama, but having an administration which wants to move forward is even more important,” said Kathleen Sgamma, WEA's president.

Environmentalists say the increased speed has come at the expense of allowing the public to provide input on the drilling applications, which are posted publicly on the permitting web site for 30 days and then removed.

“BLM is cutting corners on environmental reviews of drilling permits by shutting out the public from commenting on those reviews,” said Kelly Fuller, energy and mining campaigns director for Western Watersheds Project.

The group argues that the 30-day posting falls short of the BLM's obligation to seek public input under federal environmental law.


(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•I saw this on the truly wonderful website, Watts Up With That? which is the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

Scientists who are predicting the Sun’s activity for the next 11-year solar cycle say that it’s likely to be weak, much like the current one. The current solar cycle, Cycle 24, is declining and predicted to reach solar minimum – the period when the sun is least active – late in 2019 or 2020.

That means unusually cold weather!

Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel experts said Solar Cycle 25 may have a slow start, but is anticipated to peak with solar maximum occurring between 2023 and 2026, and a sunspot range of 95 to 130. This is well below the average number of sunspots, which typically ranges from 140 to 220 sunspots per solar cycle.

What does that mean?

The solar cycle prediction gives a rough idea of the frequency of space weather storms of all types, from radio blackouts to geomagnetic storms and solar radiation storms. It is used by many industries to gauge the potential impact of space weather in the coming years. Space weather can affect power grids, critical military, airline, and shipping communications, satellites and Global Positioning System (GPS) signals.

Solar Cycle 24 reached its maximum – the period when the sun is most active – in April 2014 with a peak average of 82 sunspots. The Sun’s Northern Hemisphere led the sunspot cycle, peaking over two years ahead of the Southern Hemisphere sunspot peak.

•The year 2020 is shaping up to be one of madness when it comes to the climate change debate. Several huge milestones are in the cards and these cards are on the table.

One is the US Presidential election, where the entire world wants to see if President Trump can pull off another miracle. The official date for the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is the day after the election, so that too may hang in the balance.

Under the Paris Agreement pretty much all of the countries in the world are supposed to raise the level of ambition in their national climate action plans. Note that for the developing countries these action plans are contingent on getting the $100 billion a year, thus there is a close connection.

So if Trump wins and the big bucks don’t show the whole house of green cards just might collapse. This is going to make for a very tense (and loud) year on the climate change front.

•Things are already heating up here in 2019. Topping the list is the truly extreme Green New Deal proposal. If a Green New Dealer gets the nomination it will also be a huge election issue, maybe even the deciding one.

Democrats running the U.S. House have promised to introduce a never ending series of separate and distinct climate activist bills. The goal of this piecework strategy is to make climate change a big 2020 election issue, no matter who their candidate is.

On the UN side, the Secretary General Antonio Guterres is hosting a special September meeting of national governments, specifically designed to elicit increased ambitions in their new 2020 climate action plans. It is billed as the “plans not speeches” meeting.

Unlike the usual UN talk-vomit, in this case the proposals to speak are apparently being screened for punch. The Secretary General’s invitation is reported as including this unusually tough talk:

“This summit will be action-oriented. The deliverables and initiatives that will be showcased need to be implementable, scalable and replicable and have the potential to get us in line with the commitments of the Paris Agreement.”

In a parallel article in Britain’s ever-green Guardian newspaper, Guterres says: “I am calling on all leaders to come to New York in September with concrete, realistic plans to enhance their nationally determined contributions by 2020.”

Ominously, there is also a special track on the “mobilization of youth.”

At this point it is far from clear that any major country is prepared to up their ambition, which might make the meeting a bust. The US is certainly out, even though the meeting is at UN HQ in New York. A lot of the green majors are facing the rapid emergence of skeptical conservative opposition parties, so they are running scared. Germany is a good example. Some, like Brazil, have even been taken over by skeptics, in Trump-like fashion.

So all things considered, 2020 may be the year of the climate crescendo. The volume is certainly picking up here in 2019. Why not, given that in some ways the world order is on the line. It is certainly about time we had a serious debate over climate change policy.

Let the big fight begin.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



In case you were wondering, the world is never going to be powered largely by wind and solar power.

U.S. coal exports reached their third-highest annual level in 2018, 116 million short tons, which is third compared to the 126 million short tons exported in 2012 and the 118 million short tons exported in 2013. This is according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which estimates the increase in U.S. coal exports in 2018 to be 19 million short tons, a 19 percent increase. That number followed a massive 61 percent increase in 2017. While the U.S. is consuming less coal due mainly to competition from low natural gas prices in the generating sector, other countries, particularly in Asia, are increasing their use of coal as they move toward increased electrification and economic growth. In fact, coal's share of the global electricity market in 2017 is the same as two decades ago, 38 percent, the largest share of any fuel. And, according to the EIA, countries in Asia and Africa are expected to increase their use of coal in power generation through 2040.

The Asian Pacific region has the world's largest coal reserves, mainly in Australia, China and India, and China and India account for most of the growth in coal use. According to BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, China generated 67 percent of its electricity from coal in 2017, compared to 31 percent for the U.S. China's coal production increased by 3.3 percent in 2017 to over 3.5 billion metric tons, which is 5 times greater than that of the United States. China consumes just over half of the coal used worldwide.

In India, the government is working on its goal of universal household electrification through the opening of 52 new coal mines since the current Modi government came to power in May 2014. Nearly 20,000 villages in
India and 24.8 million families have received power connections as a result. The 52 new coal mines reflect an 86 percent increase over the 28 mines it added in the five-year period between 2009 and 2014. The new mines added 164 million metric tons to India's annual coal production capacity, increasing capacity by 113 percent over 2009 to 2014 additions. India generates 57 percent of its electricity from coal.

Vietnam plans a fivefold increase in its coal capacity through 2035, according to the Clean Coal Centre, a division of the International Energy Agency.
Bangladesh plans to use coal to generate 50 percent of the country's power by 2030—an increase from 2 percent today. Like many countries in the region, it is funding its expansion with loans and technological help from China and Japan. A coal plant being built on Matarbari Island in Bangladesh will cost about $4 billion, with most of its financing coming from the Japan International Cooperation Agency.

The Third World is digging themselves out of grinding poverty!

•Despite some developed countries cutting back on coal due to pressure from enviro-whacko groups, a deal was signed to develop two new 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power plants near Kurri Kurri in the New South Wales Hunter region of Australia. The investment company Kaisun Holdings announced it had signed a memorandum of understanding with a Chinese state-owned power provider and a tiny Australian private company to build the two 1,000-megawatt power stations. The estimated cost for the two units is between $4 and $5 billion. Australia has been suffering from rapid deployment of inefficient and expensive wind and solar energy which has rendered its grid unstable, creating a need for baseload generation to back-up those systems.

Africa, too, is looking to electrify by using coal. In Nigeria, Africa's biggest economy, about 54 percent of the country's 190 million citizens lack access to electricity. Nigeria currently generates its power with hydroelectricity and natural gas, but frequent vandalism of gas pipelines causes power shortages. The government wants to eliminate the power shortages that currently hamper commerce and force many Nigerian businesses to run diesel-fueled backup generators.

By 2030, Nigeria plans to add 30 gigawatts of power, of which about 30 percent will be produced by renewable sources and about 3 percent will be from coal. There are about 2 billion tons of coal in Nigeria, according to estimates, and using it for power generation could be a boon to its economy. The project will cost about $3.5 billion a year; however, the World Bank will only help fund the renewable portions of the project. The World Bank has decided to not fund coal generation, under pressure from some of its members and non-governmental pressure groups.

Despite commitments to the nonsensical Paris climate agreement, countries are still planning to use coal to electrify their communities and to ensure economic growth. While industrialized nations are fooling themselves into believing their reduced carbon dioxide emissions will curb global climate change, developing nations are enjoying increased economic growth from using the world's abundant coal to generate electricity.

Burn baby, burn!

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•The mainstream media can finally stop speculating that the Trump Campaign colluded with Russians to win the presidency and that he obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report has been sent to the Attorney General and has concluded that there was no collusion and that there was no evidence to prosecute Trump for obstructing justice.

It is over. But look for the Democrats and the mainstream media to backtrack faster than a cat trying to cover up doo-doo on concrete!

•When Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first introduced her radical environmentalist Green New Deal that would essentially upend the U.S. economy, there were a number of proposals – I would argue all of them – that are impossible to achieve.

One of those was eliminating virtually all air travel in favor of high-speed rail, an exorbitantly costly move that would limit the ability of individuals and goods to be transported around the country in a timely manner.

Also, remember that Ocasio-Cortez still travels by air regardless of these “goals.” Surprisingly hypocritical to see her last week at New York City's La Guardia airport speaking with airport officials about things they could do to address climate change concerns.

Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, “Meanwhile as folks wring their hands over a nonbinding #GreenNewDeal, I spent this AM touring LaGuardia airport + discussing: – Securing solar panels on every roof – Living wage jobs – Electric shuttle fleets – Building for rising sea levels coming in – Centering community issues”

So, Ocasio-Cortez wants to eliminate air travel but solar panels on top of buildings she wants to eliminate (airports) is a wise idea?

Has anyone ever asked her what she really means when she says we
only have 12 more years before the world ends due to climate change?

Solar panels on the roofs of all the airport's buildings? Purportedly that would significantly reduce, if not eliminate altogether, the airport's reliance on fossil fuel-derived energy — except for when it is raining or snowing or too cloudy for the sun's rays to power the panels.

The airport would still need to rely on fossil fuel-derived energy to maintain operations.

Shouldn't we address the massive pollution caused by the creation of solar panels? The Earth is strip mined for the rare minerals used in solar panels, not to mention the carbon-spewing manufacturing factories that produce solar panels?

She also wants “living wage jobs,” or in other words, an arbitrary minimum wage set by government bureaucrats, and not by the natural forces of the invisible hand of the free market based on supply and demand, or the abilities, training, education, and skills of hard-working and industrious employees.

Artificially set minimum wages, a “feel good” measure, always result in workers being laid off or having hours cut for the business employing them to maintain some measure of control over increased, and at times unsustainable, labor costs. It also discriminates against unskilled entry-level workers. What employer forced to pay high wages to an entry-level employee will not seek more experienced workers if they have to pay more?

Don't forget that the supposed coming rise of sea levels predicted to swamp the coasts of our nation and place coastal cities like New York underwater someday in the future. Remember that climate alarmists have been warning about rising sea levels and underwater cities for decades, while actual sea levels have risen by minuscule amounts.

She also wants the airport to develop a fleet of electric shuttles to
ferry passengers around, whatever nonsense that has to do with addressing climate change.

As usual, all these things Ocasio-Cortez proposes seem very hypocritical and meaningless, but isn't that to be expected from a political party that in the name of “progress” seems intent on tearing down and destroying the established world with no meaningful notion about how one goes about fixing or replacing things that are being outlawed?

Conservatives generally avoid destroying what works now, even if it doesn't work 100 percent of the time, unless they already have a solid and workable idea to fix or replace those things and keep everything running with minimal disruption.
Remember, necessity is the mother of invention.

If any American airport want to install solar panels and electric shuttles and sea walls against the ocean while raising wages for workers and getting more involved with the community, more power to them. What real effect those moves will have in the long run, however, remain in question for now and in the future.

Let's admit the truth. Electric cars have not improved the lives of anyone, affected the environment in any way, or changed the temperature of the atmosphere by even a fraction of a degree. Neither have wind turbine, solar panels, scooters, street cars, organic produce or recycling garbage. Those things might make people feel better about themselves, but that's not worth the vast cost.

•Oh, and one more time, there was no collusion by Trump with the Russians and no charges for obstruction of justice.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•President Trump Tweeted the following in response to Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore’s statements that “the whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science.”


Moore continued: “There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.”

If you recall, Moore, an ecologist, has testified to the U.S. Senate that Earth’s Geologic History “fundamentally contradicts” CO2 Climate Fears: “We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today.”

To paraphrase the founder of Greenpeace, there is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.

Put in proper perspective, the Earth has existed as planetary body for about 4.5 billion years.

Man has existed as a relatively productive lifeform for about 100 or so years. Believing that man can destroy a planetary body of this magnitude in 100 years is akin to believing that you can destroy your body in 0.00192 second. That is 192 ten-thousandths of a second. If you took a second, and divided it into 10,000 equal segments, only 192 of them would be required for you to destroy your body. You cannot drink enough alcohol in that short of a time to kill yourself. You can’t douse yourself in gasoline and set yourself aflame in that short of a time. It would take 500 times more time than that to get hit by a truck.

We are not that relevant.

•Is it just me, or does it seem like that they keep moving the environmental goalposts every time one of their dreaded predictions don’t come true?

•Remember the children’s lawsuit against the government over the environment?
One of the parents of the children suing the government is a radical activist who’s been arrested several times attempting to delay multi-billion-dollar energy projects.

Media reports discussing the suit have largely shied away from mentioning the role the kids’ parents play in the litigation.

Jayden Foytlin is among 21 young people suing the U.S. federal government for not doing more to address global warming. Media reports discussing Jayden’s story have not mentioned the role her mother, Cherri Foytlin, played in a growing anti-pipeline movement. Cherri has been arrested at least three times during protests.

Cherri has become a major actor in the environmental movement, opposing a number of pipeline projects over the past eight years, including the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). She is focused on scuttling the Bayou Bridge Pipeline in southern Louisiana.

She is seen in online videos resisting arrest, arguing with government authorities and refusing to leave a local sheriff’s office after claiming Louisiana officials were “bought by big oil.”

Hypocritically, she also advocated for the end of Obama’s moratorium on off-shore oil drilling following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Cherri told U.S. senators during a rally in 2010 the drilling moratorium would mean her family could lose their home — Cherri’s husband at the time worked on an oil rig.
Cherri’s daughter began targeting oil companies fewer than five years after her mom’s foray into political activism.

“60 Minutes” interviewed Jayden Foytlin, 15, on March 3 about the lawsuit she and others are bringing against the federal government in regard to limiting fossil fuel extraction on federal lands. Jayden told CBS’s Steve Kroft floods near her Louisiana home convinced her of the need to file the lawsuit.

Her case — Juliana v. United States — was filed in 2015 and survived several unsuccessful attempts by the Trump administration to stifle the lawsuit.

Jayden’s fellow plaintiffs, all of whom are between the ages of 11 and 22, asked an Oregon court in February to issue an injunction to prevent the government from issuing oil extraction licenses before March, when the Trump administration planned to offer nearly 80 million acres of unleased areas off the Gulf of Mexico.

Juliana v. U.S. stirred up a lot of controversy during the past three years, especially among people who support the energy industry and its workers.
Folks like this are using their children as political shields. The science and economics trying to support their failed logic is so bad, they resort to using inherent public sympathy for children to enact their idiocy.

Julia Olson, an environmental attorney based in Oregon who runs the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, kickstarted the lawsuit and soon brought Jayden and others aboard her crusade, including former NASA scientist James Hansen, who joined the campaign on behalf of his granddaughter, Sophie Kivlehan.

Olson appeared on the March 3 “60 Minutes” interview and dismissed the idea that she and other adults are using Jayden and others as pawns.

“They get quite offended on that comment and at that question — they are very much using me,” she told CBS’s Steve Kroft in response to a question about whether she’s using the kids.

Yeah, right!

(Email Landmark columnist Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Did you watch 60 Minutes this week? I didn’t and don’t.

They apparently featured a young girl, Jayden Foytlin: “To the people that think that I’m brainwashed, I just usually say I have encountered climate change firsthand,” Foytlin said. “And although I am 15, I still know science. I still trust science more than I trust older generations that tell me that I’m wrong.”
There is a climate change lawsuit working through the system that could stop the U.S. government from supporting fossil fuels, which poor people depend on for cheap energy.

A lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 kids alleges the U.S. government knowingly failed to protect them from climate change. If the plaintiffs win, it could mean massive changes for the use of fossil fuels. The lawsuit claims the executive and legislative branches of government have proven incapable of dealing with climate change. It argues that the government has failed in its obligation to protect the nation’s air, water, forests and coast lines. And it petitions the federal courts to intervene and force the government to come up with a plan that would wean the country off fossil fuels by the middle of this century.

UCLA law professor Ann Carlson appeared in a “60 Minutes” report as an expert observing the validity of a climate lawsuit holding the U.S. government responsible for the oil industry’s alleged contributions to global warming. CBS conveniently failed to mention Carlson’s history of working on climate litigation that seeks to hold oil companies responsible for climate change.

CBS instead painted her as a neutral observer with knowledge about the ins and outs related to how such a case might affect the U.S. Constitution.

“There’s no constitutional provision that says that the environment should be protected,” said Carlson, an attorney and faculty director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The 21 young people involved in the case — Juliana v. United States — are seeking a court order requiring the federal government to implement an “enforceable national remedial plan” phasing out carbon emissions in an effort to stabilize the climate and protect the environment. The case has survived several attempts by the government to torpedo the case after it was originally filed in 2015.

“I think that Judge Aiken actually does a very good job of saying: ‘it’s not radical to ask the government to protect the health, the lives and property of this current generation,’” she said when CBS asked about U.S. Judge Ann Aiken’s claims in November 2016 that a clean environment is “fundamental to a free and ordered society.” The report elevated her skepticism about the child’s suit.

“I think these lawsuits are great, and I think they are interesting. I think they could provide real benefits to some of the jurisdictions, but they don’t really get at the mitigation of emissions,” Carlson said in 2018 during the 27th Annual Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite.

The plaintiffs — young people in between the ages of 11 and 22 — asked the court to issue an injunction to prevent the government from issuing oil extraction licenses before March, when the Trump administration plans to offer nearly 80 million acres of unleased areas off the Gulf of Mexico.

Their case has been held up for months. The U.S. Supreme Court in November 2018 decided not to block the lawsuit — the move came less than two weeks after Chief Justice John Roberts granted the government a stay in October 2018. The court’s order said the government should seek relief before the 9th Circuit.

There you go! Liberals have resorted to using children to enact their control efforts.

How about adults take charge?

•We are slowly emerging from the nastiest cold winter I can remember in my 50+ years! The planet is not warming. Mankind places a miniscule amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is plant food. The more carbon dioxide emitted, the more food gets grown.

That is a good thing.

•The Trump administration says it has cut off negotiations with California officials over the future of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency rules for cars.

In a joint statement, the White House, Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said the talks with California Air Resources Board (CARB) had not been fruitful, adding that the Trump administration will move forward with its plan to roll back the pollution standards.

“Despite the administration’s best efforts to reach a common-sense solution, it is time to acknowledge that CARB has failed to put forward a productive alternative since the SAFE Vehicles Rule was proposed,” the administration officials said, referring to the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Rule, the proposal last year to repeal plans to increase the stringency of efficiency and emissions standards for newly-built vehicles.

“Accordingly, the administration is moving forward to finalize a rule later this year with the goal of promoting safer, cleaner, and more affordable vehicles,” the officials said.

Acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler told Bloomberg Television this month that the parties were “far apart” in negotiations.

The auto industry has endorsed the attempts by the EPA and DOT to weaken standards set by the Obama administration, saying that they are not achievable at an affordable cost.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)




•Will somebody wake me when the Democrats are voted out of control of the House of Representatives? This constant “Investigate-Everything-Trump” is going to blow-up in their faces when the voters next get a chance to exert their influence.
They seem to have forgotten that the American people spoke loudly in the last presidential election and they do not look kindly on one political party trying to undermine that decision.

•Well there she goes again…

While Rep. Andrea Ocasio-Cortez is busy sucking all the oxygen left in DC, she’s been attacking nearly every staple of a typical comfortable American lifestyle.

However, since declaring her candidacy in May 2017, her campaign relied heavily on those “evil” combustible-engine cars, even though a subway station was just 138 feet from her campaign office.

In federal election documents, she listed 1,049 transactions for Uber, Lyft, Juno and other car services, federal filings show. The campaign had 505 Uber expenses alone.

In all, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez spent nearly $29,400 on those emissions-spewing vehicles, along with car and van rentals — even though her Queens HQ was a one-minute walk to the train.

The campaign shelled out only $8,300 on just 52 MetroCard transactions.
By comparison, fellow freshman Rep. Max Rose — whose district is more than twice the size of AOC’s and, like hers, spans two boroughs — listed only 329 transactions for car services, totaling $6,091.29, campaign filings show.

In a district with limited transit options and a $17 Verrazzano Bridge toll, Rose spent only $732 more than AOC on gas and tolls — an indicator of personal car usage.

Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly attributed her success in beating Democratic incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley to walking the streets of her district, which includes parts of Queens and The Bronx.

“I knocked doors until rainwater came through my soles,” she tweeted last June, famously donating her worn-out campaign shoes to the Cornell Costume Institute for an exhibit about women and empowerment.

But Ocasio-Cortez and her staff appear to have done much less walking after she vanquished Crowley in the party’s June 2018 primary.

Instead, her campaign embraced the friendly skies, logging 66 airline transactions costing nearly $25,200 during campaign season.

She or her staff took Amtrak far less — only 18 times — despite high-speed rail being the cornerstone of her hurry-we-have-to-save-the-world strategy.

Most of the flights came after her primary win gave her superstar status and Ocasio-Cortez spent weeks jetting around the country, burning fuel to support her fellow Dems.

That despite her stated ultimate goal of building “high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary” — part of her Green New Deal mentioned in a FAQ she posted to her official website – err, oops – she took that down. She later called the air travel reference a mistake. The resolution now before Congress doesn’t mention air travel.

On Oct. 12, 2018, the campaign logged 26 car-service transactions, its highest number in a single day, as Ocasio-Cortez shuttled between The Bronx and Queens for “phone banking,” according to social-media posts.

“Canvassing is what that people power is about,” the candidate wrote on Facebook that day, boasting about “actually making contact at someone’s door.”
Those 26 cars produced a lot of carbon dioxide, which allegedly heavily contributes to global warming. According to the American Public Transportation Association, “a single person … by eliminating one car and taking public transportation instead of driving, a savings of up to 30 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions can be realized.”

Ironically, the Uber-loving politician took a tough public stand against the conveyance after a New York City taxi driver committed suicide in February 2018.

“Yellow cab drivers are in financial ruin due to the unregulated expansion of Uber,” she tweeted on March 21. “What was a living wage job now pays under minimum.”

So, apparently competition leads to suicide?!?!

•From The Daily Caller, via Climate Depot…

Natural gas from the U.S. is flooding Polish markets as the Eastern European country seeks to loosen Russia’s grip on its energy security.

Russia has been supplying roughly half of Poland’s fuel needs, but long-term contracts with American companies signed by Poland’s state-owned gas giant PGNiG could displace all of Russia’s supply. U.S.-based companies Cheniere Energy, Venture Global LNG and Sempra Energy have all signed agreements with Poland in the last six months.

“The strategy of the company is just to forget about Eastern suppliers and especially about Gazprom,” PGNiG President Piotr Wozniak said.

Gazprom is Russia’s state-controlled gas company. Gazprom and Europe have a decades-long history of disputes over fuel supply and prices that have caused fuel shortages in many countries across the continent.

Go Trump go!

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Did you catch the video of the group of kids accosting Sen. Diane Feinstein last week trying to force her to support the Green New Deal?

Here was the apparent idea by a bunch of socialist Democrats: confront politicians with whining children who have no clue what the bill actually requires and have them demand that politicians sign on to the legislation.

The idea was the brainstorm of the Sunrise Movement, which is a group that defines itself on Twitter as “building an army of young people to stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process. This dark time in America must come to an end.”

Their recent target was Sen. Feinstein, and to her credit (it will be awhile before you see me write those words again about a Democrat), stood firm and reminded these ankle-biters that there were actual realities they hadn't grasped when they had been propagandized about this.

However, Feinstein decided to get a bit testy, which sounded magnificent but riled up Andrea Ocasio-Cortez and her clueless band of nutbags.

When Feinstein said she would not support the Green New Deal, the kids whined about it being their lives in the balance. Feinstein replied:

“I've been doing this for 30 years. I know what I've been doing. “You come in here and say it has to be my way or the highway. I've gotten elected. I just ran. I was elected by almost a million-vote plurality and I know what I'm doing. Maybe people should listen a little bit.”

When Democrats are going after each other, they aren't going after Republicans, and that is a good thing!

•Yet another example of the Left painting themselves into a corner, two transgender high school track and field sprinters in Connecticut, who are
transitioning to female, finished first and second in the 55-meter dash at the state open indoor track championships.

The same two also won the 100-meter state championships last year, and one of them won the 300-meter race this season.

Critics say their gender identity amounts to an unfair advantage, expressing a familiar argument in a complex debate for transgender athletes as they break barriers across sports around the world.

Connecticut is one of 17 states that allow transgender high school athletes to compete without restrictions. Seven states have restrictions that make it difficult for transgender athletes to compete while in school, like requiring athletes to compete under the gender on their birth certificate or allowing them to participate only after going through sex-reassignment procedures or hormone therapies.

The other states either have no policy or handle the issue on a case-by-case basis.
One of their female competitors says the issue is about fairness on the track with wider implications.

Now, that's what I call “empowering women,” call yourself one and start winning all women's athletic competitions!

•The moronic Bill Maher ridiculed red state voters last week in a segment about Amazon's headquarters being yanked away from New York City, saying that the rich and educated people of America live in blue states.

“That's why red state voters are so pissed off. They don't hate us, they want to be us…They want to go the party. It's like we're the British royal family and they're Meghan Markle's dad.”

The HBO host continued to pile on the insult for red state residents, saying that there are “no red carpets in Wyoming” and no one asks them what they're wearing because “the answer is always Target.”

“We have chef Wolfgang Puck, they have Chef Boyardee,” he said.

For the record, Chef Boyardee, born Ettore Boiardi in 1897 in Piacenza, Italy, came to America in 1914, at the age of 16.

Boiardi followed his brother Paolo to the kitchen of the Plaza Hotel in New York City, working his way up to head chef. His entrepreneurial skill became polished and well known when he opened his first restaurant, Il Giardino d'Italia, in Cleveland, Ohio in 1926. Patrons of the restaurant frequently asked for samples and recipes of his spaghetti sauce, so he filled cleaned milk bottles.

Boiardi was assisted by a couple of grocery store owners in engineering a process for canning the food and procuring distribution across the United States through their store chain. Boiardi's product was soon being stocked in markets everywhere – the company had to open a factory in 1928 to meet the demands of national distribution.

For producing rations supplying Allied troops during World War II, he was awarded a Gold Star order of excellence from the United States War Department.

Boiardi sold his brand to American Home Foods for about $5.96 million. He continued developing new Italian food products for the American market until his death in 1985, at which time the Chef Boyardee line was grossing $500 million per year for International Home Foods.

Sounds lie a real dolt, huh Bill?

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at mailto:bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Perhaps the most criticized of the stated goals of the since-deleted FAQ section of Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' Green New Deal was the creation of so many high-speed trains across the country that air travel would cease to be necessary. In response, newly elected California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced in his State of the State address last week that he was canceling most of the high-speed rail project that has already taken over a decade and is now projected to cost taxpayers a staggering $77 billion. Reason given? It costs too much!

Well, it's not that simple…

President Trump wants federal taxpayers' money back.

"California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars. They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2019
Sounds reasonable. Pay-up, California!

•So it appears that polar bears are becoming a problem…

Dozens of polar bears invaded a small Russian military town nestled on the southern end of the Arctic islands of Novaya Zemlya, forcing authorities to declare a state of emergency.

Since December, 52 polar bears have terrorized Belushya Guba, a small town of about 560 people. The bears were moving from south to north to find food when they spotted a plentiful source: trash bins full of edible waste.

“People are scared, afraid to leave their houses. Their daily activities are disrupted, parents are afraid to let the children go to school and kindergarten,” local official Aleksandr Minaev said in a statement.

Precautions have been taken to protect school children and special escorts shuttle military personnel around the town, what's troubling, however, is that the bears are unfazed by attempts to scare them off.

“I have been in Novaya Zemlya since 1983, but there has never been so many polar bears in the vicinity.” Zhigansha Musin, head of Novaya Zemlya's government, told the TASS news agency.

“I recall that over five polar bears are in the [military] garrison chasing people and entering residential buildings,” Musin said.

Local officials are considering shooting the bears, though Russia's wildlife agency has not issued any licenses to kill polar bears. Polar bears are a protected species in Russia, like in other Arctic countries, and will send scientists to assess the situation.

Those scientists better be armed or else the scientists may become a part of the “edible waste” attracting the bears!

Musin added, “A total of 50 polar bears are near the human settlements so we have loads of work ahead.”

Of course, global warming has been blamed for the horde of polar bears. News reports of the event point to declining Arctic sea ice cover around Novaya Zemlya as behind why an unprecedented amount of bears are forced onto land.

“Global warming is blamed for the problem but as is so often the case, that claim does not stand up to scrutiny,” veteran zoologist Susan Crockford wrote of the event on her blog PolarBearScience.com.

Crockford said “the region has not had abundant sea ice by December in more than 30 years, yet this is the first time the town has had such a problem with polar bears. Polar bears in winter can be very dangerous, as they are often lean and desperately hungry.”

Polar bears were listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act in 2008, becoming the first species U.S. officials listed because of the future threat of global warming. Polar bear abundance has increased in the last few decades because of restrictions on hunting.

Polar bears rely on sea ice to hunt seals, so scientists predict that reduced Arctic sea ice cover from global warming will force more bears to forage on land. Crockford disagrees in this instance.

“This incident of winter problems with polar bears and others like it reported from the Russian Arctic, almost certainly reflect the confluence of a growing human presence in the Arctic and thriving polar bear populations, not lack of sea ice due to global warming,” Crockford wrote.

Humans are amusing!

•More AOC nonsense…

After whining about whether she'd be able to afford rent, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) has moved into a luxury apartment building in the District of Columbia's Navy Yard neighborhood.

Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, got a big raise with her election to Congress, a job that comes with a $174,000 annual salary. She told the New York Times she was concerned about how she would get an apartment before that salary kicked in.

Her office pushed back against the notion that it was hypocritical for Ocasio-Cortez, who has made housing affordability one of her top policy concerns, to move into a luxury building. A spokesman pointed out that her office also uses a car with an "internal combustion engine that runs on fossil fuels," even though she thinks their use should be eliminated.

So her hypocrisy is answered by pointing to MORE hypocrisy?


(Email bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Did Gladys Knight rock that Super Bowl National Anthem or what?

•So, we're in the process of moving our domicile after 11 years, and while going through all the stuff one acquires over a life of 50+ years and 30+ years of wedded bliss, I came across something particularly interesting. My mother compiled all of her 6 kids' school work spanning the 60's and 70's and gave them all to us after one of their moves.

Among these fine documents was a science test I took in elementary school which posed me the following question:

“The climate of a particular area is largely determined by its: A. Altitude and Latitude, B. Altitude and Longitude, C. Latitude and Temperature, or D. Latitude and Longitude.

I answered, “A” and got an A on the paper!

I am consistent if nothing else!

•A liberal activist who worked on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's campaign and helped draft an outline for a “Green New Deal” characterized the global warming plan as a “proposal to redistribute wealth.”

“America's ruling class is freaking out about [Ocasio-Cortez's] proposal to redistribute wealth and power from the people on top to the people on the bottom,” Waleed Shahid tweeted Tuesday, referring to a Fox News segment on the “Green New Deal.”

Shahid, the communication director for Justice Democrats and former policy director for Cynthia Nixon's gubernatorial campaign, is among a handful of activists and staffers who wrote the initial draft of the “Green New Deal.”
The plan “was written over a single December weekend by the staff of Ocasio-Cortez and three like-minded progressive groups.”

That group included Shahid, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti and the leaders of the Sunrise Movement, an environmental group, who were in their 20s, according to the report.

What resulted from the collaboration was “Green New Deal” legislative text that called for eliminating fossil fuels within 10 years and putting a slew of social welfare programs in place, including universal health care.

Ocasio-Cortez envisions the “Green New Deal” as a way to “establish economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America,” according to remarks she made at an event in 2018. The New York Democrat made those remarks on a panel with Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, a “Green New Deal” supporter and potential 2020 candidate.

Interestingly, Ocasio-Cortez' House resolution has nine co-sponsors which says the bill will also “promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities.”

Ocasio-Cortez wrote that “Green New Deal” legislation included net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years “through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers” and creating “good, high-wage jobs.”

The plan would also pour money into infrastructure and “promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities.”

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey will release a companion bill in the Senate. Neither version of the “Green New Deal,” however, is expected to pass Congress.

They just don'tget it.

•Wonder why this winter is so cold?

The theory has it that the decline of Arctic sea ice, which has dropped by about 15 percent over the last 40 years, has disrupted the polar vortex, causing it to move southward, but the data assembled by climate guru, Dr. Roy Spencer and UAH professor of atmospheric science John Christy showed otherwise.

“…there is no evidence in the data supporting the claim that decreasing Arctic sea ice in recent decades is causing more frequent displacement of cold winter air masses into the eastern U.S., at least through the winter of 2017-18,” Mr. Spencer said Thursday on his Global Warming blog.”

The analysis focused on cold waves in 27 Midwestern and Eastern states lasting more than two days and featuring temperatures below the 5th percentile of daily January maximums.

News outlets were filled with stories timed to last week's deep freeze in the Midwest and Northeast about how global warming may paradoxically result in unusual cold.

Mr. Spencer chalked up the hype to those seeking to find an explanation for cold-weather events despite gradually increasing temperatures.

“When these cold air outbreaks continued to menace the United States even as global warming has caused global average temperatures to creep upward, an explanation had to be found,” he said in his post. “After all, snow was supposed to be a thing of the past now.”

He concluded that the “connection between Eastern U.S. cold waves and Arctic sea ice is speculative, at best. Just like most theories of climate change.”

End of the day, we all have to understand that speculation is the fire that fuels the entire so-called science of global warming.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Remember, when New Jersey U.S. Senator Cory Booker had his “I am Spartacus” “hey everybody, look at me” moment during the Justice Brett Kavanaugh hearings? Well, the Republican-controlled Senate Ethics Committee just let him off the hook.

See why many hate the Establishment Republicans controlling the party?

Booker admitted to willfully violating Senate rules by releasing confidential records regarding then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's time as a White House counsel. The documents were marked “Committee confidential,” meaning they were not for public distribution.

Not only did he willfully admit to violating the rules, he wagged his finger at Republicans.

“…and the classification of many documents as 'Committee confidential' is a sham… I willfully violate these sham rules. I fully accept any consequences that might arise from my actions including expulsion.”

Judicial Watch noted that by violating the rules in releasing Committee confidential records, Sen. Booker appeared to have violated provisions 5 and/or 6 of Rule 29 of the Standing Rules of the Senate (Rev. Jan. 24, 2013), which stipulate that he should be subject to expulsion from the Senate:

“Any Senator, officer or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees and offices of the Senate shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt.

Whenever, by the request of the Senate or any committee thereof, any documents or papers shall be communicated to the Senate by the President or the head of any department relating to any matter pending in the Senate, the proceedings in regard to which are secret or confidential under the rules, said documents and papers shall be considered as confidential, and shall not be disclosed without leave of the Senate.”

(See pp. 48-49: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-113sdoc18/pdf/CDOC-113sdoc18.pdf )

The Senate Ethics Committee is evenly split, with three Republicans and three Democrats. The Committee members are Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Christopher A. Coons (D-DE), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Brian Schatz (D-HI), James Risch (R-ID), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).

Booker announced last week that he was running for President.

•A woman Vancouver, British Columbia was picking up her son in front of their hotel after having lunch in her SUV. After idling at the curb for several minutes, the carbon-neutral cult descended on her like locusts. She had her window tapped upon by passersby and was informed that idling is illegal in Vancouver and comes with a hefty fine.

As a matter of fact, the Canadian government will give you grants to start “Idle Free” in your community. The Canadian Natural Resources branch of the federal government has several new programs in effect where your future could be green. Many companies are getting huge cash infusions for projects like a Quebec Pulp Mill that snagged a whopping $2 million for their Clean Energy Innovation Program.

Just when we thought we were rid of Al Gore, the United Nations doubles down on a New DEAL by teaming up with the global warming High Priest himself to promote a sweeping environmental agenda that seems all too familiar. It's being dubbed as the “New Deal for Nature.”

The so-called new deal eerily mirrors the 2009 Kyoto protocol which got axed after the leaked email debacle (dubbed Climate-Gate). It reemerged the next year as the 'Green Climate Fund.' The deal is a call back to warnings that underpinned “population bomb” fears that humanity was sucking up Earth's natural resources faster than they could be replenished. Those warnings fell flat, but the UN thinks it's high time to resuscitate the ruse to halt the coming catastrophe.

•Speaking of schemes, the “Green New Deal” being pushed by New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AKA Nutbag) and US-based environmental activists joined with Voice for the Planet launched at this year's World Economic Forum to push the “New Deal For Nature,” which is a partnership of environmentalists including Gore's Climate Reality Project.

Even Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) spoke at a townhall meeting endorsing the “Green New Deal.” “I support a Green New Deal,” she said during a CNN town hall in Iowa. “Climate change is an existential threat to us, and we have got to deal with the reality of it,” she added.

Al Gore said at the dinner: “I refuse to believe that we are the generation who willingly and passively allowed the destruction of the world on our watch! Who is with me?”

The truth is, this new deal is just the same OLD deal spun under new rhetoric of “saving the planet.” The seemingly benevolent guise of this 'Green Gospel' calls for the destruction of capitalist, free enterprise economies and elimination of privately owned land where people acquiesce to a Socialist Marxist regime of Totalitarianism.

Just like I have been saying for years!

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Rep. Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez last Tuesday claimed that she did not make a verbal gaffe Monday when she said the world will end in 12 years if climate change isn't stopped. As evidence, she cited a story and study that actually do not say the world will end in 12 years.

Monday, in an interview, Ocasio-Cortez said:

“And I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we're like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.

“And, your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are you going to pay for it? — and like this is the war, this is our World War II. And I think for younger people, we're looking at this and we're like, how are we saying let's take it easy when 3,000 Americans died last year, how are we saying, let's take it easy when the Nth person died from our cruel and unjust criminal justice system?”

Talk about rambling!!! If I were a member of “millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us…” I'd be enraged that nitwit was speaking for me!

•Tuesday, in response to a video tweet of her comment, Ocasio-Cortez expressed bewilderment that people would think she didn't mean it, linking to an article in The Guardian citing a U.N. study:

"For some reason GOP seems to think this is a gaffe, but it's actually a generational difference. Young people understand that climate change is an existential threat: 3,000 Americans died in Hurricane María. The UN says we've got 12 years left to fix it:

Here's a link to that article…
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report …"

But, while The Guardian article says weather events will be more severe and nature will suffer if global temperatures rise 2C degrees, instead of 1.5C degrees, it does not say the world will end:

“The world's leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people…

…At 2C extremely hot days, such as those experienced in the northern hemisphere this summer, would become more severe and common, increasing heat-related deaths and causing more forest fires…”

But…but…Andrea Ocasio-Cortez is SO inspirational!

•Haven't we heard these nonsensical dire warnings before?

On Jan. 17, 2009, NASA's James Hansen declared that President Obama had only one week left to “save the planet!”

In June of 2010, scientists warned of a climate “tipping point” by 2200: “13 of the 14 experts said that the probability of reaching a tipping point (by 2200) was greater than 50 percent, and 10 said that the chances were 75 percent or more.”

Back in December 2008, and again in 2009, former Vice President Al Gore said that in the next 5-7 years the Arctic Ice cap will be gone entirely during some parts of the summer. Last time I checked, the Arctic ice cap is still there and still cold.

•China is leading the world as a coal-burning superpower.

China's December coal output climbed 2.1 percent from the year before, government data showed, hitting the highest level in over three years as major Chinese mining companies ramped-up production amid robust winter demand. Miners produced 320.38 million tons of coal in December. That is the largest volume since June, 2015.

While the environuts in America and Europe nervously chewed their fingernails to painful nubs fretting about their greenhouse gas emissions, China is forging ahead with new projects and investments in coal and gas.

According to a new paper from the Global Warming Foundation (GWPF), the Communist Party's survival depends on delivering economic growth and cleaner air. As the report's author Patricia Adams explains: “The Chinese have spent a lot of money on renewables without results on anything like the scale required. So despite their continuing outward support for the green agenda, China is actually going all out for fossil fuels. The Communist Party's grip on power depends on it.”–Global Warming Policy Foundation, 12 December 2018.

Two takeaways from this:

First, wind and solar cannot meet basic power demand for any growing country and economy, and second, even communists realize that economic growth depends on investment in the cheapest fuel source and that consists of fossil fuels.

China is not alone.

Germany is expected to import 45 million tons of coal this year, up roughly 1.4 percent from 2018 despite mounting competition from renewable energy, as the closure of domestic mines reduces supply. The total would bring an estimated 30 million tons for power generation and 15 million tons of coking coal and coke, products used in steelmaking.

(Reach The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki via email to bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Does anyone else watch the tennis Australian Open every January for no other reason than to remind yourself that it doesn’t have to be so freaking cold all the time?

•The polar vortex has become a phrase synonymous with frigid temperatures that make snowstorms more likely.

The New York Times tried to blame it on global warming, believe it or not!

“They are definitely becoming more common,” said Jennifer Francis, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center told the NY Times. “There have been a couple of studies that have documented that.”

Colder temperatures have been arriving later in winter over the past few years, according to Judah Cohen, a climatologist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a weather risk assessment firm. But because of changes to the polar vortex, when wintry weather does arrive, it’s often more intense.

A major snowstorm has already pummeled parts of California and is heading east, blanketing the Plains with blizzard-like conditions. Snow has hit the Midwest, the East Coast and as far south as Arkansas. But once the storm clears out, the effects of a dipping polar vortex will arrive.

Monday’s high temperature in New York City is predicted to reach just 16 degrees, 20 degrees below average.

Scientists are still trying to figure out why these intense arctic chills are flooding southward more frequently. To understand their thinking, it helps to understand the nature of the polar vortex.

The term refers to circular bands of winds near the poles that are strongest in wintertime and well above the jet stream in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is an atmospheric layer that extends roughly 7-31 miles above the earth.
Usually, those circular bands act as walls that keep the teeth-chattering cold air locked at the poles. But, every so often, the winds break down and allow the cold air to escape. That’s what happened at the beginning of this month, when the polar vortex split into three separate bands.

It’s this escaping polar air that is dropping temperatures in the Midwest and the East — there’s a lag time between the atmospheric event and when we experience the effects. The broken vortex is also sending icy temperatures to much of Europe.

And for the magical thesis…

“Some researchers, including Dr. Francis and Dr. Cohen, say they suspect that the more frequent polar vortex breakdowns can be tied to climate change.
While climate change is warming the earth, not all parts of the earth are warming at the same rate; the Arctic is warming at a rate twice as fast as the world average. That warming has led to historically low levels of sea ice in the region. The melting sea ice, particularly in an area near the Barents and Kara Seas off Siberia, may be linked to the changes in the polar vortex.”

In October, NOAA predicted a milder than average winter, but that is not necessarily at odds with the coming chill.

“There’s a difference between some seasonal outlooks such as NOAA’s that look at the whole three-month period and others that may be breaking it down month by month,” Mr. Henson said.

“It’s quite possible the winter will average warm for December through February. But that may well manifest as the extreme warmth we’ve seen over the last month followed by some much colder and colder than average conditions into February.”

•Reuters reports that the days of unlimited speeding on Germany’s famously fast Autobahns could be over if the government adopts a series of draft proposals on climate “protection.”

The committee also proposed fuel tax hikes and electric vehicle quotas to help Germany finally meet European Union emissions targets.

That should bring out the protesters!

The proposals, outlined in a draft paper seen by Reuters, could prove controversial in car-mad Germany, whose decades-old motorway network is famous for “no limits” sections where drivers can put even the fastest cars through their paces.

Germany could be hit with heavy EU fines if it fails to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and nitrogen oxides. Transport emissions are a particular target for Euro-environuts.

The government is torn between the need to protect Germany’s crucial car industry, buffeted by a series of costly emissions cheating scandals in recent years, and the desire to act to appease climate crazies.

A motorway speed limit of 130 km/h (80 mph) and fuel tax hikes along with elimination of tax breaks for diesel cars and quotas for electric and hybrid car sales could be on the way next.

The National Platform on the Future of Mobility has yet to finalize the recommendations. It is due to report its findings at the end of March, which will then be incorporated into a climate change law the government wants to enact this year.

But the committee is well aware that many of its suggestions could be controversial.

“Not every instrument and every measure will be accepted,” reads the draft. “It will take political deftness, diplomatic skill and a willingness to compromise to achieve the climate change goals.”

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•For those who believe like Nancy Pelosi, that a wall on the Southern border with Mexico is unnecessary and “immoral” I would ask, “Do you have locks on your doors?” and presuming the answer to that question is “Yes.” I would demand an answer to the follow-up query, “Why?”

Pay particular note to how they answer.

•This winter has completely sucked! It's too cold, there's too much snow, it feels awful to go outside, and I want it to end. If mankind had the ability to warm the entire planet, I would strive to my part in doing so and make winters more comfortable in large parts of the world, but particularly here.

Summary: man does not cause global warming.

•Has anyone noticed that the government is partially shut down over the border wall impasse? I certainly haven't.

The longer that the government remains “partially” shut down, the more Americans will begin to realize that they do not need to be paying for “non-essential” government jobs. Eventually, those people in those jobs are going to begin seeking employment in the private sector. The private sector never shuts down.

•Now they're coming for the meat – from Climate Depot…
In the United Kingdom, some claim an overhaul of Britain's agricultural food system is needed because it is in “crisis” and favoring consolidation at the expense of human health, ecology and the livelihoods of farmers.

The British meat radicals recently set out their vision for farming which included greater attention to animal welfare (welfare of something we eat?!?), fewer pesticides, a reduction in food waste (never mind the fact that less pesticides produces MORE food waste!), and adopting a diet with less meat and dairy products (not going to happen as long as we humans have canine incisors).

One particularly liberal twit..err…Brit even suggested that they adopt a “meat tax” to combat global warming.

Remember when I told you this was all about redistribution of wealth?

•Need more evidence that the global warming movement is just plain nuts?
A pet food manufacturer now claims that 40% of its new product is made from soldier flies.

It's one of many firms hoping to cash in on the backlash against beef by people concerned that the cattle are fed on soya. Soya plantations are allegedly responsible for the release of greenhouse gases in significant quantities.

But are insects good for the dog?

The key question is whether a diet of 40% soldier flies meets the nutritional needs of your beloved dog.

According to a pet diet expert at the Royal Veterinary College, "Yes," was the cautious reply.

"Insects can be a very useful source of protein…More studies are needed to show how much of these nutrients can actually be absorbed by a dog's body - but some studies suggest that insects can provide nutrients for dogs."

Does it help the climate if dogs eat flies?

At first sight it seems obvious that feeding your dog meaty food is bad for the environment. The link between humans eating meat and the allied emissions of CO2 and methane is readily claimed by the climate nutbags but never proven - and pets are estimated to eat 20% of global meat.

It's also true that flies produce protein much more efficiently than cows - using a small percentage of the water and land.

Flies are brought to maturity in about 14 days. It takes much longer to raise cattle.

Could cat food be made out of insects, too?

Dogs are omnivores - they eat more or less anything. Cats are much more choosy, because they can't make an essential amino acid, taurine. They find it instead in meat and fish.

But the vets say that insects do contain taurine, so it's possible that insects could also form a useful part of the cat diet.

There are several competitors which also produce pet food incorporating fly protein. They include Insectdog, Entomapetfood, Chippin and Wilderharrier.

These people are absolutely off-their-rockers!

•Well, the Chiefs have finally broken the Colts Curse of four straight losses and no playoff wins for 25 years!

Chiefs-Patriots Sunday evening – game time is 5:40pm. It's apparently going to be very cold – 20 degrees F. However, Arrowhead Stadium is going to be absolutely crazy!

This game cannot be more of a figurative passing-of-the-baton from Tom Brady to Patrick Mahomes as the NFL's quarterback of the future. It's amazing how it has all come down to this!

How appropriate that the Lamar Hunt Trophy may be awarded to Hunt's team in Hunt's home stadium!

Hang onto your hats, Chiefs fans – it's going to be quite a ride!

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•From The Daily Caller, Liberal House Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for a massive tax hike on Americans earning the highest incomes in order to fund a massive “Green New Deal” plan that would phase out fossil fuels by 2030.
“It's ambitious,” she told 60 Minutes in an interview which aired Sunday. “It's going to require a lot of rapid change that we don't even conceive as possible right now.”

Her interviewer, Anderson Cooper, who makes more than $10 million per year, asked how high taxes should be set. Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify a figure but offered praise for policies in the past that set top marginal rates as high as 70 percent. The current top income tax rate is 37 percent.

“Once you get to, like, the tippy tops -- on your 10 millionth dollar (as Cooper looked at her incredulously) -- sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent,” she said. “That doesn't mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more.”

Cooper neglected to question her on the morality of taking a higher percentage of money from one person over another.

Newly sworn in last Thursday, the 29-year-old Democrat socialist is part of a new and diverse generation of progressives advocating for far-reaching proposals to mitigate climate change and income inequality. She has quickly become a favorite target of Republicans for her combative and unapologetic advocacy for liberal causes on social media.

“This all begs the question: What really are the top priorities for House Democrats -- and does their caucus support a 70 percent income tax?” Chris Martin, a spokesman for the House Republican conference, said in an email to reporters.
Income tax hikes are not going to pass as long as Republicans control the Senate and White House. Such a steep increase also isn't likely to find much support among many congressional Democrats.

“Call me a radical,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the 60 Minutes interview, arguing that Abraham Lincoln's push to end slavery and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's creation of Social Security were also radical ideas at the time.

She is a nutbag, but let her keep talking. It will help ensure Republicans maintain control of the key parts of government.

•That Trump administration battle against a global warming lawsuit brought by 21 children will continue into 2019 after a federal court handed the government a big win over the holiday season.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, surprisingly, sided with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a Dec. 26 ruling largely ignored by major media outlets. The court granted DOJ's petition for interlocutory appeal that decreases the chances of the climate lawsuit going to trial anytime soon.

The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel is the very same one that in March 2018 ruled against Trump administration petitions for a writ of mandamus, which allows a higher court to overrule a lower court before a case is decided.

Environmentalists handling the case on behalf of youth activists immediately filed a petition asking the District Court of Oregon to restart trial proceedings in light of the appeals court ruling.

“The bottom line is, this case is ready for trial, and should not be held up by further appeals,” said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and executive director of Our Children's Trust, the activist group handling the climate lawsuit.

“The government has used the power of their office and the depth of taxpayer coffers to waste precious time and resources to avoid trial in this case, and now the court has capitulated with little scrutiny,” Olson said in a statement. She's probably afraid that over time, the government will be able to prove the dire climate predictions are just plain wrong and get the suit ultimately dismissed.

Our Children's Trust filed suit against the federal government in 2015 on behalf of 21 youths, aged 11 to 22, arguing their right to a “stable climate system” was being violated. The suit asks the court to order the government to issue laws and regulations to fight global warming.

The lawsuit is just one of a handful of global warming lawsuits being brought before state and federal courts in recent years as Democrats turn to the courts to advance their nutty climate agenda.

Legal experts are doubtful activists will succeed in getting the courts to force other branches of government to push climate policies.

•Anyone else concerned about the Chiefs' chances against the Colts (again!) in Saturday's playoff game? If you were looking for reinforcement that this is the Chiefs' year finally, you came to the wrong place. When the Chiefs lost to the Colts in 2004 in the infamous “No-Punt” game at Arrowhead, both offenses were off-the-charts good. The defenses in that season were middle-of-the-pack with the Chiefs' defense ranked 19th and the Colts defense 20th. This season, the Colts defense ranks 10th and the Chiefs defense 24th. (GULP!)

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Most Canadians will likely agree that more needs to be done to “fight” global warming, but they're not convinced that government's carbon tax, which is designed to get them to give up on gas vehicles, is going to accomplish the (unreachable) goal.

That's one of the key findings of a recent Ipsos poll of 2,001 Canadians that suggested a disconnect between Canadians' acceptance of global warming as a problem and their willingness to pay more to tackle it.

Fewer than one in five Canadians said gas prices between $1.00 and $1.25 a liter would prompt them to switch to a more fuel-efficient car or find alternate modes of transportation.

That range represents where gas prices would rise to if the federal government's suggested 2019 carbon tax of 4.42 cents per liter were applied to today's gas prices.

The average gas prices in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta — the provinces with the most motor vehicle registrations — stood at 98.1 cents, $1.08 and 92.2 cents per liter respectively as of Thursday, Dec. 27, according to the Canadian Automobile Authority. If the 4.42 cents/liter carbon tax was to be added today, it would only push gas prices high enough for 18 per cent of respondents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars or alternate modes of transportation.

Didn't we figure out that taxes are a lousy way to control human behavior?
The gas price range that most Canadians said would cause them to rethink their vehicular choices was $2.00-$2.25 per liter, but that would require a near doubling of prices in addition to the carbon tax add-on.

“Given where the price of gas per liter is today, we've got an awful long way to go before people actually reach that price point that requires them to seriously consider another option,” said Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Affairs.
“The truth is they're not even close to considering it right now.”

Bricker added that electric car sales in Canada are also an instructive barometer for this, observing that sales have gone up “but not anywhere near the level they would have to be at in order to adjust anything in terms of Canada's carbon footprint.”

Gee, where did we also see that occur; electric vehicles not meeting sales goals?

The dilemma facing the Trudeau government is that gas prices in that $2.00-$2.25 cents per liter range wouldn't merely convince 30 percent of Canadians to switch to fuel-efficient transportation, they might also convince many Canadians to vote the liberals out, which would not be a bad thing in my view.

•Would you like to know what kind of shenanigans the Obama Administration pulled on the EPA Mercury Rule?

Trump's EPA is proposing to repair some of the junk science used to justify the Obama EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), a 2012 rule that imposed stringent mercury emissions standards on coal-fired power plants and that led to the shutdowns of many US coal plants.

The Obama EPA estimated the (power plant compliance) costs of the rule to be about $10 BILLION per year. But the Obama EPA could only estimate a maximum of $6 MILLION in direct benefits from the rules mandated reduction in smokestack mercury emissions.

Since $6 MILLION vs. $10 BILLION is obviously a laughable cost-benefit ratio, the Obama EPA decided to fudge the cost-benefit analysis by adding in so-called “co-benefits” of reduced mercury emissions. What were these co-benefits?
The Obama EPA figured that since reducing mercury emissions would also reduce particulate (PM2.5) emissions from coal plants (either by improved scrubbing of emissions and/or plant shutdowns), the rule would also be reducing deaths caused by PM2.5. As the Obama EPA valued each of the tens of thousands of lives to be saved by the rule at as much as $9 MILLION, this co-benefit calculation added about $90 BILLION to the benefit side of the Obama EPA's equation — and $90 BILLION vs. $10 BILLION is clearly a lot more rule friendly than $6 MILLION vs. $10 BILLION.

JunkScience.com wisely notes often that PM2.5 particle emissions doesn't kill anyone, anywhere. You can read that story in Steve Milloy's Amazon.com best seller “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fox the EPA” (Bench Press, 2016).
The Trump EPA has now proposed to eliminate the co-benefits from the MATS cost-benefits analysis. So we are back to the $6 MILLION vs. $10 BILLION comparison. As laughable as that is, there is more.

As the MATS Regulatory Impact Analysis document reveals, the $6 MILLION in benefits arises from the consumption of freshwater fish containing less mercury. The $6 MILLION in benefits comes from higher IQs among people eating freshwater fish containing less mercury.

That's right. The Obama EPA estimated that the average avoided IQ loss provided by its $10 BILLION-per-year-rule is 0.00209 IQ points! The margin of error on an IQ test is about five points — i.e.: 2,392 times greater than the Obama EPA's estimated avoided IQ loss benefit.

The Obama EPA's 0.00209-IQ-point-loss-avoidance is so ridiculous on its face that it's not necessary to even try to explain how EPA calculated it. Who cares?

The “supporting” epidemiology is likely confounded by socio-economic factors. Unless someone has consumed a toxic amount of mercury, eating mercury-containing freshwater fish has no detectable health effects.

0.00209 IQ points - liberal government at work!



•A new Census report shows that on 2018, the warmest states in America had the biggest gains in population. How can that be? Haven't climate scientists been endlessly warning that a slightly warmer planet will unleash all sorts of calamity, from more heat-related deaths, more hurricanes and storms, more diseases, more droughts?

Despite these cautions, climate change never polls as a big concern among the public.

Perhaps one reason is Americans are just generally sick of cold weather?

According to Census data, the five states with the biggest gains in population this year are, in order: Texas (Hmmmm….), Florida, California, Arizona and North Carolina. What else do these states have in common? They are among the states with the highest average temperatures in the country. And the two biggest gainers — Texas (Hmmmmmm…….) and Florida — are the first and fourth hottest states, respectively, in the nation.

Meanwhile, of the nine states that lost population this year, six are in states with below-average temperatures. The biggest loser in the country is New York, which dropped by 48,000 this year. Its climate is 7 degrees colder than the national average.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has even blamed climate for the exodus. When asked why so many people have left New York, his response was that it is “climate based.” Of course he would say that to avoid the criticism that his state's people are too highly taxed!

•From 2010 to 2017, a net of 2.2 million people moved to the five hottest states in the country.

Almost a third of the people who moved out of California over the past two years went to states with even higher average temperatures, census migration data show.
Last year, for example, a third of the weather-related deaths occurred in just the five hottest states in the nation, according to the National Weather Service. Its data also show that states gaining in population are more prone to heat, hurricanes and floods.

More than 2.5 million people moved into hurricane-prone states like Florida, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Texas from 2010 to 2017. Florida alone had a net in-migration of more than 1 million. (Only Louisiana lost population over those years.) That's despite constant alarms about how climate change will make hurricanes more frequent and intense.

States gaining population also are far more likely to suffer heat-related deaths and workplace injuries. And they're more likely to suffer things like mosquito-borne diseases.

Bottom line is: Millions of Americans have made it clear that when push comes to shove, they rank opportunity far higher than any of the supposed risks posed by climate change.

Is it any wonder that Americans are so indifferent to the constant demands by environmentalists that we must all sacrifice to prevent the planet from warning by a few degrees?

•On a related note, public interest in “climate change” peaked in March 2007 as Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda piece basked in the glow of an Academy Award win.

As the climate conference ended up last week in Poland without any major developments, downward-trending levels of interest in the subject have raised the question of whether the public and media have become weary of discussing it.
The immense media coverage of the 2009 Copenhagen conference is
starkly clear, as is the steady increase in coverage over President Obama's fourth through seventh years in office, ending in the 2015 Paris accord. President Trump's withdrawal from the agreement last year brought the fourth highest television coverage of the past decade. In contrast, the lack of major developments this year led to 2018 having the second lowest coverage.

The earth's changing climatic environment is typically referred to as either “global warming” or “climate change.” The former emphasizes a warming planet, while the latter focuses on warming, cooling and climate-enhanced extreme weather events.
The largest amount of coverage in the last two years came in June 2017 when Trump withdrew from the Paris accord and again the following month when other nations reiterated their support for it at the G-20 summit.

In all, roughly 20 percent of climate-related coverage has mentioned President Trump, suggesting that perhaps one of the reasons for the relative silence in 2018 is the lack of major pronouncements from the White House.

All of this prompts the question: Does the general public care about climate change anymore? Did they ever REALLY care?

•Putting this all together, while Trump's anti-climate change rhetoric has offered a mild reprise of public interest and media coverage, both are in decline, and that's reflects the reality of the issue.

And please don't recycle. Life is too short to waste any of it sorting through your trash. Throw it away and enjoy your life. We only get one.
Merry Christmas, dear readers!

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@kc.rr.com)



•Marc Morano at Climate Depot is doing great work keeping us informed about the latest nonsense gathering of leaders of socialist states around the world trying to use the nonsense of global warming to wrench money out of our hard-working mitts.

Fortunately, most people didn't even know that there was another climate conference, this one in Poland.

Thousands of delegates from socialist countries worked well past the official deadline for reaching a deal with key sticking points remaining. Disputes continue over the issue of paying poorer countries for so-called “damage” caused by global warming and the use of carbon markets to reduce emissions.

The outline decision contains plans for a common rulebook for all countries, with flexibility for poorer nations.

But many issues are not yet settled, as developing countries seek recognition and compensation for the impact of rising temperatures.

The idea of being legally liable for causing climate change has long been rejected by richer nations, who fear huge bills well into the future.

This report is driving everything at the conference and the words “transformational change” are used in every conversation and event. The good news is they were unable to include the IPCC report into conference official texts because four countries refused to recognize it – the U. S, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia; the four largest oil producing countries.

The good news is fossil fuels are still not mankind's enemy. This abundant, easily accessed energy lifts societies out of poverty. The bad news there are still many people in government believing it important to reach a carbon free atmosphere, so poverty will only increase.

More good news is the U.S. has President Trump fighting this nonsense at every turn.

•Democrats are going to try and impeach Trump in the coming year. The best news is that when they do, the outcome will only help Trump get re-elected.

•President Donald Trump came out swinging against global warming advocates Thursday in an interview.

“The Paris Accord is not working out too well for Paris. Take a look at what's happening over there because of the Paris Accord. That whole country is burning down,” Trump said.

Indeed, the yellow-vest protests are unbelievable vast and a clear illustration of what happens when government tries to take your money in an effort to curb your behavior. Behavior in this case involves using gasoline and diesel to power your cars and generators. The U.S. is enjoying the cheapest gas process in a generation, and France's government wants to take advantage of that by increasing fuel taxes. By the looks of the streets of Paris, the high taxes are not very popular.

•Can somebody explain to me what paying off a person as a result of a Non-Disclosure Agreement has to do with Russian Collusion? Also, tell me again how this Mueller investigation isn't a witch hunt?

•Mainstream media coverage of the recently released National Climate Assessment (NCA) suggests that unless policymakers intervene to restrict the use of fossil fuels, catastrophic global warming could extract a hefty cost from the economy. However, the report rests on several faulty assumptions that fail to account for technological innovations, the impact of robust natural gas development, and the costs associated with climate change policies.

The United States Global Research Project is responsible for producing the reports. The release of this latest assessment coincides with the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change now underway in Katowice, Poland. The U.N. meeting, widely known as COP24, accepts the premise of theories that link human activity with dangerous levels of global warming as does the USGRP. But updated scientific research demonstrates there is no firm consensus on the role human activity plays in climate change and that natural influences are largely responsible for warming and cooling trends.

The NCA relies on theoretical climate trajectories known as “representative concentration pathways” that are developed by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There are four different pathways – or climate models – being used to predict things climate-wise. The NCA settled on the pathway that projects the highest level of warming (of course). The NCA assumes that technology will remain static, while coal consumption increases and the world's population doubles.

What's wrong with this picture?

The NCA completely overlooks the natural gas revolution in the U.S., which has already had a transformative impact on the economy. After examining emerging trends in the energy sector, the International Energy Agency has determined that natural gas will continue to replace coal as a major energy source over the next several years.

While the NCA focuses on the potential cost of climate change, it sidesteps any look discussing the severe costs of climate change polices. However, that topic may be unavoidable now that the French government has been forced to back down from its plans to impose a carbon tax in response to the protests.



•While participating in a recent Bernie Sanders-hosted symposium on global warming (no doubt a bastion of intellectualism there!), newly-elected Democrat Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (perhaps the dumbest person heading to Congress) declared that a new form of global warming governance will usher in an era of “economic, social, and racial justice” in America.

This is her quote:

“As a matter of fact, it's not just possible that we will create jobs and economic activity by transitioning to renewable energy, but it's inevitable that we are going to create jobs,” she said. “It's inevitable that we're going to create industry, and it's inevitable that we can use the transition to a hundred percent renewable energy as the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America.”

One could reasonably paraphrase her by saying she believes stopping “climate change” will end racism, and that will only happen with a new set of draconian laws where the government simply takes over technology.

This is the Democrat Party folks. Think that's nuts? Read-on…

•By the way, isn't cheap gasoline really cool? Can you believe that we were paying over $4 per gallon under President Obama?

Okay, back to the nonsense.

•Bjørn Lomborg noted in a recent column that Christiana Figueres, the former United Nations official responsible for the 2015 Paris climate agreement, has a startling vision for restaurants of the future: anyone who wants a steak should be banished.

“How about restaurants in 10-15 years start treating carnivores the same way that smokers are treated?” Figueres suggested during a recent conference. “If they want to eat meat, they can do it outside the restaurant.”

In case you have missed this development: Eating meat is fast becoming as repellant as smoking to many green campaigners. It is behavior to be discouraged or even banned.

That's because your hamburger is being blamed for climate change. Meat production — especially raising cattle — emits methane and requires carbon dioxide-intensive inputs.

If you actually read the date, Lomborg notes that those arguing for banishing meat-eaters from restaurants and calling on everyone to change their diets are often cherry-picking the data while ignoring basic facts.

Reading the popular press on this topic, you find plenty of articles suggesting that eliminating meat consumption could cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 50 percent or more. That's massive. It's also massively misleading.

Importantly, the 50 percent reduction in emissions is achieved by going a lot further than vegetarianism. It requires going completely vegan, which means stopping eating and using any animal products: milk, eggs, honey, meat, poultry, seafood, fur, leather, wool, gelatin, and much else.

No more Jello?!?!

•The best of social media last week was a thought I saw expressed that the Earth actually created man so that we would live, get sick, and eventually die and decompose so that plants would have food.

If we turn to the academic literature on emission cuts from going vegetarian, a systematic survey of peer-reviewed studies shows that a non-meat diet will likely reduce an individual's emissions by the equivalent of 540 kilograms of CO2. For the average person in the industrialized world, that means cutting emissions by just 4.3 percent.

But even this overstates the effect because it ignores an age-old and well-described economic phenomenon known as the “rebound effect.” Vegetarian diets are slightly cheaper, and saved money will be spent on other goods and services that cause additional greenhouse-gas emissions.

In a developed-country setting, the reality is that going entirely vegetarian for the rest of your life means reducing your emissions by about 2 percent.

Of course, fiddling with numbers to fit preconceptions doesn't fool the massive planet. The fact is, instead of going completely vegetarian for the rest of your life, you could reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by the exact same amount by spending $6 a year using the European emissions trading system — while eating anything you want.

Like much campaigning, Figueres' plan for meat-eaters is disturbing, because it suggests that the former UN climate chief is focused on banning behavior she doesn't like, based on flimsy evidence and over-the-top newspaper reporting.
It also suggests a narrow focus on the world's rich. It is incredibly self-obsessed to talk about banishing steak eaters from restaurants when 1.45 billion people are vegetarian through poverty, wanting desperately to be able to afford meat.
Bjørn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

•Patrick Mahomes is simply amazing. But, Tyreek Hill is also extremely amazing. Neither player would be as spectacular without the other. They seem to have developed one of those special Jedi-mind link connections that you only see once in a generation in the NFL.

Thursday is gonna be LIT!

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•I'm too sad about Bill Snyder's retirement to manage a fresh column this week, so please enjoy this “Best Of” piece specially selected for your reading enjoyment.

•Well, 2007 is creaking to an end and so have the Chiefs. Their 4-12 record ensures them a high draft pick and an easier schedule next year. Based on how the team closed out the 2007 season, with a record nine straight losses, I'm not sure that's going to matter much unless LOTS of changes are made. This team has WAY more needs and questions than a high draft pick and an easier schedule will be able to fix. There's still a question about the quarterback. They got to see lots of Brodie Croyle this season, but he seems fragile and throws more interceptions than touchdowns. Herm Edwards seems to like Croyle, though I'm not really sure why. I'm getting a distinct Steve Fuller-esque vibe from Croyle.

•It is going to be fun watching all the caterwauling in the media in the coming weeks when there is no word that Carl Peterson has been fired from his job by Chiefs' owner Clark Hunt. Why anybody thinks Clark is more of a Jerry Jones or Al Davis than a Lamar Hunt is a mystery.

Everything we've seen of Clark Hunt up to now has been about as bland as bland can be. In fact, Clark Hunt is so vanilla he makes his father look like a disco pimp.

•Why is the writers' strike so paralyzing the entertainment industry? Why is a non-union replacement writer so hard to find? It's not like an airline pilots' strike or a brain surgeon strike. Those I could see as hard to replace. But writers are
a dime-a-dozen.

Have five straight weekends of snow and/or ice shoveling convinced you yet that global warming is not as big a deal as Al Gore wants you to believe?

•By the way, I heard Rush Limbaugh reading my “carbon dioxide represents only 38 thousandths of one percent of the total atmosphere” argument on his show last week. Well, I didn't INVENT the stat but I'm the first person around here to bring it up.

If Rush starts describing how ants have a larger impact on the global environment than mankind does, I'll be convinced he's reading The Landmark's website.

•This Bear Grylls guy who fronts the Man vs. Wild show on The Discovery Channel is absolutely nuts! I saw him on a show last week drink water from one of the stomachs of a dead camel and actually squeeze water from the partially digested vegetation in another one of the camel's stomachs into his mouth. Damn! I realize he was crossing the Sahara Desert, but squeezing water from a pre-turd??!!??

•The primaries are starting this week. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are busy kicking each other in the shins while the Republicans are engaged in a tag-team death match that won't let anyone take the lead.

As I predicted, Christmas has faded to memory and so has Mike Huckabee's insurmountable lead in the polls. It's hard to be religious when you have to pay so much money after Christmas.

•Wow! How things have changed since before Obama was elected!

•Back to 2018, and wow! Are you telling me that Obama actually defeated Hillary Clinton and became president? On that note, are you serious that Mike Huckabee really was leading the race at one point according to the polls?

•I am quite melancholy about Bill Snyder retiring. When I attended Kansas State long ago, nobody cared about football. It was so bad in 1984, I could get into the stadium for free after the first quarter. On one particularly frigid cold weekend, we happened upon a wheelchair from “somewhere” and just so happened to have a spare keg of beer left over from a weekend party somebody hosted. (We did such things in those days.)

So, we found a friend who happened to be in need of a lift, tucked the keg in the rear rack of the wheelchair, wrapped him in blankets on that cold day, sat him in the chair, and wheeled him into an empty stadium to watch some loser football and drink some beer.

That was Kansas State football in 1984.

You can't do that today because of Bill Snyder, and that is a good thing. This one man envisioned something better for people not sophisticated or knowledgeable enough to know what they were capable of. Thanks, Coach Snyder!

•Thanks for reminiscing with me tonight.

(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•I'm sure you saw the reports last week of the “dire” warnings issued by “government scientists” from the Trump Administration about how climate change is all caused by mankind and going to doom us all unless we allow American wealth to be redistributed to the poorer countries around the world.
You couldn't miss it because it ran as the lead story on every major media network on every hour on the day after Thanksgiving.

Is that really the biggest news to run on Black Friday, that mankind is going to whither on the planet and die a horrible death in 100 years unless we agree to have our wealth taken from us? Well, it is if you are invested in trying to make the Trump Administration look bad, which those reporting this nonsense believe.

Other scientists say it's all hogwash.

“This latest climate report is just more of the same – except for even greater exaggeration, worse science, and added interference in the political process by unelected, self-serving bureaucrats,” Tim Huelskamp, president of the Heartland Institute said in statements released by the free-market think tank following the report's release.

“With a new volume out in December, The Heartland Institute has published 4,000 pages of the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Huelskamp said. “Those reports cite many hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers that show how every conclusion of this latest government report [is] false.”

“This report from the climate alarmist Deep State in our government is even more hysterical than some United Nations reports,” Huelskamp noted. “The idea that global temperatures could rise as much as 12 degrees in the next 80 years is absurd and not a shred of actual data and observation supports that.”

“This report is a scientific embarrassment,” Jay Lehr, science director at the Heartland Institute, said. “Not only does it rely on computer models to predict the climate through the end of the century, it relies on computer models from five years ago that have been laughably wrong, failing to get even close to reality since 2013.”

Lehr said the report is filled with “blatantly absurd conclusions” designed to put more money and power into the hands of the United Nations.

President Trump said to the AP on Monday that he doesn't believe the dire predictions. Media reports frequently state that the report was produced by the Trump Administration, but that's not entirely accurate. The funding for the report came from the Obama Administration and this was the second part of a report that was already issued under Obama. Congress authorized the study and report.

“President Trump was required by law to release this report, but he is not required to take it seriously – and he surely will not,” Huelskamp said. “To do so would undermine his sensible, deregulatory agenda and restart the war on fossil fuels.”

“This is the Deep State run amok,” James Taylor, a senior fellow on environment and energy policy at Heartland, said. “The Trump administration needs to root out the embedded leftists who are responsible for this one-sided propaganda report that is even less credible than Al Gore.”

Lehr and 18 reputable scientists wrote a 54-page critique of the Global Change Research Program's 2017 report, which was similarly alarmist, according to Heartland.

•On a lighter note, how about this news?

All modern humans descended from a solitary pair who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Scientists surveyed the genetic codes of five million animals - including humans - from 100,000 different species and deduced that man sprang from a single pair of adults after a catastrophic event almost wiped out the human race.

I wonder if the catastrophic event was a flood?

The research was led by Senior Research Associate Mark Stoeckle and Research Associate David Thaler of the University of Basel in Switzerland.

The scientists concluded that ninety percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250 thousand years ago - throwing into doubt the patterns of human evolution.

“This conclusion is very surprising,” Thaler admitted, “and I fought against it as hard as I could.”

I wonder why he “fought” the conclusion that evolution theory might be wrong. Perhaps he knew his conclusion would be opposed by certain “forces” in the scientific world and media?

Dr Stoeckle said: “At a time when humans place so much emphasis on individual and group differences, maybe we should spend more time on the ways in which we resemble one another and the rest of the animal kingdom.”

The conclusions throw up considerable mystery as to why the need for human life to start again was needed such a relatively short time ago, especially since the last known extinction we know of was during the time of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

This opens up the possibility of an inbuilt human evolutionary process wherein we break down and die out, leaving the need to start from scratch.

Food for thought indeed!



•Do you ever wonder how deep the rabbit hole of adherence to climate change mythology extends?

These are documented real studies that people are being paid to conduct associated with climate change.

"New findings reveal that heatwaves damage sperm in insects"

This is but one of the studies being funded by governments (mostly ours!) to “study” the nonsense of climate change…

2018: “Impact of climate change on the possible expansion of almond cultivation area pole-ward: a case study of Abruzzo, Italy.” Climate warming is causing an advance of the latest spring frosts and a consequent decrease of spring freeze risk during flowering. These results may suggest that the loss of suitable areas due to loss of chilling units in the warmest climate areas cannot be compensated for by a pole-ward shift of almond plantings.

2010: “The impact of climate change on mental health. Climate change may affect mental health directly by exposing people to trauma. It may also affect mental health indirectly, by affecting physical health.

2008: “Hope, despair and transformation: climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing.” The authors argue that: i) the direct impacts of climate change such as extreme weather events will have significant mental health implications; ii) climate change is already impacting on the social, economic and environmental determinants of mental health with the most severe consequences being felt by disadvantaged communities and populations; iii) understanding the full extent of the long term social and environmental challenges posed by climate change has the potential to create emotional distress and anxiety; and iv) understanding the psycho-social implications of climate change is also an important starting point for informed action to prevent dangerous climate change at individual, community and societal levels.

2018: “Projected behavioral impacts of global climate change.” Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico.

2007: Hawkes, L. A., et al. “Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population.” We investigated a case study of the effects of potential climate change on a thermally sensitive species, the loggerhead sea turtle, at a breeding location at the northerly extent of the range of regular nesting in the United States. We recorded sand temperatures and used historical air temperatures at Bald Head Island, NC, to examine past and predict future sex ratios under scenarios of warming. There were no significant temporal trends in primary sex ratio evident in recent years and estimated mean annual sex ratio was 58% female. Similarly, there were no temporal trends in phenology but earlier nesting and longer nesting seasons were correlated with warmer sea surface temperature. We modelled the effects of incremental increases in mean AT of up to 7.5°C, the maximum predicted increase under modelled scenarios, which would lead to 100% female hatchling production and lethally high incubation temperatures, causing reduction in hatchling production. Populations of turtles in more southern parts of the United States are currently highly female biased and are likely to become ultra-biased with as little as 1°C of warming and experience extreme levels of mortality if warming exceeds 3°C. The lack of a demonstrable increase in AT in North Carolina in recent decades coupled with primary sex ratios that are not highly biased means that the male offspring from North Carolina could play an increasingly important role in the future viability of the loggerhead
turtle in the Western Atlantic.

2009: Hulin, Vincent, et al. “Temperature-dependent sex determination and global change: are some species at greater risk?”

2018: Michelle Tigchelaar etal: Future warming increases probability of globally synchronized maize production shocks. Here, we use global datasets of maize production and climate variability combined with future temperature projections to quantify how yield variability will change in the world's major maize-producing-and-exporting countries under 2 °C and 4 °C of global warming.

FYI, maize is corn.

2006: Scott, Daniel, and Brenda Jones. “The impact of climate change on golf participation in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA): a case study.” Golf is identified as a large recreation industry that is particularly sensitive to weather and climate, yet research assessing the direct relationship between them is extremely limited. Consequently, the potential implications of climate change for the industry remain largely unexamined.

2007: Scott, Daniel, and Geoff McBoyle. “Climate change adaptation in the ski industry.” The characteristics of ski areas with higher adaptive capacity are identified. Considering the highly competitive nature of the ski industry and the generally low climate change risk appraisal within the industry, climate change adaptation is anticipated to remain individualistic and reactive for some time. With only a few exceptions, the existing climate change literature on winter tourism has not considered the wide range of adaptation options identified in this paper and has likely overestimated potential damages.

2004: Thomas, Chris D., et al. “Extinction risk from climate change.”

Do you wonder why scientists find a reason to conclude that man causes global warming?



•Mid-terms are over. Get ready for gridlock. I like gridlock, because when neither side can agree on anything, they can't come together to screw anything up royally!

•Politics 101: there are only two sides in politics – liberal and conservative. Liberals want big government, high taxes, and minimal personal freedom and liberty. Conservatives want small government, low taxes, and maximum personal freedom and liberty.

It's really that simple.

Now, there are people in the middle. Some call them moderates. Others call them independents. I prefer to term them by what they want. These are people that don't like it when people argue. It upsets them and makes them uneasy. Those are generally the folks that want everyone to get part of what they want. They don't care whether the result is a workable system or a disaster – as long as nobody's arguing, they figure it's OK.

Dismiss them. Pick a side and fight for it, if you truly believe it is the right system.

Let the moderates float back-and-forth toward their preferred level of peaceful interaction.

•Thoughts and prayers going out to the people hit by the California wildfires. The death toll is devastating!

•From Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller, we read that California Gov. Jerry Brown said “those who deny” man-made global warming are “definitely contributing” to the deadly, devastating wildfires forcing thousands of residents out of their homes.

Brown made the comments during a Sunday press conference where he warned that global warming created a “new abnormal” for the state, including fueling deadly wildfires. Brown said better forest management was only a partial solution to the problem.

“Managing the forests in every way we can does not stop climate change, and those who deny that are definitely contributing to the tragedies that we're now witnessing, and will continue to witness in the coming years,” Brown said.

“The chickens are coming home to roost. This is real here,” Brown said before saying he wanted people to “pull together” to tackle the problem.

Three major fires scorched more than 200,000 acres, mostly in Northern California, since Thursday, according to Cal Fire. Firefighters only contained about one-quarter of raging infernos, which left at least 31 dead.

The 111,000-acre Camp Fire became the most destructive in state history, destroying more than 6,800 structures and displacing tens of thousands of people. The fire spread quickly due to bone-dry conditions and fast-moving Santa Ana winds.

Brown's comments come after President Donald Trump said he'd pull federal funding if California did not “remedy” its wildfire problems. Trump blamed “poor” forest management for increasingly large fires.

“There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor,” Trump tweeted Saturday morning.

“Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!” Trump tweeted.

Naturally, Trump's message sparked outrage among Democrats. It would have been best if he waited until the fires were under control before saying that, but he's essentially correct.

Wildfire experts have long maintained that decades of mismanagement on federal and state lands increased fire risks in recent decades. Residential and commercial development extending into fire prone areas have also played a role in fires becoming larger and more destructive.

Virtually all California wildfires are man-made, according to an August study led by U.S. Geological Survey expert Jon Keeley. The explosion of development into wildfire-prone areas is increasing the risks of ignitions from engines, power lines and lawnmowers, Keeley said.

Utility PG&E may be to blame for the deadly blaze, CBS Sacramento reported Friday night. State officials blamed PG&E power lines, conductors and power poles earlier this year for 12 deadly Northern California fires that raged in 2017.
However, Brown vetoed bipartisan legislation requiring utilities to do more to mitigate wildfire risks near power lines and electricity infrastructure. Instead, Brown signed a bill in September that would allow PG&E, the state's largest utility, to bill ratepayers for legal liabilities for wildfires in 2017.

The following excerpt from Climate Depot's Marc Morano's new 2018 best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change explains:

"There is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail."…

"In the United States, wildfires are also due in part to a failure to thin forests or remove dead and diseased trees.”

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•Well…by the time you read this my dear friends, the mid-term elections will be over and the annoying ads and mailers will finally stop. Regardless of which party controls Congress, our work in standing firm against the nonsense of liberalism does not stop.

To quote a famous line from one of my favorite movies, Galaxy Quest:
“Never give-up. Never surrender.”

•As you already know, so-called “renewable” energy sources like wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable as our major sources of energy. Regardless, the states of California and Hawaii have pledged to get ALL their electricity from wind and solar, as have numerous cities and counties around these states.
Good luck with that, my misguided friends!

•We also know that can't be accomplished at any price. An article by Steve Goreham at www.WattsUpWithThat.com is a great short course in the futility of wind and solar. Some relevant parts of the piece follow.

“Wind and solar cannot replace output from traditional coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants, despite claims to the contrary. Wind and solar are intermittent generators. Wind output varies dramatically from high output to zero, depending upon weather conditions. Solar output is available for only about six hours each day when the sun is overhead and disappears completely on cloudy days or after a snowfall…

Experience shows that utilities can only count on about 10 percent of the nameplate capacity of a wind or solar facility as an addition to power system capacity. For example, on Dec. 7, 2011, the day of peak winter electricity demand in the United Kingdom, the output of more than 3,000 wind turbines in the UK was less than five percent of rated output. The UK House of Lords recognized the problem a decade ago, stating 'The intermittent nature of wind turbines…means they can replace only a little of the capacity of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants if security of supply is to be maintained.'

Advocates of 'green' energy are well aware of the problem of intermittency. They hope for fantastically improved, industrial-scale batteries to solve the problem. However, no such technology exists, nor is it on the horizon.

Green energy advocates recognize renewable intermittency and hope that advances in battery technology will save the day. Large-scale commercial batteries, they claim, will be able to store power during high levels of renewable output and then deliver power to the grid when wind and solar output is low.

But batteries are not the answer because of the large seasonal variation in renewable output. For example, wind and solar output in California in December and January is less than half of the output in summer months. Commercial large-scale batteries available today are rated to deliver stored electricity for only two hours or ten hours duration. No batteries exist that can store energy in the summer and then deliver it during the winter when renewable output is very low.

Meanwhile, federal subsidies and state mandates are combining to force huge increases in solar panels and wind turbine farms. These intermittent sources do not allow reliable power plants (coal, natural gas and nuclear) to be retired, so they are simply an expensive add-on that ratepayers and taxpayers combine to finance. The drive for more 'green' energy will push electric rates higher and higher, to no productive end, until ratepayers and taxpayers finally rebel and bring this foolish experiment to an end.”

Listen to the common sense and do whatever you can to convince your family and friends to run from these nonsensical notions that we need to cover the landscape with windmills and solar panels!

•Can you believe that the Left has put up a group of children to sue the federal government to get them to act against global warming?

Last week, the Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's request to block a climate change lawsuit brought against the government by a group of 21 children.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a 3-page decision Friday night in Juliana v. United States allowing the case to move forward.

Roberts had earlier stopped the case from having its day in court on Oct. 29, while the high court reviewed the children's legal arguments.

The high court's order said the administration should now turn to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for relief from the litigation.

The children's lawsuit blames the federal government for causing the threat of global warming to grow, threatening the livelihoods of future generations.
Our Children's Trust, the liberal group representing the group of kids, is not seeking monetary damages for past inaction by the government on climate change. Rather, it aims to compel the federal government to take future policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

Of course, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is stacked with liberals and always sides against conservative causes.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Al Gore finally did it! He admitted that global warming is a hoax.
He said in a recent interview:

"The language that the IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up a little bit, appropriately – how [else] do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world?"

Gore's admission that the UN IPCC report was "torqued up" in order to "get the attention of policy-makers around the world" is the latest in a long line of evidence that the UN climate panel is nothing more than a partisan liberal political body pretending to function as a scientific organization.

The interview was conducted by PBS's Judy Woodruff, who (in true “unbiased” journalist fashion!) stated to Gore, “They (the UN) are painting a much more alarming picture of what we face than we had previously known…”

Gore responded, “The language that the [UN] IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up a little bit, appropriately – how [else] do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world?”

In Mark Morano's great book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, Prof. John Brignell of the University of Southampton stated, “The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage, it rapidly attracted acolytes. 'Peer review' soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship.”

•Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning environmental physical chemist from Japan, is another UN IPCC scientist who has turned his back on the UN climate panel. Kiminori declared that global warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
science and scientists.”

Former IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri admitted the IPCC is an arm of world governments and serves at their “beck and call.” “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do,” Pachauri said in 2013.

In 2012, a year before the report was issued, former UN climate chief Yvo de Boer announced that the next IPCC report “is going to scare the wits out of everyone.” He added, “I'm confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”

What better evidence is there that this global warming garbage is all nonsense than the words of Gore and IPCC scientists?

•So, if you don't follow me on Twitter, the following is pretty much how global warming “debates” usually go:

Me: “How does global wealth redistribution do anything to the climate?” Which was my Tweet in response to a Twitter user who was decrying what Brazil electing a conservative means to the Paris Climate Accord which will now lose another wealthy country's support.

Response: “@bkparallax you should rather tell us about what you know, what you think about climate change. Admitting one's error is the first step. Suggesting our current system is innocent is sort of complicity. One does not start a global mass extinction only with 'good will.'"

Me: “Man does not cause the planet to warm. Man is responsible for only 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted which is only 0.00114% of the atmosphere. The Sun controls the climate of the planet. The Paris Accord is only about global wealth redistribution.”

Response: “You mastering of % is not impressive. You want things to be true, that is the reason you don't understand when things are not the way you want. You are wasted by your Ego that impeaches you to think rationally. Bye. Thanks not wasting my time. I no longer talk with neo-fascists.”

Me: "'mastering of %?' Those are called basic facts. Instead of resorting to name-calling, why not offer facts?”

Response: “You do not offer facts! You repeat false theories told by the only ones you want to believe. You don't want facts! You want to continue to believe that you have always been the good on the good side. And your mind is not up to accept the deceit. Your mind is currently spoiled.”

Me: “Carbon dioxide is only 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere. Man is 3% of that. (Wikipedia link provided on the composition of the Earth's atmosphere) If you believe those numbers are wrong, then please present a source that shows different information.”

Response: “You understand: I no longer talk to neo-fascists. Write to Climate scientists, ask them which scientific articles YOU should read.”

Me: “You've said that twice now, and keep coming back.”

Response: “Again, again: Write to Climate scientists, ask them which scientific articles YOU should read.”

Me: “You can't refute the 0.038% and 3% facts, can you?”

Response: “I won't refute those numbers: The only point I am stating is that you are a Climate Change denier: Period.”

Me: “The great Richard Feynman once said, 'I would rather have questions which can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.'”

Response: “You yourself see a question, I see a statement, a statement from neo-fascist propaganda. You wrote: 'Man does not cause the planet to warm'. About Feynman, consider also this sentence: 'Science is the culture of doubt'. That's why there is a scientific CONSENSUS, not a DOGMA.”




Here's a thought: Instead of worrying about global warming, perhaps we should concern ourselves with the exact opposite.

The last time we faced a global cooling type of disaster was over 300 years ago. A solar “Grand Minima” produces a time of significant natural global cooling, which in the 1600-1700's resulted in great famine and starvation and major disease epidemics.

The sun has great variability in the strength of each solar cycle. This variability ranges from extremely quiet “Grand Minima” such as the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 A.D.) to a very active “Grand Maxima” such as the enhanced activity observed during most of the 20th century (1940-2000 A.D.).

A solar Grand Minima is defined as a period when solar sunspots number less than 15 during two consecutive decades. The sun spends about 20 percent of the time in a Grand Minima state. In the past, these periods caused great hardship to humanity.

The Maunder Minimum (about 1645-1715 A.D.) and Spörer Minimum (about 1420 to 1570 A.D.) are two examples of “Grand Minima” events and each period has been referred to as a Little Ice Age.

Of the 27 “Grand Minima's” that have occurred over the past 12,000 years: 30% lasted less than 50 years, 52% lasted between 50 and 100 years, and 18% lasted over 100 years. Of these, the longest was Spörer Minimum which lasted approximately 150 years.

There are several lessons learned from studying very early global cooling events in Europe. These include: A decline in food production due to Dramatic increase in days with overcast skies; Decline in the intensity of sunlight; Decline by several degrees in global temperature; Shortened growing season; A string of major and minor famines; Malnutrition leading to weakened immune system; Influenza epidemics; lack of feed for livestock.

Be ready folks, global cooling is going to be a lot worse than global warming.

•Is the global warming movement really about population control?

The EPA banned DDT in the malaria fight and declared carbon dioxide a pollutant. The decisions had nothing to do with science, in reality. From its inception in 1970, the EPA has targeted a maze of chemicals for regulatory control built on a foundation of junk science. The organization has systematically attacked and banned one unnatural man-made chemical after another.

Malaria strikes some 300 million people annually, and kills an African child every 30 seconds.

This is all the more tragic in that it is very preventable. DDT is a miracle insecticide that protects millions of people from this deadly scourge. The use of DDT was directly responsible for eradicating malaria from Western Europe and North America.

So why was DDT banned? The EPA declared DDT a lethal poison and spearheaded imposing a global ban on the chemical. It was based on the belief that the chemical was a carcinogen and it endangered the environment in particular for certain birds. Those fears turned out to be unfounded. But the ban was never lifted. For over 35 years, the EPA has known that DDT poses no health risk, but they've taken no steps to rescind the ban. As a consequence of this ban over 30 million innocent young children, mostly in Africa, needlessly died from malaria.

One must ask the question - was the decision to continue the ban due to governmental incompetence or was it due instead to an alignment with the goals of this eco-religion demanding global depopulation. Was the death of 30 million innocent young children just the first step along that path?

Anthropological (man-made) global warming theory was an eco-religious movement combined with one-sided reporting from a broad spectrum of mainstream media, and by self-serving politicians. The thrust of this hoax was to destroy our nation's electrical infrastructure, our oil/gas/coal production, our industry and our jobs, essentially the American lifestyle and our way-of-life.

One of the grand players in this scheme is the EPA. The EPA unscientifically declared carbon dioxide a pollutant, one that needed to be controlled. This gas is essential to life on Earth. It is definitely not a pollutant.

Dramatic global climate change has occurred for millions of years without any help from mankind. Our climate system is very robust, not fragile. Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming; water vapor does. Without this moisture, our planet would be as cold as a dead tomb.

The sun's magnetic field wrapped in the solar winds shields Earth from Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs). These GCRs cause cloud formation. When the sun is weak, Earth experiences more cosmic rays, greater cloud cover and falling temperatures. But when the sun is strong, the Earth experiences fewer cosmic rays, less cloud cover and warmer temperatures. The minor changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide have minimal effect on climate change. Rather temperature has an effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by releasing the dissolved gas from the vast reservoir called the ocean.

The EPA classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant to grab bureaucratic control over this gas. The net effect is that when the world should be preparing for the next solar “Grand Minima” the EPA has kept its focus on global warming hysteria.
That, my friends, must be stopped.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•I’m getting polled almost daily on the upcoming midterm races. I NEVER answer the questions accurately. I’m not sure if my prevarication is helping or hurting my preferred candidates, but it does support my sincere belief that the only poll that matters is the one taken on Election Day! (…or in the 20 days prior if you advance vote by mail like I always do.)

•As Ronald Reagan once said to Jimmy Carter, “Well, there you go again!” The liberal media’s barfing-out more warnings about the threat of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming, and they have the familiar telltale doomsday ring to them.

The U.N. report warned there are only 10-12 years to stop irreversible and catastrophic global warming. Remember though that no more than 10 years ago the U.N., the media and Al Gore were saying about the same thing — there was only a decade to take action.

Some examples from last week:

NBC Nightly News: “Our planet is running out of time to prevent a climate catastrophe. That’s according to some of the world’s top scientists. A new U.N. report warns world leaders they only have 12 years left to take action ...”

ABC World News Tonight: “... time is running out, they say, before climate change effects are, quote, ‘irreversible,’ by 2030, in just 12 years. The Earth’s temperature, they say, could be one degree warmer than today at which point the negative impacts could be unstoppable.”

CBS Evening News: “The world has little more than a decade to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere or it may be too late to reverse the worst effects of climate change.” On screen it proclaimed “Climate Catastrophe” in quotation marks.

Washington Post: “The world has barely 10 years to get climate change
under control, U.N. scientists say.”

Vox: “UN climate change report: only 12 years left to cut fossil fuels and aver wide-ranging damage.”

CNN.com: “Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warn.”

Please consider the source of all this nonsense. The IPCC is designed to try and force America to give more money up to smaller developing countries. They don’t give a hoot whether their chicken-little-esque global warming predictions are accurate. Their main reason for being, and belching-out fake news reports, is to try to redistribute the wealth of the world, and America has always been their principal target.

Nobody in the American public cares about global warming, but they better be prepared to stop the U.N. from stealing from us.

•From Breitbart.com, I’m sure you heard that Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren declared on Monday that she had proof that she is of Native American ancestry.

America laughed heartily at her “claims.”

Well, it turns out that the Stanford University researcher who studied her DNA sample did not actually use samples of Native American DNA.

The Boston Globe broke the story Monday of Warren’s DNA test, which she and the newspaper claimed as proof of her Native American ancestry, after results suggested she may have had a Native American ancestor six to ten generations ago. That means her genome may be between 1/64 to 1/1024 percent Native American.

Buried deep within the Globe story, however, is the admission that the Stanford University researcher who studied her DNA sample did not actually use samples of Native American DNA to determine whether Warren’s dubious claims of Cherokee ancestry were true.

The Globe reported (original links):

The analysis of Warren’s DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as a genius grant, for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis.

Warren provided a sample of her DNA to a private lab in Georgia in August, according to one of the senator’s aides. The data from that test was sent to Bustamante and his team for analysis. Warren received the report last week.

To make up for hard-to-find Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. That’s because scientists believe the groups Americans refer to as Native American came to this land via the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago and settled in what’s now America but also migrated further south.

The analysis depends, therefore, on faith in Bustamante’s methods of extrapolation, and on the other methods he used to determine that Warren’s supposedly Native American DNA segments were not mere statistical noise.
It is also unclear how his methods would corroborate her specific claims of Cherokee ancestry.

23andMe, a prominent DNA testing company, reported in 2014 that ”European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African, and 0.18 Native American,” according to the New York Times.
Warren’s DNA test, even if accurate, would put her genome at somewhere between 0.1 percent and 1.56 percent Native American, meaning she could be no more Native American than the average “European-American,” or even less so.

(Email The Landmark's Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Saw this reported in the Toronto Sun…

Toronto's homeless shelters are hardly full, with only 39% of the spaces occupied by refugees from other countries, but according to city spokespeople, some 18-20 additional refugees are arriving in the city per day, mostly from Nigeria.

The Canadian government procured two hotels in Peel and York to house the refugees who were placed in college dorms earlier in the summer.

Now, the government has extended their hotel stay four weeks beyond the original deadline of Sept. 30 because they have yet to come up with a more long-term approach that would send the refugees to communities beyond Toronto.

There are also 1,719 irregular (A.K.A. illegal) migrants/refugees/asylum seekers in Toronto hotels; including 577 housed at the Radisson Toronto East hotel in 146 rooms (the hotel has 240 rooms in total).

The reputable Tripadvisor website has been inundated in the past few weeks with scathing reviews of the hotel, calling it a “zoo, filthy, noisy and dangerous” with the lobby full of loitering refugees and halls containing graffiti and garbage.

Every paying visitor on Trip Advisor has claimed they did not know and were not told that 61% of the hotel is being occupied by refugees.

On Tuesday, one visitor from Virginia - calling the three-star hotel a “disgrace” - claimed that animal services needed to be called on the second night he was there because “some goats were being slaughtered” in the public bathrooms.

Asked what the city has spent to date housing irregular migrants/refugees/asylum seekers, government spokespeople said the costs from November 2017 to the end of this year will likely be “in excess” of $64.5 million.

Slaughtering goats in public bathrooms? Canada has become crazy-town!

•The UN's 195-nation climate science body released a new report outlining austere and draconian measures they claim are needed to avoid “climate chaos.”

Can humanity cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)? What will it take and how much will it cost? Would climate impacts be significantly less severe than in a 2 degree Celsius world?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was tasked to tackle these questions by the framers of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which calls for halting the rise in temperatures to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius and 1.5 degrees if possible.

Based on more than 6,000 peer-reviewed studies, the 20-page bombshell made for grim reading when it was released Monday.

At current rates of greenhouse gas emissions, the report estimates Earth will zoom past the 1.5C figure around 2040, and as early as 2030.

Without a radical course change, they claim we are headed for a 3 degree Celsius or 4 degree hike.

And yet, humanity has avoided action for so long that any pathway to a climate-safe world involves wrenching economic and social change “unprecedented in terms of scale,” the report said.

“Some people say the 1.5C target is impossible,” said Stephen Cornelius, WWF-UK's chief adviser for climate change, and a former IPCC negotiator.

“But the difference between possible and impossible is political leadership.”

The report is set to lay out four scenarios that could result in Earth's average surface temperature stabilizing at 1.5 degree Celsius.

The most ambitious—dubbed the “low energy scenario”—would see a radical drawdown in energy consumption coupled with a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and a swift decline in CO2 emissions starting in 2020.

A second pathway emphasizes the need for changing our consumption patterns, including: eating less meat, traveling less, giving up cars, etc. along with an overhaul of agricultural and land-use practices, including the protection of forests.
The final scenario compensates for a “business-as-usual” economy and lifestyle by allowing a large overshoot of the 1.5C target.

It also calls for burning a lot of biofuels and capturing the emitted CO2, a system known by its acronym, BECCS. Indeed, an area twice the size of India would have to be planted in biofuel crops.

This “P4” plan also assumes that some 1200 billion tons of CO2—30 years' worth of emissions at current rate—will be socked away underground.

Significantly, and for the first time, the UN panel quantified changes in the use of coal, oil and gas.

For the low-energy demand pathway, for example, coal consumption would drop 78 percent by 2030, and 97 percent by mid-century. Oil would decline by 37 and 74 percent, respectively, and gas by 25 and 74 percent.

The pathway of least resistance, by contrast, would still see nearly a doubling of oil use by 2030, and a 37 jump in gas.

Coal is a big loser in all the scenarios. Unfortunately, the report fails to mention that the poor are going to take the brunt of the hit because poor people depend most on cheap energy, and all these measures will drive energy costs up, up, and up!

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•I’m going to use a “fan letter” email I received recently as the template for this week’s column because it gives a great opportunity for us to review some basics about why we need to stop worrying about global warming/climate change or whatever calamity they want to start calling it next month.

Many will try to support raising taxes on all of us by taxing the use of carbon because they claim there have been over 300 peer-reviewed studies on the effects of climate change and 97% of those studies agree that global warming is caused by man and is a threat to society.

Beyond the obvious nonsense that science is not a consensus (for example, more than 97% of scientists in Galileo’s time of the 17th century believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, despite his writings that the Earth actually rotated around the Sun), the 97% claim has been debunked more times than the actual number of “peer-reviewed” papers even submitted.

My favorite debunking comes from Ross McKitrick from the University of Guelph, where he states in the Fraser Institute blog:

“The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 percent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 percent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.”

•Am I really witnessing the media trying to take a Supreme Court nominee down with reports that he drank beer in high school and once threw ice at another guy in a bar in college? Seriously?

•Others want to use government to eliminate our choices of fuel to run our cars by claiming that unchecked global warming causes “…alarming increase(s) in severe hurricanes, escalating forest fire disasters, diminishing glaciers or even severe blizzards due to impact from added storm energy (??)…”

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. a professor at the University of Colorado has studied this subject in great detail.

"Neither tropical cyclones globally, Atlantic hurricanes overall, US landfalls nor US normalized damage has gotten worse (that is more frequent or intense) over climate time scales. (Don’t take it from me, this is straight out of the IPCC and US government’s National Climate Assessment.)"

The IPCC actually said it is likely the number of tropical cyclones will “either decrease or remain essentially unchanged...” over the next 50-100 years or so.

•How does Christine Blasey Ford justify not being “brave enough” to step forward and go to police to report that she had been sexually assaulted 35 years ago, much less at some point over the subsequent 35 years – including during Kavanaugh’s various previous judicial appointments – but she’s suddenly “brave enough” to come forward now to stop a Supreme Court nomination? This is just about politics.

•As for global warming “…escalating forest fire disasters…” we need only look at a study in the journal Science which determined that the global burnt area from fires had declined by roughly 25% from 1999 to 2017.

Another paper, this one appearing in 2016 in the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, concluded: "Many consider wildfire an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived trends."

What about California? There is no doubt that the state has gone through a hot spell with big wildfires. But a study released last year showed that, since 1970, the number of big fires — those of 300 acres or more — have steadily declined. The past year has seen some unusually hot months, no question, drying things out. But that's weather — not climate change.

The problem in California is the two major reasons for destructive fires. First, in recent decades we've built homes and expanded towns in remote areas where previously there were few people or none. Second is the federal government's foolish policies related to fire control.

"One of the biggest problems is the overcrowding of Western forests with dead trees, and the areas between stand with dry, flammable grasses," noted a recent analysis in the Washington Examiner. "Part of the problem is that logging and grazing have been discontinued or discouraged in too many places."

Worse, the federal government's policy of wildfire suppression has, perhaps paradoxically, contributed to the problem. Before humans lived here in enormous numbers, the landscape had many small fires that suddenly erupted from lightning strikes and other causes, and then burnt themselves out. But in recent decades, the policy has been to stop fires immediately. This leaves huge areas of accumulating dry brush that catches fire fast and burns hot, with the fire traveling quickly once lit. That's where we are today, and until we change that policy, California wildfires are going to continue to get worse.

(Email bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Brett Kavanaugh wasn't my first choice as Supreme Court Justice to replace the always disappointing Anthony Kennedy, but seriously?!?

•With Sen. Dianne Feinstein's predominant role playing arbiter of accusations against Kavanaugh based on allegations from 30+ years ago, I thought it would be interesting to retell a 30+ year old story from her past.

Remember Richard Ramirez? He was called the Night Stalker due to his terrorizing the populations of Los Angeles and San Francisco from June of 1984 to August of 1985, claiming 14 victims of rape and murder.

By July of 1985, Ramirez had already committed 13 murders, five rapes including sodomy, and three attempted murders, yet it appeared police were stumped. They had a couple of critical pieces of evidence: they knew the killer's preferred weapon was a .25-caliber semi-automatic handgun, and they discovered footprints at multiple crime scenes from a particular Avia aerobic sneaker with a unique tread pattern. Police kept the information quiet so that if Ramirez acted again, they would have evidence to tie him to the crime.

After the murder of Peter and Barbara Pan on Aug. 18, then-San Francisco mayor Dianne Feinstein blabbed that critical and confidential information in a televised press conference.

Her leak infuriated police. They knew the killer would be following media coverage and destroy the evidence. Ramirez, soon after Feinstein's press conference, dropped his size 11½ Avia sneakers over the side of the Golden Gate Bridge.

After disposing of the evidence, Ramirez drove 76 miles south of Los Angeles, to Mission Viejo, where he claimed more victims. That night, he
shot Bill Erickson in the head twice and raped his wife Inez. Inez ran to the neighbors' house for help, discovering that their 13-year old son had written down part of the assailant's license plate number. Fingerprint evidence from the stolen car, as well as evidence from a simple burglary of the home of prominent dentist Jack Saroyan, gave police what they needed. Police then released a mugshot of Ramirez at a televised press conference, announcing, “We know who you are now, and soon everyone else will. There will be no place you can hide.”

On Aug. 31, 1985, Ramirez was captured in East Los Angeles after being beaten and subdued by area residents.

On Nov. 7, 1989, Ramirez was sentenced to die in California's electric chair. He died five years ago of cancer still waiting to be executed.

Feinstein has had to know the incredible irresponsibility she showed by letting a serial killer know what police have on him. She seems to show the same level of carelessness in manipulating 35 year old foggy-memory accounts of drunken teenagers in an effort to gain political advantage by crushing the career of a distinguished judge.

Democrats are pure scum!

•I saw this post at The Deplorable Climate Science Blog and it's pretty good!
“Planetary Healing Powers Of Presidents Posted on September 15, 2018 by tonyheller”

Remember this nonsensical statement by Obama in 2008?

“'I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…'

Several days ago, President Trump was blamed by The Washington Post for category 4

Florence, so apparently he downgraded Florence to a category 0 at landfall. Not only that, but using Washington Post logic, the president has also cooled the planet at a rate of almost ten degrees per century since he was elected.

A few more Trump terms and Earth will be in an ice age.

•Obama bragged about healing the planet, but his record wasn't so good. Earth warmed at a rate of more than three degrees per century during his presidency.”
Obama was apparently the Global Warming President!

•Democrats have jumped the shark in their efforts to bring-down the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh by dragging a dollar bill through trailer parks in search of women that Kavanaugh has apparently sexually assaulted decades ago.

They don't seem to have a problem with former U.S. House Rep. Keith Ellison from Minnesota physically abusing two former girlfriends and are in complete “lalalalalalala” denial about Juanita Broaddrick's rape accusation against Bill Clinton. “Believe the women” they say, but it SHOULD say, “Believe the women accusing Republicans ONLY!”

•I am (so far anyway) really glad that I appear to be wrong about the Chiefs and their phenomenal (so far anyway) QB Patrick Mahomes. He has been spectacular and the offense has been equally stellar. The defense has been pretty sketchy though.

Does any of this remind anyone else of the 13-3 Chiefs under Dick Vermeil, with Trent Green, Priest Holmes, Willie Roaf and a defense that couldn't force Indianapolis and Peyton Manning to have to punt once the entire game?

I sure hope this team is a little different!



•As floodwaters from Hurricane Florence along the Carolina coast gradually recede, we are once again battered by the Democrats claiming that mankind is causing the number and intensity of tropical storms to increase due to the use of fossil fuels' causing the planet's temperature to increase (global warming).

The esteemed climate scientist, Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (He was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming) recently addressed the subject of Hurricane Florence on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show, and addressed whether it could be blamed on humanity. Here’s what he has to say about it:

“You really can't say much in only a couple of minutes, and it's difficult when you don't know what the questions will be. I got a plug in for Anthony Watts' (www.wuwt.com) revealing the deception Bill Nye's (The Science Guy) faked global-warming-in-a-jar experiment.

“How did I get on Tucker's show? It started when the folks at the Texas Public Policy Foundation asked me to write an op-ed to counter the global warming hype around Hurricane Florence. That was published in USA Today yesterday morning. They also set up several radio talk show interviews during the day, and scored the Tucker Carlson spot several hours before showtime…

“The more I think about Bill Nye's experiment, the more irritated I get with the consensus scientific establishment for not telling Bill Nye that such an experiment cannot work; you cannot demonstrate the greenhouse effect on temperature with CO2 in a glass jar. Scientists who understand atmospheric radiative transfer know that.

“The fact that the 'Climate 101' video is still out there means the scientific establishment (plus Al Gore, who used it in his 'Climate Reality Project'), are complicit in scientific fraud in order to advance the alarmist global warming narrative.

“If their evidence for human-caused climate change is so good, they shouldn't have to fake evidence to support their claims. I realize Bill Nye isn't part of the climate research establishment, but he has a huge influence on public perception and scientific understanding. James Hansen also has had a huge influence on the public debate, and yet broke NASA rules by speaking to the press and Congress without management approval (and also likely violated the Hatch Act by campaigning politically..yes, he did, ThinkProgress, because he was a member of the Senior Executive Service, which has special Hatch Act rules.. I know because I was one of them, and I resigned NASA rather than have my hands tied).

“This is the state of climate science today: if you support the alarmist narrative, you can exaggerate threats and connections with human activities, fake experiments, break government rules, intimidate scientific journal editors (and make them resign), and even violate the law.

“As long as you can say you are doing it for the children.”

•Back to the subject at hand, Dr. Spencer pointed-out on a Facebook post that hurricane damages (in $) have increased dramatically in recent decades, but the intensity of those most-damaging storms has not. It's all due to increasing population and infrastructure vulnerability.

Actually, while the wind, storm surge, and freshwater flooding from Category 1 Hurricane Florence is causing massive damage, historically, major landfalling hurricanes were more frequent in past decades.

Contrary to popular perception, the number of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. has dropped by an average of more than 50% since the 1930s.

While the current decade isn't over yet, if we assume the long-term average of 6 storms per decade continues for the remaining 2.5 hurricane seasons, the downward trend since the 1930s will still be a 50% reduction.

Why pick the 1930s as the starting point?

Because yesterday Dr. Spencer presented U.S. Government data on the 36 most costly hurricanes in U.S. history, which have all occurred since the 1930s. Since the 1930s, hurricane damages have increased dramatically. But, as Roger Pielke, Jr. has documented, that's due to a huge increase in vulnerable infrastructure in a more populous and more prosperous nation. In other words, we are more affluent, so we move closer to the ocean where the domiciles we build are more expensive and they get destroyed in tropical storms.

It's not due to stronger hurricanes hitting the U.S. or to global warming.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•From The Daily Caller, Hillary Clinton wants supporters to tell their senators to vote against Judge Brett Kavanaugh becoming a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Clinton's expressed reason for opposing President Donald Trump's second Supreme Court nominee is that he will impede the lefties' efforts to grow government by fighting the imaginary demon of man-made (anthropogenic) global warming.

“Replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh would swing the Court to a new, hard-right majority that would rule against curbing greenhouse gases for years—maybe decades—that we can't afford to waste on inaction,” Clinton wrote in a series of tweets published Friday.

Kavanaugh defended his record on environmental cases.

“In environmental cases, some cases I've ruled against environmentalist interests, and in many cases I've ruled for environmentalist interests,” he told senators, pointing to three major cases in the last decade.

Clinton and others also worry Kavanaugh's lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court could frustrate a future Democratic administration's climate policy goals.

“We're not fighting for the planet in some abstract sense here. We're fighting for our continued ability to live on it,” Clinton tweeted.

Gawd she is an idiot!

•A guest essay recently appeared in the fantastic website, www.wuwt.com written by Vijay Jayaraj, M.Sc. Environmental Science from University of East Anglia, England. The best parts follow:

“Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is fairly popular. Even people in far eastern countries like India and Australia know about it.

But little do we hear about Climate-Change Derangement Syndrome (CCDS) and another new syndrome emerging from it.

CCDS is a behavioral pattern in which a section of our society responds irrationally to any trend in global temperatures that contradicts its narrative of a dangerous rise in global temperatures, without regard to the actual data.

For example, recently a group of 60 scientists, journalists, politicians, activists, and others signed an open letter saying they won't debate anyone who denies either that climate change is human induced or that it is dangerous and needs to be prevented…”

Isn't that collegial!

Rather than accurately representing what skeptics think and presenting evidence to the contrary, sufferers of CCDS caricature skeptics as denying any human contribution to warming or even as denying any warming at all.

Those who are new to the climate controversy might be surprised to learn that almost 100% of climate skeptics within academia acknowledge the current warming trend in our world.

The earth experienced a very cold period during the 16th and 17th centuries. Dubbed the Little Ice Age, this period was brutal for the Northern Hemisphere. It was followed by a natural rise in global temperatures, long before the Industrial Revolution grew enough to add enough to the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content to make any significant contribution to temperature.

The warming that began during this phase continues to date, and scientists call the current phase the Modern Warm Period. So, all the academicians agree on the current warming phase.

However, by repeated attacks on skeptics through a complicit mainstream media, those with CCDS have led much of the public to believe skeptics deny all warming—or at least all human contribution to it.”

“…most skeptics…remembering the undeniable evidence about the existence of similar warm periods in recent climate history, question not whether the world is warming, or even whether human activity contributes to the warming, but how much, and in what relation to natural causes, and whether the proposed changes in global energy policies are worth the effort.”

That's the money quote!

“One variation of CCDS we might call the Global Temperature Plateau Syndrome (GTPS). It afflicts those who are in constant denial of the approximately 19-year trend of reduced, possibly even completely absent, warming.

This trend is fascinating because it coincides with an unrelenting increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that should, according to alarmist theory, have driven warming much faster than actually observed. Frustrated by academic scientists' failure to toe the line, GTPS sufferers increasingly turn to politics (and the entertainment industry) rather than science to enforce their views…”

This is where we get nincompoops like Leo DiCaprio barging-into port in his multi-million dollar smoke-belching yacht telling us all to shut-down our power plants.

“The real intensity of GTPS, however, will be revealed if global temperature prolongs the downward spiral of February 2016–February 2018, during which global average surface temperature dropped 0.56°C—the biggest two-year drop on record.

Translation: if it's cold, mankind generally struggles. When it is warm, mankind generally flourishes.

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•After this past week of public media-driven funerals, and considering purportedly important funerals of past years, I am left with these questions:

Why Michael Eric Dyson and Louis Farrakhan were not present at Mother Theresa's funeral?

What in the name of the Me Too movement was Bill Clinton doing being on stage at Aretha Franklin's funeral?

Why do Democrats always associate black-skinned people with members of the simian species?

Not holding my breath for answers.

•From a quarter to one-half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet's vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Gee, who'd have predicted that? More carbon dioxide means more plant life!

•The sun has been void of sunspots for more than half of the year. Scientists believe the Earth could be in for a huge cold snap.

The sun has been free of sunspots (causes of planetary heat) for a total of 133 days this year.

With only 241 days of 2018 passing, that means the sun has been blank for the majority of the year.

Experts warn this is a sign that the solar minimum is on its way.

“To find a year with fewer sunspots, you have to go back to 2009 when the sun was experiencing the deepest solar minimum in a century. Solar minimum has returned, bringing extra cosmic rays, long-lasting holes in the sun's atmosphere, and strangely pink auroras.”

The sun follows cycles of roughly 11 years where it reaches a solar maximum and then a solar minimum.

During a solar maximum, the sun gives off more heat and is littered with sunspots. Less heat in a solar minimum is due to a decrease in magnetic waves.

The sun was not expected to head into a solar minimum until around 2020, but it appears to be heading in early which could prove to be bad news for those hoping to redistribute global wealth using the climate as the main justification.

The last time there was a prolonged solar minimum, it led to a “mini ice-age,” scientifically known as the Maunder minimum - which lasted for 70 years.

The Maunder minimum, which saw seven decades of freezing weather, began in 1645 and lasted through to 1715, and happened when sunspots were exceedingly rare.

During this period, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees Celsius leading to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages.

Vencore Weather, a meteorological website, said: “Low solar activity is known to have consequences on Earth's weather and climate and it also is well correlated with an increase in cosmic rays that reach the upper part of the atmosphere. The blank sun is a sign that the next solar minimum is approaching and there will be an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years.”

•Former Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday reiterated his call that President Trump should resign.

“My only message would be resign,” Gore, an environmental activist, told Fox 11 Los Angeles during an interview about climate change. Gore's remarks came in response to a question about what he would say to the president.

“I think everyone knows to discount what this current administration is doing and saying. They've made the EPA the CPA — the Coal Production Agency — instead of protecting the environment," he said, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The comments come a little more than a year after Gore told LADbible that, if he could give Trump one piece of advice, he would tell him to resign.

Gore also said last year that Trump's attitude toward climate change had sparked an unprecedented wave of pro-climate activism.

"What we are seeing in the United States of America today is the biggest upsurge of activism in favor of the climate that we have ever experienced. And it's in reaction to what President Trump has said," he said during a taping of a SiriusXM town hall interview. "And we are seeing the same thing around the world — the other countries have doubled down on their commitment.”

Trump has sparked fierce criticism from Gore and other environmental activists, including actor and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), over a raft of Obama-era environmental policy rollbacks. Trump also drew backlash last year for pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement.

In other words, if he is angering Al Gore and The Terminator, President Trump is on the right track – keep it up!

(Email Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the EPA, signed a plan last week to reduce regulation of coal-fired power plants.

The agency discussed the details of the proposal on Tuesday, calling the plan the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, intended to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was designed to try and put coal and oil companies out of business.

President Trump visited West Virginia coal country on Tuesday and used the rally to tell supporters he is following through on that promise.

Trump administration officials have long said that the Clean Power Plan exceeded the federal government's authority. They have said that the new plan operates within the bounds of the 1970 Clean Air Act, which obliges the government to design a way to cut carbon emissions.

Still, many coal and oil companies are gradually moving away from coal in response to economic reality – remember that necessity is the mother of invention - other fuels, like natural gas, have become more cost-effective.

The new rule is expected to have huge implications for aging coal-fired plants across the country, offering incentives to keep them running longer or enabling them to avoid installing over-burdensome pollution controls.

Of course, the environuts came out in screaming, pant-filling opposition: “This egregious climate-denial plan fails to protect the American people from the serious risks of climate change…” said Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The plan, he added, “goes even further and allows polluters to increase the amount of smog and soot they emit into the air our children breathe.”

NOW they care about children!

The EPA says the reductions under its proposal would be comparable to the Obama Administration rule but will be achieved in a reasonable manner. While the Clean Power Plan aimed to cut carbon emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, the Trump plan sets no national benchmark.

This is the part that makes me grind my teeth in frustration. There should be no benchmark for controlling carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide is plant food. It is a trace gas in the atmosphere.

When we kowtow to the terminology of the other side, we give them support.

Stop it!

•Have you seen the ads for the “new” Papillion movie? Why re-create Papillion? Why not just re-release the original classic that featured Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen? Hollywood is bereft of morals and fresh ideas – not a good combination.

•Now the next step after snipping Obama's Clean Power Plan…strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

“The one Obama era rule that still needs to be revisited is the endangerment finding that labels life-giving carbon dioxide as a threat to public welfare,” former Trump transition official Steve Milloy told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Milloy is referring to an EPA regulatory document from 2009 that found greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, indirectly harm public health through global warming. That endangerment finding gave EPA the legal cover it needed to issue global warming regulations.

The endangerment finding authority underlies sweeping regulations on power plants, vehicles and oil and gas operations estimated to cost billions of dollars, including the Obama Clean Power Plan.

Milloy and others want the EPA to reopen the 2009 endangerment
finding, so that they can reveal the flaws in the evidence presented for the 2009 finding.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican, gave conservative groups some hope on Tuesday when he said “the issue is still alive,” referring to considerations over reopen the endangerment finding.

Twenty-seven states challenged the 2015 Obama regulation, scoring a legal victory in early 2016 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay against implementation.

“The ACE proposal establishes breathing space for the endangerment finding rollback to occur in the future,” said Milloy, a lawyer and policy expert who runs the website JunkScience.com.

Environuts, of course and some of them still in the EPA, oppose revisiting the endangerment finding, going with the oft-used argument that the “science is settled” when it comes to global warming. Acting EPA chief Wheeler told The Washington Post in July he saw no “compelling reason” to review the endangerment finding.

“There would have to be a major, compelling reason to try to ever reopen that. I don't think that's an open question at this point,” Wheeler said.

However, Myron Ebell, the director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment, said leaving the endangerment finding in place left the door open for future administrations to impose sweeping regulations over the economy.

“The 'Clean Power' Plan was a key part of the Obama administration's war on affordable energy and based on the finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare…However, the best and most recent science undermines that claim and therefore reconsideration is warranted,” Ebell said in a statement.

Our work is NEVER done!



•Did you see that story about ICE agents in San Bernardino arresting a man who was taking his pregnant wife to the hospital to have their fifth child? It was plastered all over Twitter this weekend with people losing their minds that she was forced to drive herself to the hospital. Many portrayed the situation of one where she was in labor and an emergency. She was going to the hospital for a pre-scheduled C-section. ABC News was carrying the story along with surveillance video from the gas station they had stopped at to refuel their car.

ICE later claimed that the man was wanted for murder in Mexico. ABC News reported that the wife claimed he wasn't the guy. Now, I just heard a brief report from ABC News on the radio that an official from the Mexican state of Guanajuato confirmed Monday that a man arrested while driving his pregnant wife to a hospital for a C-section in San Bernardino is indeed wanted for homicide. I found this clarification on the ABC affiliate TV station's website posted a couple of hours previous.

So next I go to the ABC News website to see if this information is provided for their readers. Here are the “Top Stories” headlines:

Trump ready to ease rules on coal-fired plants
Baby boy dies after dad finds him in hot car
Melania Trump speaks out against cyberbullying
MeToo activist reportedly paid off her own accuser
'Unacceptable violent weekend': Chicago police
Employee opens fire at warehouse, killing manager
Goats roam onto subway tracks in Brooklyn, NY
Man had violent run-in with cop before viral video
Priest disappears amid molestation allegations
US firms warn Trump against China tariffs

Nothing appears on the ABC News splash page about correcting their original story, which is available on their (ABC's) San Bernardino affiliate's website. If you search the entire website for the story itself, you find several, but none of them mention that the guy actually WAS wanted for murder.

THAT is media bias.

•A federal judge in South Carolina issued an injunction against the Trump administration Thursday, lifting a stay on an Obama-era rule that expanded federal authority under the Clean Water Act.

The EPA finalized the “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) rule in 2015, giving the agency the authority to regulate seasonal and relatively insignificant bodies of water as “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February 2017 to review and rewrite the WOTUS rule to constrict its application “consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States.”

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt followed up on Trump's executive order in January, beginning the review process and staying the WOTUS rule until 2020. Thursday's injunction lifts Pruitt's order to stay the rule in 26 states, or every state in which a district judge has not already ordered the rule stayed.

“Navigable waters” refers to “relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water,” Scalia, who died in 2016, wrote in the majority opinion in Rapanos. The definition is narrower than what the Obama administration had regulated and considered protected under the Clean Water Act.

Republicans, industry and agriculture interest groups, farmers and ranchers have all complained about the rule and application of the Clean Water Act in general.
The Army Corps of Engineers fined a California farmer $2.8 million in 2012 (under Obama) for plowing over vernal pools, which are seasonal lakes or puddles that house some marine life. The farmer eventually settled for $1 million after trying to fight the fine in court.

Eliminate the EPA!

•Southwest Airlines issued a statement last week notifying passengers that they are limiting them to one emotional support animal per person. The only emotional support animals that will be permitted on flights are dogs and cats. When it comes to trained service animals ? defined by the airline as an animal “individually trained to perform a task(s) or work for a person with a physical and/or mental disability” ? Southwest will allow service dogs, cats and miniature horses.

Miniature horses? Isn't that discriminatory toward non-miniature horses?

•I don't know if it's because of the recently-passed Shark Week on the Discovery channel, the movie, Sharknado, or a few recent reports of shark attacks, but sharks have been all over the news cycle.

Did you know that you are more than twice as likely to be killed by a bear than by a shark?

A comparison of shark attack fatalities with bear attack fatalities in the U.S. and Canada spanning 1900 to 2009 revealed the following.

In Canada and Alaska, 49 people were killed by bears, 0 were killed by sharks. In the lower 48 states during that same time period, 14 people were killed by bears and 30 by sharks, resulting in totals of 63 people killed by bears and 30 killed by sharks.



•This is one of our favorite topics here…

From Chris White at CFact.com, the Trump administration is preparing to repeal an Obama-era rule banning a wide swath of popular light bulbs.

The Department of Energy (DOE) is ready to scrap a rule broadening the number of light bulbs that must meet strict energy efficiency standards set to take effect in 2020, according to a document the agency published on its website.

Obama's DOE expanded the class of bulbs covered by a 2007 light bulb ban to include bug lights, three-way bulbs, rough service lamps (bulbs you use in the garage when you work on your car), and some decorative bulbs, such as globe-shaped bulbs. Obama's decision came in January 2017 and included bulbs that had previously been exempt from the ban.

Obama officials argued the expansion was needed because consumers might use the unregulated bulbs to replace regulated ones. “DOE expects these sales will likely increase since these lamps could be used as replacements for other regulated lamp types,” the law notes.

Eliminating the regulation is potentially as groundbreaking as President Donald Trump's move to roll back fuel emission rules, according to some experts.

Congress passed into law in 2007 new efficiency requirements for general light bulbs, with strict requirements set to take effect in 2020. LED bulbs and compact fluorescent lamps can easily meet the 2020 standard of 45 lumens per watt, but traditional incandescent bulbs cannot.

Obama also banned sales of the 100-watt incandescent lightbulb in 2012 as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (which was signed into law by George W. Bush! Arrrgggghhhh!!! I soooo hate the Bushes) was taking
hold. Many people complained at the time, calling the bans an infringement on consumers' rights to choose how they light their homes.

That is great news, especially since my stockpile of incandescent bulbs built after the ban went into effect is starting to dwindle.

•I was thinking the other day that based on my TV show watching from my youth, I would have guessed quicksand would be a much greater problem in this country now that I'm grown up.

•From Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller, Department of the Interior (DOI) head Ryan Zinke blamed “frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists” for keeping federal officials from managing forests. He laid out Trump administration efforts to clear more forests of debris that provide fuel for fires.

“I've visited too many fire camps and spoken with too many experts to know that those who perished fighting these fires could have been saved,” Zinke wrote in an op-ed for USA Today.

Zinke went after “radical environmentalists” who use litigation to stop the federal government from actively managing forests in a way to prevent massive wildfires.

“Every year we watch our forests burn, and every year there is a call for action,” Zinke wrote in an op-ed for USA Today, detailing the Trump administration's plans to reduce wildfires.

“Yet, when action comes, and we try to thin forests of dead and dying timber, or we try to sustainably harvest timber from dense and fire-prone areas, we are attacked with frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods,” Zinke wrote.
Zinke signed a secretarial order demanding “aggressive fuels management and protecting structures that lie within the wildland-urban interface” and the department began “using drones like never before to monitor and contain fires,” he wrote.

For years, wildfire experts and Republican lawmakers have been calling for more active management of forests — logging, thinning, prescribed burns and other activities meant to keep fuel loads down.

Hot and dry conditions, particularly on the West Coast, prime the region for wildfire activity every year. While some scientists have linked growing wildfires to global warming, most experts say land management is the driving factor.

More than five million acres across the country have burned in wildfires, including more than 700,000 acres in California and Oregon where the U.S. Forest Service controls most of the wooded areas.

Thousands of homes have been burned to the ground and lives have been lost to the flames and smoke. Thousands of firefighters are battling blazes, including 200 active duty military personnel.

Fires across the west are burning hotter and more intense. The overload of dead and diseased timber in the forests makes the fires worse and more deadly. We must be able to actively manage our forests and not face frivolous litigation when we try to remove these fuels.


•Am I alone in growing really tired of seeing Robert Mueller's “Herman-Munster-like” noggin on the news every night?

Wrap-up this sham investigation already!

(You can follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•While you’re sweating your way through the summer, consider this – it could be worse.

Anthony Watts from www.wattsUpWithThat.com noted recently that the environment around the weather station used to measure the official temperature changed dramatically in the past few years.

A headline recently circulation by the Associated Press:

“Death Valley sets tentative world record for hottest month.”

The month's (June or July I believe) average temperature was 108.1 degrees according to the Las Vegas office of the National Weather Service. That eclipsed the previous record, set in July 2017 when the average was 107.4 degrees.

The temperatures are measured at Furnace Creek in Death Valley National Park, a huge, abandoned and unforgiving terrain in the desert of southeastern California that includes Badwater Basin, which at 282 feet below sea level is the lowest point in North America.

Note that in Death Valley National Park, the temperature monitoring site is operated by the National Park Service.

First, yes there was a weather pattern in July that made much of the southwest hotter than usual. Key word: weather pattern.

But, what really caused the increased average high temperature to be a record setter? Simple; the environment around the weather station used to measure the official temperature changed dramatically in the past few years.

Death Valley National Park has become a tourist attraction. People seem fascinated by the extreme temperatures there. The National Park Service indulges them, making an outdoor photo-op sign that allows them to be photographed with near record-setting temperatures.

But, the sign and the site are operated by the National Park Service, so accuracy in temperature measurement isn't their goal. They want more visitors.

With more visitors, the National Parks Service collects more money from fees. Their mission is about visitors, even though the extreme temperature is a major attraction, they aren't tasked with measuring it. While the National Park Service uses NOAA equipment for that purpose, NOAA has no say about what happens around the thermometer, and that's the issue.

The environment where the temperature is measured has changed, dramatically. Not only that, the location of the equipment has changed, and the equipment itself has changed.

Watts visited the Furnace Creek Visitor Center back in 2007. The official NOAA thermometer was poorly-sited (in violation of NOAA's own rules) near the asphalt driveway.

There was also a National Park Service operated weather station attached to the roof, which is not recommended for accurately measuring temperature.

Death Valley National Park started the rehabilitation of Furnace Creek Campground in February 2012 and will near completion at the end of this summer.

So what does this mean for temperature? In addition to the ground change from gravel to asphalt paving, which will raise night-time temperatures because asphalt acts as a heat sink for daytime solar radiation, dumping it back into the atmosphere at night, RVs can now park overnight, and run their air conditioners thanks to the electrical hookups. Even more heat is dumped into the environment.
Then, just 74 feet away to the South, is a large solar farm. These likely raise temperatures the most as studies have found.

Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas.

One particular study found the heat island effect caused ambient air temperatures around the solar power plant compared to that of the surrounding wild desert landscape to be 5.4 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer.

So, there it is - in the hottest place on Earth, the effect of recently installed solar panels designed to reduce greenhouse gas emission, is making it even hotter!

Could anything be more absurd?

Consider this - none of the following temperature-increasing items were in-place when the original weather station was placed at Furnace Creek in 1913.

In this time period, circa 1913-1922 there were:

No visitor center
No nearby solar panels
No parking lots
No paved RV parks
No AC heat exchanger units
No golf courses
No irrigation

These land-use changes all likely have had a cumulative effect on temperature measured in Death Valley. Because the environment has changed so much, it's ridiculous to believe man's burning of fossil fuels is responsible for any perceived climate change.



From www.WattsUpWithThat.com, we learned of a stunning admission from National Geographic.

Remember that video last December of an emaciated polar bear that enviro-wackos went viral over? Photographer Cristina Mittermeier admitted they didn't just come across the dying bear the day it was filmed: it was spotted at least two days earlier by Paul Nicklen. The only call he made was to his film crew — he made no attempt to find a local conservation officer to euthanize the bear, which would have been the humane thing to do.

The bear's emaciated, near-death stagger was simply too tantalizing to pass up. Mittermeier claims they knew when they filmed the bear that he was sick or injured, but Nicklon presented it as an effect of climate change regardless. Mittermeier now says National Geographic simply 'went too far' with their video caption ('This is what climate change looks like'), that she and Nicklan 'lost control of the narrative.'

Statement from the organization:

“National Geographic went too far in drawing a definitive connection between climate change and a particular starving polar bear in the opening caption of our video about the animal. We said, 'This is what climate change looks like.' While science has established that there is a strong connection between melting sea ice and polar bears dying off, there is no way to know for certain why this bear was on the verge of death…”

Here are some excerpts of comments from the photographers:

“Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn't been easy. With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral—and people took it literally. Paul spotted the polar bear a year ago on a scouting trip to an isolated cove on Somerset Island in the Canadian Arctic [August 2017]. He immediately asked me to assemble our…team. ..The day after his call our team flew to an Inuit village on Resolute Bay. There was no certainty that we would find the bear again or that it would still be alive. …Only when it lifted its head were we able to spot it lying on the ground, like an abandoned rug, nearly lifeless. From the shape of its body, it seemed to be a large male.

We needed to get closer; we boarded a Zodiac boat and motored to land. Strong winds covered our noise and smell. From the shelter of one of the empty buildings, we watched the bear. He didn't move for almost an hour. When he finally stood up, I had to catch my breath. Paul had warned me about the polar bear's condition, but nothing could have prepared me for what I saw.

The bear's once white coat was molted and dirty. His once robust frame was skin and bones. Every step that he took was pained and slow. We could tell he was sick or injured and that he was starving. We could see that he was probably in his last days.

I took photographs, and Paul recorded video.

When Paul posted the video on Instagram, he wrote, 'This is what starvation looks like.' He pointed out that scientists suspect polar bears will be driven to extinction in the next century. He wondered whether the global population of 25,000 polar bears would die the way this bear was dying. …

National Geographic picked up the video and added subtitles. It became the most viewed video on National Geographic's website—ever. … The mission was a success, but there was a problem: We had lost control of the narrative. The first line of the National Geographic video said, 'This is what climate change looks like'—with 'climate change' highlighted in the brand's distinctive yellow. In retrospect, National Geographic went too far with the caption.

Perhaps we made a mistake not telling the full story—that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future.

We had sent a 'gut-wrenching' image out into the world. We probably shouldn't have been surprised that people didn't pick up on the nuances we tried to send with it. Yet we were shocked by the response.”

I thought National Geographic was supposed to be kind to nature and animals and humane in their treatment of them? What kind of “humane” organization and people lurk for days knowing an animal is suffering an agonizingly slow death and do nothing but plan how to use that suffering animal to make money and further their fallacious cause?

Not only did Nicklen and Mittermeier cold-bloodedly exploit a defenseless, suffering animal without a thought to ending its pain, they still think that what they did was noble and self-sacrificing (they were 'on a mission'). They apparently think that their advocacy for climate change relieved them of the responsibility of being humane.


(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•This 2018 Royals season is kind of surreal.

They stink.

They stink badly.

Nobody is watching. They don't watch on TV in bars or restaurants, listen on radio, or attend the games in great numbers.

But it seems like the fans want to watch, they want to follow a winner, hit the K in the middle of the week, but they're just waiting for wins to follow and build their interest level.

Weird! It seems like you need to win in order for the fans to come out and pay attention.

What a novel concept!

•According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what all the polling sock puppets tell us, nobody cares about whether global warming – or climate change – is a real problem to care about.

It's not.

In the summer, it gets hot. In some years, it gets really hot, in other years, not so much.

Just ride it out. It is what we have done for generations.

That's what life is all about. It's a roller-coaster.

•What are the Chiefs going to be this year? Many in KC have asked that questio

I have the answer.

They are going to be terrible.

They are led by a rookie at the quarterback position (c'mon, Mahomes is essentially an NFL rookie!) , and he has to go through his rookie growing pains. That has to happen. It even happened to Joe Montana, Steve Young, Tom Brady…name another….


If Patrick Mahomes is all that he is forecasted to be, we will see and experience it - but not until 2019 at the earliest. It may indeed be a few years later.

So relax. Let the kid develop.

•Okay, now to the important stuff…

Whether Russia meddled in the U.S. presidential election in 2016 is not up for serious debate — numerous intelligence agencies, both foreign and domestic, concluded it did.

This is what they are telling us:

During a joint press conference with President Donald Trump in Helsinki on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin went a long way toward answering why.

“I did [want Trump to win] because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,” Putin said.

That statement was widely covered, but I'm convinced something else Putin said during the press conference is more important.

“I think that we as a major oil and gas power, and the United States as a major oil and gas power, as well, we could work together on regulation of international markets,” he said. “We do have space for cooperation here.”

Some close observers have drawn this connection before, but it's worth saying again explicitly: There's no way to understand Trump's relationship with Russia without putting oil and climate politics at its center.

Fossil fuels still power 80 percent of the world's economy. You can see why rapidly reinforcing efficient energy sources — exactly what science says we have to do — might be fiercely supported by politicians.

Russia is a petrostate, and the U.S. is now, too. In fact, the two countries are the world's largest non-OPEC oil producers, extracting nearly as much as all OPEC countries combined. They also own an even greater share of the global natural gas
market: Added together the two countries produce six times more natural gas than the rest of the world.

By working together, they can keep the global economy swimming in oil and gas.
And what's the primary force working against the fossil fuel industry these days? Climate activists.

Trump's promise to withdraw from the Paris climate accord was specifically designed to weaken that agreement — and the spirit of cooperation it helped embody.

Trump's moves to open up offshore drilling in the Arctic will help both the U.S. and Russia access the oil-rich and increasingly ice-free region.

It will also hugely improve the economies of both countries.

Trump's steel tariffs on Europe will help bolster Russia's pipeline-building oil and gas industry.

Trump's claims that by purchasing natural gas, Germany was being “controlled by” Russia is a window into his vision of fossil fuel-driven geopolitics.

This is a good thing for us.

Trump's buddying with North Korea might even be designed to clear the way for a Russian gas pipeline there.

From their comments leading up to Monday's meeting, it's clear that Trump and Putin see the oil and gas industry as a critical component to their working relationship.

Once again, this is good.

They are working right into our hands.

Where fossil fuels are on the ledger, the United States wins, and our worldwide enemies lose.

Let's make America great again!

(Reach Landmark columnist Brian Kubicki by email to bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•It is amusing listening to RINOs, NeverTrumpers, and Democrats venting over President Trump's comments about his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. They apparently expected Trump to horsewhip Putin on a national stage. Truth is Trump is fully aware that the previous administration and the Clinton Campaign conspired against his campaign by spying on him and his campaign staff during and after the election. Those are facts. How is he supposed to be outraged that John Podesta was too stupid to know that you shouldn't click on a phishing email?

•Read in WattsUpWithThat.com this week that there may be more than one quadrillion tons of diamond hidden in the Earth's interior, according to a new study from MIT and other universities.

Don't grab your shovels just yet though. Scientists estimate the precious minerals are buried more than 100 miles below the surface, far deeper than any drilling expedition has ever reached.

The ultradeep cache may be scattered within cratonic roots — the oldest and most immovable sections of rock that lie beneath the center of most continental tectonic plates. Shaped like inverted mountains, cratons can stretch as deep as 200 miles through the Earth's crust and into its mantle.

Scientists estimate that cratonic roots may contain 1 to 2 percent diamond.

Considering the total volume of cratonic roots in the Earth, the team figures that about a quadrillion tons of diamond are scattered within these ancient rocks, 90 to 150 miles below the surface.

“This shows that diamond is not perhaps this exotic mineral, but on the [geological] scale of things, it's relatively common,” says Ulrich Faul, a research scientist in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

"We can't get at them, but still, there is much more diamond there than we have ever thought before.”

In a way, Faul says cratonic roots made partly of diamond makes sense. Diamonds are forged in the high-pressure, high-temperature environment of the deep Earth and only make it close to the surface through volcanic eruptions that occur every few tens of millions of years. These eruptions carve out geologic “pipes” made of a type of rock called kimberlite (named after the town of Kimberley, South Africa, where the first diamonds in this type of rock were found).

Diamond, along with magma from deep in the Earth, can spew out through kimberlite pipes, onto the surface of the Earth.

For the most part, kimberlite pipes have been found at the edges of cratonic roots, such as in certain parts of Canada, Siberia, Australia, and South Africa. It would make sense, then, that cratonic roots should contain some diamond in their makeup. When we one day figure out how to mine to that depth, diamonds are going to become worthless.

•President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy prompted rampant speculation about the future of Roe v. Wade. There was less talk, however, about Massachusetts v. EPA.
The latter ruling is the reason the EPA has the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act of 1970 requires the government to regulate air pollution—in fact, the EPA was created to implement those requirements—but in 2003 the Bush administration insisted that the law didn't compel it to regulate greenhouses gases such as carbon dioxide. Massachusetts and other liberal-hive/states and cities disagreed, and sued.

When the case reached the high court, the justices narrowly ruled that greenhouse gases were indeed pollutants. Kennedy was the deciding vote, joining the court's four liberal justices. Now, with Kavanaugh set to replace Kennedy, conservatives may have the votes to overturn that precedent.

Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old judge for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is pretty consistently conservative on the environment. That includes the issue of greenhouse gases. Kavanaugh will not be intimidated to say that greenhouse gases don't fall into the category of pollutants the Clean Air Act was supposed to address. He has exhibited a level of discomfort for anything that appears to be an extension in authority for the EPA.

In a 2012 case, for instance, Kavanaugh rejected the EPA's authority to create a greenhouse gas permitting program. “The task of dealing with global warming is urgent and important,” he wrote. But, he added, “As a court it is not our job to make policy choices.”

Overturning Massachusetts v. EPA is important because the decision was the impetus for the EPA's 2009 rule—known as “the endangerment finding”—stating that climate change is hazardous to human health and must be regulated. That rule is the main reason the Trump administration can't simply eliminate every climate regulation President Barack Obama put in place during his tenure. Overturning Massachusetts v. EPA would thus make it easier for Trump's EPA to do away with the endangerment finding, and create a path for gutting air pollution regulations.

So don't be disheartened if you hear Kavanaugh say during his confirmation hearing that he believes man causes global warming. He needs to feed that to the libs to get confirmed..




Did you hear that thousands of Southern Californians were left without power as a heat wave gripped the region? 15,000 Los Angeles residents were still without power Monday morning. The outages were a result of too much strain placed on the grid as people cranked up their air conditioning to escape the heat. (Who could have predicted THAT?!?)

The electric grid on Friday reached 6,256 megawatts, a record for a July day. Saturday exceeded 5,700 megawatts, the second-highest weekend day ever recorded in Los Angeles history. The extremely high use of the grid comes as Los Angeles is undergoing a scorching heat wave.

Utility crews have worked non-stop to bring relief to residents with no air conditioning. While 15,000 people still had no power on Monday morning, it was an improvement of the 30,000 who were powerless a day before.

The power outages come as no surprise to those who have long warned that California was at risk of rolling blackouts. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the grid reliability watchdog in the U.S., cautioned that California was at potential risk of power outages during summer heat waves, with NERC officials stating in May that California has “potential reliability concerns” stemming from “a resource shortfall or a diminishing resource surplus.”

The state’s grid reliability issues are largely due to closed-down power plants and a lack of energy storage. That’s what you get when you replace reliable fossil fuel power plants with solar collectors and wind turbines!

•Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller noted recently that United Kingdom meteorologists won’t be declaring a June 28 temperature reading as the hottest recorded in Scotland since the early 20th century after discovering a car parked near the weather station may have contaminated the data.

That’s science for you!

•I love when Supreme Court nomination time rolls around under a Republican President and the Democrats kick their smear machine into gear insisting that any and all potential candidates be forced to publicly admit that they believe in Stare Decisis, which is the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. They of course use it as a wedge against nominees that may be in favor of repealing Roe vs Wade.

I’d like to know if Democrats think that the Dred Scott Decision, an 1857 case wherein the Supreme Court held that black slaves were not considered people under the U.S. Constitution, should be restored using the principle of stare decisis?

What about Korematsu vs. United States, the 1944 Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling the exclusion order was constitutional. Six of the eight justices appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt sided with Roosevelt. The two others and the lone Herbert Hoover appointee, Owen Roberts, dissented.

Should that decision be restored using stare decisis?

And for the record, I am not going to fill my pants over the bona-fides of a Supreme Court nominee. The key is he or she staying true to the Constitution as they fit into liberal D.C.

•The city of Motherwell, southeast of Glasgow, Scotland recorded a record-high temperature of 91.8 degrees on June 28, according to Met Office figures, breaking the previous record of 91.2 degrees set in Greycrook in August 2003.
The record temperature reading was noted in the Washington Post. The Post’s Capital Weather Gang included Motherwell’s heat in a round-up of record-high temperatures around the world.

“No single record, in isolation, can be attributed to global warming,” the Post reported, trying to link summer weather to global warming. “But collectively, these heat records are consistent with the kind of extremes we expect to see increase in a warming world.”

However, the Met Office posted a blog post on Thursday noting “subsequent information has cast some doubt on the Motherwell measurement for that day, meaning that we will not be able to accept it as an official new record for Scotland.”

So what happened? It turns out exhaust from a nearby vehicle may have heated up the weather station that reported the record-breaking heat.

“Unfortunately in this particular instance we have evidence that a stationary vehicle with its engine running was parked too close to the observing enclosure and the Stevenson screen housing the thermometers during the afternoon of 28th June,” the Met Office explained.

“Although the measurement appears plausible given the weather conditions that day we cannot rule-out the potential for contamination of the measurement by this non-weather-related factor,” officials wrote.

This is a common problem for weather stations. Many are located in urban areas, especially airports, where they’re susceptible to urban heat islands (UHI) — which results in erroneous measurement data falsely indicating warmth present in cities. They are contaminated by artificial heat sources.



•From Tony Heller at The Deplorable Climate Science Blog, a review of June temperature data from 1895 to 2018 from all U.S. historical climatological network stations revealed some interesting observations.

Maximum temperatures have been a little below average.
Mean temperatures have been a little above average.
The frequency of hot days has been about average.
Conclusion: June is typically hot.

•From the Seattle Times, climate nonsense lives and breathes.

All businesses that sell food or drinks must offer compostable or recyclable options — or ask patrons to forgo the tools altogether — come next July as part of a citywide ordinance to curb plastic waste across the city.

The ban is intended to prevent the plastic from polluting ocean waters and threatening marine life. It is among similar efforts by advocacy groups in largely Democrat-led cities spanning the country, from San Diego to Miami.

Supporters say the change will save one million plastic straws from circulating in Seattle this month alone. That many straws end to end could nearly cover the distance from Seattle to the Canadian border. Who would stack straws end-to-end? Isn't that a pipeline?

Many places across the city have made the switch from plastic to compostable straws, utensils and other items, including CenturyLink Field, Safeco Field and Columbia Tower's Juicy Café, for example. Other local restaurants, such as Kidd Valley, are in the process of phasing out plastics.

“When they go to a restaurant they may not get a straw — and that's OK,” Ives said, shortly after a Thursday-morning event at the Seattle Aquarium to raise awareness for the September campaign. “They're a part of this.”

Seattle's ban on plastic straws and utensils is part of a 2008 ordinance that phases out various plastic products from the city's food industry, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) spokeswoman Becca Fong said. Grocery and supply stores are not included.

SPU officials revisit the list each year, creating exemptions for certain plastic items — such as straws and other utensils. But come June 30 they will let that exemption expire, Fong said.

Restaurant leaders for years have supported a switch to remove the plastic tools from the ordinance's exemptions, she said. But they waited until the supply market advanced enough to provide good alternatives, like compostable spoons that will not melt in hot soup.

“Seattle is a super-progressive city, and we had a lot of support for phasing some of these things out,” Fong said. “But the market had not caught up.”

Via mailers and outreach events, SPU is reaching out to business owners to help them prepare for the switch from plastic straws and utensils, she said. The agency will also host a public-comment period.

At this point, it is unclear if the city will allow a grace period for places to swap out plastic supplies after the ban takes effect in July. Also unclear is whether the city will fine businesses for serving the plastic items.

As part of that push, SPU is working with leaders of the campaign to protect whales, turtles, seabirds and other marine life, led by the Lonely Whale Foundation.

The advocacy nonprofit launched “Strawless in Seattle” this month with support from big-name influencers, including the Seahawks, Mariners, Space Needle and Port of Seattle.

Participants will use straws by one manufacturer, specifically, called Aardvark Straws. The foundation applauds Aardvark for making “flexible, customizable, durable and marine degradable paper straws that decompose in just 45-90 days.”
More than 170 species of marine life are affected by ingesting debris, according to biologists. Researchers estimate that more than 70 percent of seabirds worldwide, for instance, have swallowed plastic at some point, according to a 2015 research paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Actor Adrian Grenier, who is known for playing Vincent Chase in HBO's “Entourage” series, is a co-founder of the Lonely Whale Foundation. “We are living during a critical turning point for our ocean, and that's why I'm excited to celebrate the city of Seattle as a true ocean health leader,” he said in a news release. The nonprofit is set to launch similar campaigns in cities elsewhere, too.
The movement nationwide to stop plastic straws from polluting seas took off after a video of a sea turtle with a straw stuck in its nose went viral online in 2015.

More than 12.8 million people have viewed the clip. Another popular video shows a sea turtle harmed by a plastic fork.

Manhattan Beach outside Los Angeles has banned all disposable plastics, including straws, The Washington Post reported.

Berkeley, Calif., is also considering a ban. And restaurants in San Diego; Huntington Beach, Calif.; Asbury Park, N.J.; New York; Miami; Bradenton, Fla.; London; and British Columbia have pledged to ban straws or withhold them until patrons ask for them, the newspaper reported.

This is just nuts! When I order fish, turtle soup, or whale, I am pleased to remove the straw from my meal before I eat it. Isn't that just common sense?

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



•The Trump administration seems to be getting ready to take the subject of climate change away from the responsibility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is part of the Department of Commerce, for some odd reason.

Past and present missions for the agency have been: “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts.” The present mission removes the word “climate” and the wording changed: “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions.”

Also, a new emphasis was added: “To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”

Piece-by-piece the Obama Network of Nonsense is slowly and steadily being dismantled!

•Did you know that this is the 30th anniversary of climate alarmist James Hansen's testimony to Congress regarding “global warming?” It was his testimony that set off the disastrous 30 Year War on Carbon.

It has been a war with many victims; mostly the poor who can least afford it. It's a war that has increased energy prices across the board.

How did we get into this insane fight against a natural component of the atmosphere? Much of it traces back to a very successful scam pulled off by James Hansen surrounding his Congressional testimony during that summer 30 years ago.
Here's a description of the deception from an interview with Senator Tim Wirth, one of the con men who helped Hansen with his Congressional testimony. The interviewer is asking Senator Wirth about the events surrounding that Congressional Hearing. The interviewer asks:

“What else was happening that summer? What was the weather like that summer?”

Senator Wirth: “Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense…”
So these clowns set the stage for hyping “global warming” by deliberately choosing the hottest day of the year for Hansen's testimony. Then they morphed his oh-so-movingly hot testimony into a very successful partisan political issue for the Democrats.

But that's not all of it. Here's the next question to Senator Wirth:

“And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?”

Senator Wirth: “… What we did was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

So Hansen's giving this testimony, you've got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn't appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …”

They picked the hottest day, opened the windows, and disabled the air conditioning to create a made-for-tv illusion of global warming, nobody could deny it seeing Hansen and the Senators sweat … and now Senator Wirth is boasting about how clever they were.

The Thirty Year War on carbon dioxide was born of lies, cheating, deliberate subterfuge, and intentional misrepresentations by James Hansen and Senator Tim Wirth … and it has continued down that same path since the beginning.

The most amazing part of this story is that even though these scientific malfeasants fooled Congress, lied, stacked peer review panels with climate alarmists, and though the governments and universities and scientific organizations and the mainstream media all bought into their deceit, even despite the fact that tragically they poured billions and billions of dollars into the effort, they still haven't convinced the core of the US population that CO2 is the control knob that can simply be turned up and down to regulate the global temperature to the nearest degree.

Thirty years, and all that time and effort and deception, but they still couldn't pull it off.

•The war on carbon and human progress is not over, but we're winning!

(Email Landmark columnist Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com)



••The liberal media's obsession with Border Patrol agents “tearing children away from their parents” who are storming the border supposedly fleeing oppression is nothing more than an attempt for Democrats to deflect from the Department of Justice’s Inspector General (IG) report on the Clinton Server and FBI controversy. Do not let them distract you from what is REALLY important.

Like this…

•On Thursday, the Justice Department's IG released a long-anticipated report on the FBI's handling of the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private server that handled classified information.

Mollie Hemingway wrote a fantastic summary of that report that appeared at TheFederalist.com. Highlights follow:

The 568-page report includes many examples of then-FBI Director James Comey being duplicitous and sneaky during his handling of the Clinton email probe. For instance, he asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch how to handle questions regarding the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information on a secret server. She told him to call it a “matter.” He didn't object and even complied.

Comey also claimed he didn't grasp the significance of the hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails being found on Weiner's computer because he didn't know that Weiner was married to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Some FBI sleuth he was!

The claim is hardly exonerating. It would mean he was not interested to learn that hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails relevant to a highly charged criminal investigation were found on the laptop of an unrelated man.

The report showed myriad FBI employees violating FBI policy and department ethics rules.

FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from journalists, went on golfing outings with media representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work by reporters, and were the guests of journalists at nonpublic social events.

In September 2016, when an investigator in the Southern District of New York found hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails and Blackberry messages on a laptop being searched in relation to an investigation of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, he immediately alerted his supervisors. They alerted the FBI, who sat on the information for weeks, only acting after the New York office complained repeatedly.

By Oct. 3, the case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation expressed concern that the FBI appeared to be sitting on what he'd told them.

The FBI claimed that they didn't take action on the laptop because “…key members of the FBI Midyear team had been reassigned to the investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. election, which was a higher priority.”

So Hillary was ahead in the polls, would likely be president, so the FBI decided it was a higher priority to look into Trump-Russia so as to serve it up for President Hillary to take it on after the election!!!

The IG found breathtaking anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias from five of the key employees handling the Clinton email probe. No evidence was found of pro-Trump bias.

The texts range from vile insults of Trump and his supporters to fears about how awful a Trump presidency would be and the need to prevent it. One employee said Trump voters were “all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.” One FBI lawyer discussed feeling “numb” by Trump's November 2016 election win, later proclaiming “Viva le Resistance” when asked about Trump.

Strzok wrote in July 2016, “Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his Presidency would be.” After the election, Page wrote that she'd bought “All the President's Men,” adding, “Figure I needed to brush up on watergate.” The two openly fantasize about impeachment.

In the preparation to interview Clinton as part of the criminal probe, Page tells a handful of her colleagues to take it easy on Clinton. “One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear.”

After each text exchange, the IG report includes defenses from the agents, some even harder to believe than the previous:

August 8, 2016: In a text message on August 8, 2016, Page stated, “[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, 'No. No he's not. We'll stop it.' When asked about this text message, Strzok stated that he did not specifically recall sending it, but that he believed that it was intended to reassure Page that Trump would not be elected, not to suggest that he would do something to impact the investigation.

•Then there was this…

The IG found that Obama was “one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail[.]com account.”

In fact, Clinton used her private email for “an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary,” a move that led investigators to believe hostile actors had likely gained access to her server. But a paragraph in a draft of Comey's exoneration of Clinton was changed from Obama to “another senior government official,” and later deleted. Obama had falsely told reporters he didn't know of Clinton's private email system.


(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)




•For the record, President Trump meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is a mistake.

A leader of the free world should not meet with the leader of a brutal dictatorship because such an action elevates the status of the brutal dictator.

Trump should bring Un to his knees. They have nothing to bargain with. Are they really going to fire a nuclear weapon onto American soil? Give up your nuclear weapons and free your people or face the might of America.

It is that simple.

•President Trump departed from last weekend's G7 summit in Canada several hours early, punctuating an explosion of angst among his foreign liberal Leftie counterparts.

Trump departed mid-morning on Saturday, skipping sessions on climate change and the environment. An aide will take his place, the White House said.

I would have LOVED to be that aide!

The announcement came as Trump engaged in a bitter back-and-forth with French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over Twitter.

Trump expected, and got, a cool reception from Germany, France, and Canada over trade during his time at the conference, held in remote Quebec.

At the end of the day, the G7 is only about getting more money out of the US, whether it be in the form of tariffs, carbon taxes, or actual monetary aid. That's all the United States is to these leftie countries. Let them fund their own nonsense for a while.

•The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote last week that Obama's Environmental Protection Agency jammed through an average of 565 new rules each year during his eight years, imposing the highest regulatory costs of any agency. It pulled off this regulatory spree in part by gaming cost-benefit analysis to downplay the consequences of its major environmental rules. The Trump Administration has already rolled back some of this overregulation, and now Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to stop the EPA's numerical deceptions as well.
On Thursday the EPA will take the first step toward a comprehensive cost-benefit reform by issuing an advance notice of proposed rule-making. After weighing public input, EPA will propose a rule establishing an agency-wide standard for how regulations are assessed. The reform would make it easier for Americans and their elected representatives to see whether more regulation is truly justifiable.

The EPA has a statutory obligation to look at the costs and benefits of many proposed rules. That responsibility has been reinforced by executive orders and court rulings. But while all three branches of government have supported such assessments, they leave the EPA broad discretion. Enter the Obama Administration, which saw the chance to add additional considerations to the cost-benefit equation.

By introducing “social costs” and “social benefits,” the EPA began factoring in speculation about how regulatory inaction would affect everything from rising sea levels to pediatric asthma. EPA optimists even included their guesses about how domestic regulations could have a global impact. Meanwhile, the agency ignored best practices from the Office of Management and Budget, juking the numbers to raise the cost of carbon emissions.

This proved as politically useful as it was scientifically imprecise. Months before introducing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA suddenly raised the social cost of a ton of carbon emissions to an average of $36 from $21. Before it embarked on new oil and gas regulations, the EPA put the social cost of methane at an average of $1,100 per ton.

At White House direction, the Trump EPA recalculated those figures last year to include only demonstrable domestic benefits. The social cost estimates dropped to an average of $5 per ton of carbon and $150 per ton of methane. That made a big difference in the cost-benefit analysis. While the Obama Administration claimed the Clean Power Plan would yield up to $43 billion in net benefits by 2030, the Trump EPA concluded it would carry a $13 billion net cost.

Another statistical sleight of hand involves the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The regulation's stated purpose was to reduce mercury pollution, but the EPA added the rule's potential to decrease dust. That was irrelevant to the central question of whether it was worthwhile to regulate mercury as proposed. But without the erroneous co-benefits, EPA would find such regulations tougher to justify.

The regulatory specifics will be hashed out in the coming months, but there's real potential here to curb the distortions that mask bad policy. If Mr. Pruitt succeeds, future cost-benefit analyses will be more consistent and transparent. The reform would help to ensure regulation is based on sound scientific analysis instead of wishful bureaucratic thinking.

I've said it before and it bears repeating – Scott Pruitt is the most important and effective cabinet member of the Trump Administration. The more the liberal media tries to make up controversies about Pruitt, the more effective he is being at dismantling the Obama liberal regulation machine.

Get behind Pruitt and be vocal about it!

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)



•Remember when I once told you that the weight of all the life underground, like earthworms and whatnot, outweighs all the life on top of the ground? Well, here's some elucidation…

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences offers some interesting information. Every living thing on Earth — from the tiniest bacteria to a mighty redwood tree — weighs a combined 550 gigatons when removing water from the equation.

One gigaton is one trillion metric tons. You're probably going to be surprised by how little humans contribute to that total. As it turns out, the combined weights of many different classes of animals outweigh humans by a huge margin. Fish, for example, weigh roughly 0.7 GT C (gigatons of carbon), while viruses weigh around 0.2 GT C. Humans weigh even less than that.

According to the research, the combined weight of humans comes in at approximately 0.06 GT C. We're outweighed by almost everything, including bacteria (70 GT C), fungi (12 GT C), arthropods (1 GT C), Mollusks (0.2 GT C) and even our own livestock (0.1 GT C). When combined, the mass of humans and their livestock outweigh wild mammals by a huge margin, with wild mammals only accounting for 0.007 GT C. In fact, all of the animal kingdom only accounts for a measly two gigatons overall.

The biggest heavyweight? Plants, of course! Plants account for an absolutely mind-boggling 450 GT C. That's every tree, blade of grass, vine, veggie and floating clump of algae, among many other things.

To arrive at these figures, scientists spent three years calculating the biomass of every living thing and feeding that data into their census. They initially intended to discover the amounts of different proteins present on the planet — the scientists will be working more on that soon — but in order to do so they had to also figure out how much all life on Earth weighs, which is probably a more interesting data point for most casual science fans.

So we humans really aren't that much of a “thing” and never have been.

•Netflix host “Science Guy” Bill Nye has a new solution for the world's environmental problems: tax cow farts.

“Well, this is what we can do and it's a win-win: to have a fee on carbon. So if you are raising livestock and producing a lot of carbon dioxide with your farm equipment and the exhaust from the animals, then you would pay a fee on that and it would be reflected in the price of meat, reflected in the price of fish, reflected in the price of peanuts,” Bill Nye said in a recent interview with the Daily Beast.

“This would be a free-market way to reckon the real cost of a meat diet to the world,” Nye continued. “But conservatives now are against such a thing because they're against any regulation, any tax or any government involvement in anything. But again, it won't last, and a carbon fee would be a fantastic thing for the world.
How exactly are taxes a part of the free market?

Environmentalists have been barfing up nonsense like this for years. In 2008, Rajendra Pachauri the then-head of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was urging people to go meat-free at least once a week to save the planet.

In 2010, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), also urged the world to go vegan, claiming in a report: “Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels.”
In 2016, an Oxford University report made much the same claim: “The research, led by scientists at the Oxford Martin School, found that shifting to a mostly vegetarian diet, or even simply cutting down meat consumption to within accepted health guidelines, would make a large dent in greenhouse gases.”

But there is, in fact, little scientific evidence to support the contention that cow farts contribute in any serious way to global warming.

As climate scientist Tim Ball has argued, the myth arose because “special interest environmental groups used inadequate data and scientific knowledge to create a false narrative.”

In fact, Ball says:

Methane is 0.00017% of all atmospheric gases and only 0.36% of the total greenhouse gases. These fractions were so small that even people who didn't understand the science became skeptical of the claims that it was doing harm.
But Nye's cow farts theory is just another part of his nonsensical opinions on mankind and environmentalism, many of which regurgitate the green lobby's favorite scare stories.

Last year, for example, the Bill Nye Saves the World star charmingly hinted that the best thing older people can do to save the planet is die:

“Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It's generational. So we're just going to have to wait for those people to 'age out,' as they say.” “Age out” is a euphemism for “die.”

We can say the same thing for environuts like Nye.

(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at bfkubicki@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)


Paralax Look archives