Don’t know if you noticed, but on Feb. 4, Britain’s Daily Mail revealed in a very splashy way that the Global Warming hoaxsters have been fudging their data AGAIN.
As a necessary aside, most American probably believe there’s no “religious test” to hold public office in America.
After all, the First Amendment bars Congress from making any law regarding an “establishment of religion.”
The phrase had a specific meaning to the Founding Fathers. In England, it all started in the 1530s, when Henry the Eighth was having his little disagreement with the Vatican over the Pope’s intransigence regarding divorce. (Actually, if you were rich or powerful enough, Rome was fairly liberal in granting “annulments” – rulings, often absurd on their face, that a marriage was void because it had never been “consummated.” But Henry’s serial polygamies would have tried the patience of anyone -– up through the middle of the 20th Century, anyway, when Western cultures decided fathers were optional.)
By 1714, when Britain’s ruling elite went looking for an obscure German prince to take the throne rather than elevate any of the late Queen Anne’s Catholic relatives, the Anglican or Episcopal version of the Protestant church was firmly “established” in England.
Under the religious “Test Act,” from 1678 through 1829 (40 years after the American founding), any person wishing to assume a public office in England -– civil or military — was required to take an oath renouncing the Catholic doctrine that the elements of bread and wine used in the ceremony of communion actually “transubstantiate” into the body and blood of Jesus, as well as renouncing the “invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint . . . as they are now used in the Church of Rome,” as “superstitious and idolatrous,” and to instead “receive the sacrament” as stipulated by the Anglican Protestant church, within three months of taking office.
This -– in addition to the fact that the British sovereign was and is required to be a Protestant, to this day still named “Defender of the Faith” — was said to have “established” the Anglican Protestant church as the official (and only) church of England -– which is why William Penn and others were regularly arrested and imprisoned for preaching nonconformist sermons in meeting halls or (after the meeting halls were closed to them) even in the streets of London.
America’s founders wanted no such single, official church -– with its “tests” for public office -– “established” here. They wanted freedom of conscience, and made that clear (even before ratification of the First Amendment) in Article VI, Section 3 of the 1787-1789 Constitution, which states “. . . but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
So: does America have an “established” religion? And is there in fact any “religious test” required to hold office in the United States?
Yes, there is.
Environmentalism is a religion, in many ways directly at odds with traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and culture.
“Be fruitful and multiply,” God commanded Jews and Christians in Genesis, “and fill the earth AND SUBDUE IT; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
REMOVING MANKIND FROM THE LAND
The Greens systematically and gleefully abuse the power of government to seize the property of the rancher, the miner, the forester and the farmer, assuring us THEIR Goddess wants it all taken away from these “despoilers” and “preserved as wilderness.” But “As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property,” wrote John Locke in his “Second Treatise on Property” (1690.)
“God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required it of him. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to this command of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him.”
“God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated,” Locke continues in Section 34. “He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational, (and labour was to be his title to it;) not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious.
“He that had as good left for his improvement, as was already taken up, needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already improved by another’s labour: if he did, it is plain he desired the benefit of another’s pains, which he had no right to. . . .”
That is the Judeo-Christian tradition of property ownership and improvement; the SUBJUGATION and STEWARDSHIP of the otherwise largely sterile, unproductive wilderness — “turning the desert into a garden” through strenuous, healthy labor in the expectation of honest profit and sustenance, which no crowned potentate had any power to seize — that made this the greatest and most wealthy nation in the world.
The Extreme Greens, on the other hand, clearly believe what their god or goddess wants is not merely a cleanup of the water and air to breathable and drinkable standards — long since accomplished across this broad land — plus a few green sanctuaries set aside for wildlife. No, no, they insist the BULK of the earth must revert to parched and thorny wilderness, while mankind becomes a far less dominant species, eating a more limited diet of mostly gruel, reduced to an exhibit of a few hundred thousand souls living cold and hungry without benefit of fire in a few carefully planned villages where our betters can more easily supervise and restrain us.
The Greens claim their beliefs and heavy-handed land confiscations are based on “science,” but in fact science tells us there are uncountable millions of species on the earth, that millions more existed in the past but went extinct -– most of them long before any human agency was present to accept any share of the blame.
Harsh as it sounds, this would appear to be God’s and Nature’s way. As conditions change, some species pass away, others spring up or prove themselves able to adapt to new conditions. Life, as a whole, remains healthy and survives. Creative destruction.
Yes, our ancestors -– either out of ignorance or simply to keep their families fed -– doubtless contributed to the extinction of the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and many others -– some of which would doubtless have passed from the scene, anyway, occupying as they did such narrow and precarious environmental niches.
To recognize that we in Europe and American now enjoy sufficient wealth and leisure (thanks only to the benefits of our capitalist, free-market economy) that we can afford to make some modest efforts to purchase (or shall we just “seize”?) and set aside a few sanctuaries to preserve from extinction the bison, the bald eagle, the grizzly bear, and a few other totemic species, so that our grandchildren may see and enjoy them, is fine. Most Americans were in favor of that question, when it came up, 45 years ago
But O! To what extremes the Green Extreme has stretched that slender authorization, today!
It’s interesting how strong this Green faith waxes in urban areas — where people have little access to “Nature” any wilder than the nearest manicured park, or maybe a weekend hike wearing factory-made foot gear and carrying plenty of freeze-dried food. Interesting how the skepticism grows stronger out among folks who really have to work dawn-to-dusk to grow a crop in the face of a relentless drought or feed cattle in a blizzard.
Yes, it’s OK to worry that “too much” Brazilian rain forest is being cleared by “evil” miners and ranchers — though it’s temptingly simpler to say “Government guys with guns should stop that” than to investigate free-market incentives. And who among the faithful want to actually GO to Brazil and learn the whole story? The pleasant Rousseau-ian dream of a restored Garden of Eden seems to survive best when comfortably remote from the economic realities of those who struggle against REAL nature, hacking from the wilderness by brute force the raw materials that make up the computers and kitchenware and fuels and water pipes and food in the freezer that furnish and make livable our comfortable urban enclaves.
To hold that any and all additional human progress should be blocked in an attempt to see that not a single additional species ever goes extinct -– no weed, no bug, no slime mold — is either flat out nuts, or . . . a religious belief.
(And they have every right to BELIEVE that, don’t get me wrong. Just not to “establish” it as a religion from which the rest of us — including those who seek public office — are no longer free to dissent, or even to laugh out loud.)
All the predictions made by the Green Extreme for environmental apocalypse forthcoming due to “catastrophic man-made global warming” have turned out to be wrong, inaccurate, balderdash.
Not a single on of their computer models can explain the fact there has been no net measurable global warming for almost two decades.
Yet virtually every one of Donald Trump’s cabinet nominee has been asked under oath by Democratic questioners in recent weeks whether they are “deny-ers of global warming,” parsing their answers with care, fully aware of the kind of hysterical screeching and wailing that would ensue if they “answered that question wrong.”
Really. Imagine how today’s Far-Left press and the Soros-funded arsonists and rioters of Berkeley (or wherever else they’re sent) would have responded had any one of these grown men and women spoken plainly, saying “While of course here in America we respect the right of people to believe anything they choose — that little gray space aliens visit us at night in flying saucers, or that chocolate cookies are baked by elves who live in hollow trees — having reviewed all the available evidence, my conclusion is that ‘catastrophic man-made global warming’ is utter horseshit, being promoted by people who mean to harm us, by crippling the economic welfare of America and Europe.”
In fact — in a move which bodes ill for any restoration of healthy debate, compromise or cooperation in our political discourse — numerous de facto leaders of and spokeswomen for the Democratic party today state, apparently quite seriously, that the fact Donald Trump has pointed out “catastrophic man-made global warming” is a hoax, constitutes adequate reason to impeach him from the presidency, during his third week on the job, on the grounds that this proves he is “insane.”
THAT is a religious test . . . on steroids.
IT’S A FAKE! They faked it AGAIN!
But guess what? David Rose in England’s Daily Mail reported on Feb. 4:
“Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data:
• The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
• It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
• America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
• The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data
(See . . . http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html .)
“The Mail today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change,” Mr. Rose reports.
(Also a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, David Rose read history at Magdalen College, Oxford, and was named News Reporter of the Year in the Society of Editors British Press Awards for 2015.)
“A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
“The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
“But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data,” Rose reports.
“It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process -– which Dr Bates devised.
“His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
“His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal -– so triggering an intense political row.”
In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data -– the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) -– of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation . . . in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
The authors of the paper preferred sea temperature data from ships — which is famously unreliable — while de-emphasizing or tossing out more reliable date from anchored buoys, because the buoys showed the lower temperatures they didn’t want to see, explains Dr. Bates, one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement -– and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects, Rose reports.
“The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data,” Rose states, in a masterpiece of polite understatement. (In fact, they just made shit up, resulting in the infamous “hockey stick” graph.)
“Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.”
NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data — one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. “This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend,” Rose reports.
“The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
“The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.
“A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ -– a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
“Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.”
It’s a huge and devastating report. Again, read more at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html .
SHE ADMITS IT’S ALL ABOUT DESTROYING CAPITALISM
But wait! It gets much better!
What is the PURPOSE behind all these expensive deceptions?
We’ve long had a pretty good idea. But how would you like . . . an admission?
Karen Christiana Figueres Olsen (born 1956) is a Costa Rican diplomat. She was appointed Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in July 2010, six months after the failed COP15 in Copenhagen -– and re-appointed to a second term in 2013.
At a Feb. 3 news conference in Brussels, Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics reports “Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism.”
“She said very casually:
“’This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.’
“She even restated that goal, ensuring it was not a mistake:
“’This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.’”
Read the U.N.’s own admission of all this, at: http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally .
“I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio,” Armstrong adds. “We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. Lo and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth. Dick then asked them, ‘Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Yours or mine?’”
Investors.com reminds Figueres that “The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.”
But that’s the system they want to destroy. Really.
PREPARING FOR THE WRONG CRISIS
While of course the communists have always depended on well-meaning dupes at the lower levels -– reporters from the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor happy to be led around by the nose and to celebrate on cue (like trained seals) the ascension of the “New Soviet Man,” college students whose tuitions are paid by hard-working parents and taxpayers out of retained wealth made possible only by the free market, sent out by their Marxist professors to march in anti-capitalist “protests” and the like -– I believe we can now go beyond merely stating that the bizarre and frenzied religious dogma of “catastrophic man-made global warming” is “in error.”
Rather, those who continue to promote it at this point are lying communists (OK, that’s redundant), seeking to fulfill Barack Obama’s pledge to impoverish America, to destroy American and European affluence born of free-market capitalism, to impoverish and render destitute and hopeless the culture, the societies, the economies and the people of the Western World.
And as for the (now) 18-year “pause” in global warming: Real climatologists can tell you the historical norm is for glaciers and sea ice to cover all of Canada and most of Great Britain, as far south as New England and the English Channel, every 100,000 years or so, that we are now in a warmer “inter-glacial period” — and that another Ice Age is either due or past due. The “pause” in global warming may be about as temporary as the “pause” in the reproductive patterns of Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Not a single prediction made by the “global warming” alarmists of 20 and 25 years ago – rising sea levels, extinction of the polar bear, once temperate regions turning into uninhabitable desert frying pans – has come to pass. As a matter of fact, snowfall is now occurring in eastern Japan and the Sahara Desert and other regions of the Middle East where snow hasn’t been seen for 50 years.
If you want to see a real “environmental crisis,” wait till you see the next Ice Age, especially if it’s triggered by some contributory environmental cataclysm -– perhaps three years of summer crop failures due to the sun’s rays being blocked by a vast quantity of dust in the stratosphere, which could be caused by something as simple as a blowout of the Yellowstone caldera.
Then proceed to tell us, please, how shutting down coal-fired power plants and switching to electric cars and screwing in more Twisty-Kurl fluorescent light bulbs will enable us to successfully “fight climate change.”