Co-founder of Greenpeace explains why he is a climate skeptic

March 21, 2015
 By Rick Moran

 Got yer dose of schadenfreud for the day right here...

The co-founder of the granddaddy of green groups, Greenpeace, explains in a Heartland editorial why he is a climate skeptic.  Patrick Moore, who left Greenpeace in 1986 because, in his words, it "took a sharp turn to the political left" and "evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas," pulls no punches when criticizing his former colleagues in the green movement:

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Moore is just getting warmed up.  He makes the salient point that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a massive conflict of interest in researching global warming:

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

He also points out that powerful interests have adopted global warming as a cause for a variety of reasons:

Cimate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth.

Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

The fact that CO₂ was 10 times higher 150 million years ago, at a time when life was exploding on the planet, is rarely mentioned in arguments for and against action on climate change. It's funny that we don't hear much criticism of Moore from the environmental community.  However, like most climate skeptics, he is charged with shilling for corporate interests.  Radical greens, of course, hate him, but his rational critiques of the science of global warming don't leave much room for criticism.

Moore has plenty of company in the green movement – you just never hear of them, because they don't toe the party line.  He's a refreshing voice coming from an unexpected source.

American Thinker

Israeli PM Netanyahu Addresses U.S. Congress | FULL SPEECH - March 3, 2015

Susan Rice and the Politicization of Genocide

by Shmuley Boteach

 
 Is there any dirty job for the Obama Administration that Susan Rice is not prepared to do?
 
Need someone to fraudulently blame the murder of an American Ambassador in Libya on a stupid film? Send Susan to the Sunday talk shows.
 
Need someone to savage the leader of the only democracy in the Middle East as damaging the “fabric” of Israel’s relationship with the United States? Put Susan in the makeup chair of Charlie Rose.
 
Yes, it seems there is nothing Susan isn’t prepared to do.
 
And why should that surprise us?
 
This is the same Susan Rice who forbade Israel from criticizing John Kerry in her infamous tweet: “Personal attacks in Israel directed at Sec Kerry totally unfounded and unacceptable.” Yes, Israel’s freedom of expression is circumscribed by none other than Susan Rice.
But there is another reason Susan Rice’s attack on the Prime Minister of Israel on Charlie Rose merits special opprobrium and that is the unique insensitivity she is famous for when it comes to genocide.
 
Iran is threatening to annihilate Israel. It is building the bombs to make that possible. It has lied to the world for more than a decade about its nuclear program. Iran is an oil superpower and energy exporter that needs nuclear energy about as much as I need a pork sandwich.
 
America is about to do a bad deal with Iran that will leave them something in the range of 5000 spinning centrifuges enriching Uranium. Israel is not party to the talks. It has been cast in the same position of Czechoslovakia in the Munich agreement of 1938 where Britain and France negotiated away Czech security (and much of the country) without the Czechs even allowed to be present.
 
And while Israel faces the possibility of genocide, Susan Rice shows gross insensitivity to an Israeli leader for simply speaking out.
 
But why shouldn’t Netanyahu entrust Israeli security to Susan Rice?
Perhaps its because of her record of trivializing genocide.
 
 In 1994 Susan Rice was part of Bill Clinton’s National Security Team which took no action whatsoever during the Rwandan genocide, leaving more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest slaughter of human beings ever recorded.
 
Not content to insist on American non-involvement, the Clinton administration went a step further by obstructing the efforts of other nations to stop the slaughter. On April 21, 1994, the Canadian UN commander in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire, declared that he required only 5000 troops to bring the genocide to a rapid halt. In addition, a single bombing run against the RTLM Hutu Power radio transmitting antenna would have made it impossible for the Hutus to coordinate their genocide.
 
But on the very same day, as Phillip Gourevitch details in his definitive account of the Rwandan genocide We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We will Be Killed With Our Families, the Security Council, with the Clinton Administration’s blessing, ordered the UN force under Dallaire reduced by ninety percent to a skeleton staff of 270 troops who would powerlessly witness the slaughter to come. This, in turn, was influenced by Presidential Decision Directive 25, which “amounted to a checklist of reasons to avoid American involvement in UN peacekeeping missions,” even though Dallaire did not seek American troops and the mission was not peacekeeping but genocide prevention.
 
Indeed, Madeleine Albright, then the American Ambassador to the UN, opposed leaving even this tiny UN force. She also pressured other countries “to duck, as the death toll leapt from thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands … the absolute low point in her career as a stateswoman.”
 
In a 2001 article published in The Atlantic, Samantha Power, author of the Pulitzer-Prize winning A Problem from Hell who is now Rice’s successor as American Ambassador to the United Nations, referred to Rice and her colleagues in the Clinton Administration as Bystanders to Genocide. She quotes Rice in her 2002 book as saying, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November congressional election?”
 
This is an astonishing statement. Here you have Susan Rice hearing about the murder of 330 people every hour for 3 months and her response is, How will this affect us politically?
 
That Rice would have brought up the midterm elections as a more important consideration than stopping the mass murder of so many men, women, and children that their bodies were damming the rivers of Rwanda is one of the most heartbreaking pronouncements ever uttered by American official.
 
But she did not stop there.
 
Rice then joined Madeline Albright, Anthony Lake, and Warren Christopher as part of a coordinated effort not only to impede UN action to stop the Rwandan genocide but to minimize public opposition to American inaction by removing words like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” from government communications on the subject.
 
In the end, eight African nations, fed up with American inaction, agreed to send in an intervention force to stop the slaughter provided that the U.S. would lend them fifty armored personal carriers.
 
The Clinton Administration decided it would lease rather than lend the armor for a price of $15 million. The carriers sat on a runway in Germany while the UN pleaded for a $5 million reduction as the genocidal inferno raged. The story only gets worse from there, with the Clinton State Department refusing to label the Rwanda horrors a genocide because of the 1948 Genocide Convention that would have obligated the United States to intervene, an effort in grotesque ambiguity that Susan Rice participated in.
 
It was painful enough to watch Kofi Anan elevated to Secretary General even though as head of UN peace-keeping forces worldwide he sent two now infamous cables to Dallaire forbidding him from any efforts to stop the genocide (the cables are on display in the Kigali Genocide Memorial).
 
It’s nearly as painful watching Rice now attack the Jewish state, which lost one third of its entire people in a genocide of four short years, about how its elected leader is destroying its relationship with the world’s greatest superpower simply because a weaker nation insists on standing up for itself and speaking truth to power.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whom Newsweek and The Washington Post call “the most famous Rabbi in America,” is the international best-selling author of 30 books and has recently published The Fed-up Man of Faith: Challenging G-d in the Face of Tragedy and Suffering. His website is www.shmuley.com. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

 Rabbi Shmuley

Sarah Palin CPAC 2015 Full Speech. Palin Talks PTSD and Veterans

Rudy is Right

February 23, 2015
By Ed Lasky

 
“America’s Mayor” Rudy Giuliani was right about Obama not loving America. Who supports his view? Barack Obama himself.  

Last week at a small private dinner, Rudy Giuliani openly questioned whether Barack Obama “loves America” while discussing Obama’s foreign policy and remarks about Islamic terrorists :

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said during the dinner at the 21 Club, a former Prohibition-era speakeasy in midtown Manhattan. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

Barack Obama has clearly been, at best, an apologist for Islamic terrorism, if not empowering Muslim terrorists (such as the mullahs of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood). Of course, now the question of Obama’s patriotism has become this week’s Gotcha question. Scott Walker was ambushed by the same question and answered “I don’t know” if Obama loves America. Well, Obama knows the answer. Reporters don’t even need to ask Obama since he would answer with some political pabulum scripted by his spinners. Reporters just need to do a few minutes of research -- or, I offer my own research free of charge.

Because Obama has answered that question and has done so numerous times over the past 7 years. He not only does not love America, he doesn’t even like it much -- and certainly has no interest in defending America or Americans for that matter.

For years, I have been collecting examples of Obama’s insults toward broad swaths of Americans. While his “gaffe” (when politicians accidentally are honest about their opinions) about small-town Americans…

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them[.]
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

…flared as a campaign problem in 2008, there has been a steady stream of anti-American invective since then (and lest we forget, Michelle Obama had never been proud of her country until Barack Obama achieved some early campaign success ; she also thinks  we are a “downright mean country”).

In What Obama Thinks of Americans, I collected on the many ways Obama has insulted and demeaned Americans. They include the views that Americans have gotten “soft” and “lazy”; are abusers of the planet; have “lost our ambition”; are “whiners” who do not appreciate him enough and should say “thank you” to him; doctors are “greedy” people who enrich themselves by lopping off limbs and tonsils for money. More slurs against Americans can be found in that column. “Suburbs bore him” (so when you consider his views of people who live in small towns -- noted above -- he basically has said the only people he deigns to respect are city-dwellers). He thinks Americans have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, as if Americans cannot open their eyes and see the damage he has inflicted upon us-and the world. Instead he blames the media for inaccurate reporting on how wonderful his presidency has been.

How does Obama get away with being “The Insulter-in-Chief”?  Certainly the liberal media have been accomplices -- even Saturday Night Live mocked the media for their fawning approach towards Obama. But primarily, Obama and his Democratic allies consider most Americans to be stupid (see many examples here) and could not resist calling their own supporters “knuckleheads.”

The Republicans blew opportunities in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 to tell Americans the truth about Barack Obama and his views towards them. The media abetted them and Obama. But now that Giuliani has raised the issue the media and Democratic flaks (but I repeat myself) have retaliated.

Obama has also grown even more condescending (if that is possible) since he won reelection, because he feels unleashed and can express his contempt for America. We are a nation where “racism is deeply rooted.” Americans, at least “typical white” persons are racists. Are we to be surprised that he found the anti-white, anti-American Jeremiah Wright, Junior, his “moral compass” and mentor?  

And he did hear those vicious anti-American screeds that all but celebrated the 9/11 attacks on America as “chickens coming home to roost.”  Nor should we be surprised that Obama has appointed the anti-white racist, tax-cheat, anti-Semitic hustler Al Sharpton to be his point man on race. He welcomes Sharpton to the White House while ignoring Republicans (whom he calls “bomb-throwers” and “hostage-takers”) and most other Democrats, for that matter.

His “apology tour” overseas once he won election was an insult to America and an assault on truth. 

When a slew of foreign leaders of South and Central America unleashed torrents of abuse and insults towards Americans in 2009, Barack Obama was mute and did not try to defend America. Indeed, when Daniel Ortega, the Marxist dictator of Nicaragua, excoriated America for decades of abuse, all Barack Obama was able to say in defense was that he was “thankful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three years old,” Did Barack Obama agree with Ortega that America had sinned against the world, that America was a colonial, imperialistic and racist oppressor of other nations?

Not only was Mayor Giuliani right regarding Obama’s view of Americans, but so was Dinesh D’Souza when he wrote that Obama saw the world in a Manichean way: the nations that colonized and oppressed (that would be America, Europe and Israel) and the victim nations and people who were colonized and oppressed (the rest of the world). As I had written in “Dinesh D’Souza was right about America”):

Barack Obama certainly does not care for Winston Churchill who did inherit imperialistic dreams from his ancestors as D'Souza speculated Obama inherited the anti-imperialistic dreams of his father. Churchill's bust was soon thrown out of the White House when Obama assumed office.
And he did engage in an apology tour for America's actions overseas over the years ; was the first American President to say that America was responsible for the 1953 coup in Iran and suggested some of that nation's ire towards America was rooted in that history.

He has frequently snubbed our allies overseas while empowering our adversaries. His outreach towards the mullahs of Iran has been a constant feature of his presidency (see the excellent Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy by Michael Doran) despite the fact that thousands of Americans have lost their lives at the behest of this number one state sponsor of terror in the world. He dismisses Islamic terrorism and engages in rhetorical spin to absolve Muslims of responsibility for violence.

As is well-known the only “I” word he likes is the one that refers to himself. He helped the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt overthrow Hosni Mubarak, an ally of America, and has snubbed the current leader of Egypt Abdel el-Sisi (who delivered a very courageous speech against Islamic terrorism when the words “Islamic terror” cannot even cross Obama’s lips) while again rolling out the red carpet for Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members who hoped to regain power in Egypt.  He welcomes them to the White House whilel refusing to deign to extend the same invitation and welcome mat to Republicans. Those are the people he depicts as “bomb-throwers” and “hostage takers”; while Islamic terrorists and sympathizers are the ones he feels have “legitimate grievances.” 

 Don’t Republicans, elected in a magisterial red sweep in 2014, also have legitimate grievances regarding Obama’s flouting of the laws?  These Americans -- including the ones who voted for Republicans -- do not seem to have legitimate grievances in Obama’s view. They don’t matter to him at all except as foils to insult and generate rage against.

Since Obama sees America as a force of evil in the world that has caused much pain to the oppressed, he has steadily done his best to weaken America and our capacity to defend ourselves in the future and seriously damaged. He has plans to control America and further his agenda to “fundamentally transform America” long after he has left the Oval Office.  Didn’t he all but declare his dislike of America when he boasted he was going to “fundamentally transform America”? What was so bad about Americans before the ascension of Barack Obama? In Obama’s view: quite a lot.

So Rudy and Dinesh were right and if the besotted media had been fulfilling their responsibilities over the years America would not be saddled with a president who has contempt for millions and millions of Americans. Barack Obama agrees with Rudy Giuliani: he doesn’t love America.

So reporters should stop asking other politicians their opinions about Barack Obama’s love for America. The answer is obvious and has been for years.

American Thinker

WATCH: Black middle schooler slams Barack Obama in epic YouTube speech

Crusades Were All About Fighting the Islamic State

The Islamic State / ISIS / ISIL / Da’ish is not a new idea. It’s been around for centuries. Islam’s goal since its founding has been to conquer the world and create… an Islamic State.

When Barack Obama equated Christian Crusaders to ISIS at the National Prayer Breakfast this week, he actually did Christians a favor because it has caused a whole bunch of people to do their own research. What they’re finding is that instead of the Crusades being on par with ISIS, the exact opposite is true.

 The Crusades were about FIGHTING the Islamic State / ISIS / ISIL / Da’ish.

In this highly informative video, Dr. Bill Warner illustrates perfectly, using a map of Europe, Africa and the Middle East exactly what happened that prompted the Crusades. The next time you hear someone equate ISIS to the Crusades, SHOVE THIS in their face.

Thank you, Mr. Obama: