Robert Kennedy Jr (RFK)

Carbon Pipelines | Another Kamala [Deadly] Legacy

Published by Papa Giorgio

FIRST ORDER OF BIZNESS BEFORE MINI-DOCUMENTARY:

  • The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which dedicated $370 billion to investments in clean energy projects, was the biggest climate legislation in American history when it was signed into law just two years ago. — Foreign Policy Magazine
  • It was, according to Biden, “the most significant climate change law ever. “We should have named it what it was” — Joe Biden
  • Two years ago, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, with Vice President Harris casting the tie-breaking vote in Congress. — White House

Here is more from the Western Journal:

It was, according to Biden, “the most significant climate change law ever.”

“We should have named it what it was,” he said.

The problem Democrats faced then, and face now, is that if they name things for what they are, they won’t be able to convince the American public to go along.

During the Trump administration, Democrats tried to sell a “Green New Deal” that didn’t get anywhere — for good reason. The idea of energy created from wind and solar power might sound great on the surface, in a dewy-eyed, dreamy kind of way. But when it comes to spending massive amounts of money for negligible returns, sane, adult people tend to balk.

But when inflation is ravaging household income, coming up with a bill called the “Inflation Reduction Act” makes it much more appealing.

Biden has made a similar admission before. In 2023, during a speech in Park City, Utah, he acknowledged outright that the bill “has less to do with reducing inflation than providing alternatives where we generate economic growth.”

So, an “Inflation Reduction Act” it wasn’t.

“I wish I hadn’t called it that,” he said.

But Thursday’s admission — “we should have named it what it was” — was far more explicit.

And that should be a problem for the Kamala Harris president campaign. It was Harris, remember, who cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate that passed the monstrosity of a bill in August 2022 and sent it to the then-Democratic controlled House for final approval before Biden got it.

If Biden is admitting its title was a lie, what does that say about Harris? ….

(READ IT ALL)

Tie breaking vote of a bill purposefully mislabeled to lie to the American public so it could pass!

Effe Democrats!

Kamala’s carbon pipeline climate scam impacts human health, destroys the environment, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars. Let’s get President Trump back in the White House and me to Washington so we can stop this massive boondoggle.

Damn!

More on the Pipelines created by the “Inflation Reduction Act,” so called (I emphasize a couple things as well – as well as adding a [snippet or two]):

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Biden-Harris Administration, through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), today issued Notices of Intent to fund two programs that will advance carbon capture demonstration projects and expand regional pipeline networks to transport carbon dioxide (CO2) for permanent geologic storage or for conversion into valued end uses, such as construction materials. The two programs – the Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program and the Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) Program – are funded by a more than $2.6 billion investment from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Together, the programs build on the Administration’s  recent actions to catalyze investments in clean energy and industrial innovation and advance President Biden’s goal of a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy by 2050—creating good paying jobs and economic opportunity. The investments also support the Justice40 Initiative, and DOE continues to prioritize engaging with environmental justice communities to ensure that equity is at the center of reaching our climate goals. [JUMP]

“To meet President Biden’s climate goals, we have to rapidly decarbonize our power generation and heavy industries – such as steel production – that are essential to the clean energy transition,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law enables DOE to invest in carbon capture, conversion and storage technologies that play essential roles in the development and deployment of clean energy.” 

Greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the primary component, have risen dramatically over the past several decades. Greenhouse gases fuel climate change, increasing the risk of droughts and floods, and putting our agriculture, health, and water supply at risk. These programs will enable the capture, transport, and permanent storage of greenhouse gas emissions to help mitigate the impacts of climate change on communities. They will also benefit communities across the nation by creating good-paying jobs and improving air quality. 

[….]

Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design Program Notice of Intent  

The $100 million Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design Program will design regional carbon dioxide pipeline systems to safely transport CO2 from key sources to centralized locations. Projects will expand DOE’s knowledge of carbon transport costs, transport network configurations, and technical and commercial considerations to support the country’s broader efforts to develop and deploy carbon capture and carbon dioxide removal technologies, carbon conversion, and storage at fully-commercial scale.  

DOE is also working closely with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to incorporate their safety guidance into DOE’s research, development, demonstration, and deployment portfolio for CO2 pipelines. To read DOE’s statement of support for the new CO2 pipeline safety measures recently announced by the U.S. Department of Transportation, click here. 

More information on the Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design Program Notice of Intent can be found here.

(ENERGY.GOV)

Since FEMA has been in the news for handing out monies meant for Americans in case of natural disasters to housing and feeding illegal immigrants, here is another boondoggle of American transfer of tax money to DEI type projects by FEMA:

[FEMA Press] Release Date: July 15, 2022

WASHINGTON — Today, FEMA released an initial list of programs covered under the Biden-Harris Administration’s Justice40  Initiative, which aims to deliver 40% of the overall benefits of climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable housing, clean water and other investments to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, overburdened and underserved. There are four covered programs within FEMA, each of which advance the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to environmental justice.

President Biden is committed to securing environmental justice and spurring economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities that are marginalized and overburdened by pollution and underinvestment in housing, transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, and health care.

Under Administrator Deanne Criswell’s leadership, FEMA has been integral to fulfilling the Biden-Harris Administration’s whole-of-government approach to advancing environmental justice and delivering on the President’s Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, including the critical Justice40 Initiative.

“The Justice40 Initiative strengthens FEMA’s commitment to ensure quick and equitable distribution of funds and benefits to the communities who need it most,” said Administrator Criswell. “We know that socially vulnerable communities bear the brunt of climate change and are more likely to be impacted by the associated extreme weather events. Thanks to President Biden and the Justice40 Initiative, FEMA will be able to better serve these communities by making them more resilient when disaster strikes.” ….

The CITY JOURNAL responds. Hat-tip to HOT AIR!

… At the start of his term, Biden issued Executive Order 14008, which set aggressive targets for clean energy but also included the demand that 40 percent of the “overall benefits” of environmental programs should flow to disadvantaged communities. The White House says this “Justice40 Initiative” must be a major focus of every government agency. The underlying concept holds that poor and minority communities are exposed to higher levels of pollution and are entitled not just to lower emissions but to various economic benefits to make up for historic underinvestment in those communities. In effect, the Justice40 project redefines the purpose of environmental programs to include not just less pollution but also various social goals such as “empowering communities” and reducing poverty.

What are the key problems with that effort?

Biden’s EJ agenda is a confusing jumble of requirements that burden government agencies with new layers of bureaucracy and contradictory demands. Some of the key requirements of the program, including the meaning of the word “benefit,” are left undefined. At a time when the White House says we are in a “climate emergency,” the EJ requirements will make it harder to get clean energy infrastructure projects approved. It will also raise the costs of those projects by adding demands such as favoring more expensive union labor. In practice, this means it will cost more and take longer to reach the administration’s ambitious climate targets. The EJ rules will also make it easier for activist groups to tie up private industry in litigation, which will undermine economic opportunity in poor communities.

Could you describe the distinction between the “practical” and “extreme” wings of today’s EJ movement?

The EJ movement contains a mix of ideologies and policy goals. On the practical side, advocates seek basic fairness in the application of environmental laws and reasonable goals, such as replacing lead pipes or reducing airborne pollution in cities. On the extreme side, activists see environmental justice as part of a larger progressive movement that pursues radical social change. For example, the influential Climate Justice Alliance describes its mission as working for “regenerative economic solutions and ecological justice—under a framework that challenges capitalism and both white supremacy and hetero-patriarchy.” The White House invited leaders of the Climate Justice Alliance and similar groups to advise it on how to shape its EJ policies.

Do you see parallels between the administration’s EJ agenda, which tries to expand social-welfare programs under the rubric of environmental concerns, and efforts by medical organizations and federal agencies to promote concepts like the “social determinants of health?”

The progressive movement is good at taking goals most Americans agree with—less pollution, or better health outcomes for minorities—and then using them as a kind of smokescreen under which to enact a more radical agenda. In both cases, activists want to take programs aimed at specific, concrete problems and then redirect those programs toward an amorphous set of social goals. For example, the White House’s EJ advisors demand that federal programs prioritize installing solar panels on the roofs of public-housing buildings. That wouldn’t help reduce CO2 emissions; these panels will be less efficient than rural solar farms. But it would mean more inner-city jobs and empowerment for activist groups. These activists imagine a future of “decentralized grid ownership,” in which poor communities control power generation communally. So, while most voters see Biden’s climate policies as being aimed at reducing emissions, EJ extremists see them as a vehicle for building the kind of post-capitalist future they desire. So far, the White House hasn’t followed every extreme EJ policy recommendation, but the activists are planting seeds. They might not fulfill their whole vision, but they can certainly tie up green programs with costs, delays, and contradictory goals.

John F. Kennedy Would Not Recognize Today`s Democratic Party

Published by Papa Giorgio

UPDATED AGAIN w/RFK Jr. @ Bottom (Originally posted in Nov 2013)

  • On racial preferences, JFK, in 1963, said he opposed them: “I don’t think that is the generally held view, at least as I understand it, of the Negro community, that there is some compensation due for the lost years, particularly in the field of education.
  • On tax cuts, in a 1962 speech Kennedy said: “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. … The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy, which can bring a budget surplus.”
  • On dealing with foreign enemies, JFK believed, as Reagan did, in peace through strength, not strength through peace. In his inaugural address, Kennedy said, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
  • On the Second Amendment, this lifetime member of the NRA believed it conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. In 1961, Kennedy said: “Today we need a nation of minutemen: citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort.”
  • Abortion was not an issue during the 1960 presidential campaign. Nor was it an issue during his presidency. Kennedy did say this: “Now, on the question of limiting population: As you know, the Japanese have been doing it very vigorously, through abortion, which I think would be repugnant to all Americans.”

(Read It All – Larry Elder)

Rethinking History

“I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all.” ~ John F. Kennedy, 1953

What Dennis Prager was asking James Swanson (audio below) was “what about the newer understanding that JFK was conservative?” (Prager has always echoed Reagan’s statement: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.” This fresh look at history supports this long held belief  by many ex-Dems.) When historians go through Kennedy’s speeches and candid confessions, as well as policy, they are more-and-more coming to the following conclusion:

A short excerpt from an article by Ira Stoll, in the October 2013 edition of THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, (In case you bump into a subscriber wall, here is the entire article for free: GOP Briefing Room”)

….WHAT I TAKE to be the truth about John Kennedy and his conservatism has, in the years since he died, been forgotten. This is partly because of the work of liberal historians and partly due to changes in America’s major political parties. Yet calling Kennedy a conservative was hardly controversial during his lifetime. “A Kennedy Runs for Congress: The Boston-bred scion of a former ambassador is a fighting-Irish conservative,” Look headlined an article in June 1946. “When young, wealthy and conservative John Fitzgerald Kennedy announced for Congress, many people wondered why,” the story began. “Hardly a liberal even by his own standards, Kennedy is mainly concerned by what appears to him as the coming struggle between collectivism and capitalism. In speech after speech he charges his audience ‘to battle for the old ideas with the same enthusiasm that people have for new ideas.’”

The Chicago Tribune reported Kennedy’s election to the U.S. Senate in 1952 by describing him as a “fighting conservative.” In a June 1953 Saturday Evening Post article, Kennedy said, “I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all,” adding, speaking of liberals, “I’m not comfortable with those people.” In 1958, Eleanor Roosevelt was asked in a television interview what she would do if she had to choose between a “conservative Democrat like Kennedy and a liberal Republican [like] Rockefeller.” She said she would do all she possibly could to make sure the Democrats did not nominate a candidate like Kennedy.

On the campaign trail before the 1960 election, Kennedy spoke about economics: “We should seek a balanced budget over the course of the business cycle with surpluses during good times more than offsetting the deficits which may be incurred during slumps. I submit that this is not a radical fiscal policy. It is a conservative policy.” This wasn’t just campaign rhetoric—Kennedy kept his distance from liberalism right up until his assassination. “Why are some ‘liberals’ cool to the Kennedy Administration?” Newsweek asked in April 1962. The article went on to explain: “the liberal credentials of young Senator Kennedy never were impeccable…He never was really one of the visceral liberals…many liberal thinkers never felt close to him.”

Even after Kennedy’s death, the “conservative” label was used to describe the late president and his policies by some of those who knew him best. One campaign staffer and congressional aide, William Sutton, described Kennedy’s political stance in the 1946 campaign as “almost ultraconservative.” “He was more conservative than anything else,” said a Navy friend of Kennedy’s, James Reed, who went on to serve Kennedy’s assistant Treasury secretary and who had talked for “many hours” with the young Kennedy about fiscal and economic matters. Another of Kennedy’s friends, the Washington columnist Joseph Alsop, echoed these sentiments in a 1964 interview:

The thing that’s very important to remember about the president was that he was not, in the most marked way, he was not a member of the modern, Democratic, liberal group. He had real—contempt I’m afraid is the right word—for the members of that group in the Senate, or most of them…What he disliked—and here again we’ve often talked about it—was the sort of posturing, attitude-striking, never getting anything done liberalism…This viewpoint was completely foreign to Kennedy, and he regarded it with genuine contempt. Genuine contempt. He really was—contemptuous is the right word for it. He was contemptuous of that attitude in American life.

Alsop went on to emphasize “the great success that the Kennedy administration had with an intelligent, active, but (in my opinion) conservative fiscal-economic policy.”

In January 1981, in the early days of the Reagan presidency, a group of Kennedy administration veterans gathered at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston for a private conversation. One of the participants, Ted Sorensen, said, “Kennedy was a fiscal conservative. Most of us and the press and historians have, for one reason or another, treated Kennedy as being much more liberal than he so regarded himself at the time…In fiscal matters, he was extremely conservative, very cautious about the size of the budget.” Sorensen made a similar point in a November 1983 Newsweek article, saying, “He never identified himself as a liberal…On fiscal matters he was more conservative than any president we’ve had since.” In a 1993 speech, Kennedy’s Treasury secretary, Douglas Dillon, described the president as “financially conservative.” Combine that position with hawkish anticommunism, and it is hard to find much overlap with liberals

[….]

Article will continue after

dealing with the Left’s latest lunacy…

The Left recently said JFK was killed by Right Wing or Conservative ideals. This is laughable!

REASON.COM has a great short blurb to set the record straight:

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein asks the obvious question after reading various attempts to blame the assassination of John F. Kennedy on a generalized “atmosphere of hate” pervading Dallas, Texas in the early 1960s. Was Dallas a hotbed of right-wing paranoid fantasies back then? Sure was. But—and this is really kinda important—it wasn’t the likes of nutjub Gen. Edwin Walker who plugged the president. It was Lee Harvey Oswald, a Castro supporter who had defected to the Soviet Union out of a mix of Marxist idealism and anti-Americanism.

Look, guys. Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK. Oswald was a Communist. Not a small c, “all we are saying is give peace a chance and let’s support Negro civil rights” kind of Communist, but someone so committed to the cause (and so blind to the nature of the USSR) that he actually went to live in the Soviet Union. And when that didn’t work out, Oswald became a great admirer of Castro. He apparently would have gone to live in Cuba before the assassination if the Cubans would have had him. Before assassinating Kennedy, Oswald tried to kill a retired right-wing general. As near as we can tell, he targeted Kennedy in revenge for Kennedy’s anti-Castro actions.

More here.

DAILY SIGNAL has an excellent commentary dealing with this rewriting [literally] of history, but here is Rush Limbaugh’s short take:

A little pop quiz. What do you call a politician who is pro-life? What do you call a politician who is for lower taxes? What do you call a politician who is for a strong national defense? What do you call a president who is a proud nationalist, proud to be an American? What do you call that person?

That is John Fitzgerald Kennedy. That is who JFK was. And that is the second attempted Drive-By Media Democrat Party distraction today. Although there’s a little bit more justification for spending time on the 50th anniversary of that assassination than there is on this nuclear option business. Let me tell you how ridiculous this is getting. You and I all know, Warren report, whatever, we all know that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. (interruption) I know. I can hear right now people throwing things at the radio, shouting things at the radio. We know that Lee Harvey Oswald fired on the president, okay? We know this, and we know what about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist. We know that a leftist, a communist assassinated JFK. That is the official Warren report conclusion. And yet the media cannot let go of the fact that because there were a lot of white Republican businessmen in Dallas, that it was a climate of hate, a climate of fear, a climate of extremism in Dallas that led to Kennedy’s death. Every conspiracy theory that you have heard that makes you think Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin was started by the Democrats. Every one.

(RUSH LIMBAUGH archives)

…The American Spectator continues:

[….]

THE QUESTION OF Kennedy’s ultimate political convictions is more than a matter of mere historical curiosity. Kennedy consistently ranks near the top of public polls asking about the greatness of past presidents. His popularity suggests that the American people think his record is a model worth emulating. Simply to ape Kennedy would be impossible, of course. The Soviet Union is gone, tax rates now are lower than when Kennedy wanted to cut them, and the state universities of the South have been racially integrated. But if the contours of the foreign policy, tax, and education fights have shifted, Kennedy’s course in them may nonetheless inform our choices today, as it has since his death. And other issues of Kennedy’s time are still with us, including economic growth, government spending, inflation, and, as he put it, “Christian morality,” the “cynical philosophy of many of our intellectuals,” and “the right of the individual against the state.”

Calling Kennedy a political conservative may make liberals uncomfortable—perish the thought!—by crowning conservatism with the halo of Camelot. And it could make conservatives uncomfortable too. Many have long despised the entire Kennedy family, especially John’s younger brother Ted. But conservatives need not always trust received wisdom, especially when it comes to conservatism. Better, then, to forge ahead, to try to understand both the 29-year-old Navy veteran speaking at Faneuil Hall and the president he became.

From the Kennedy Library:

  • The president finally decided that only a bold domestic program, including tax cuts, would restore his political momentum. Declaring that the absence of recession is not tantamount to economic growth, the president proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65% He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Ironically, economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable. Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes.

UPDATE:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “How I See The State Of Our Union” (Response to Joe Biden’s SOTU speech):

  • “Neither my uncle nor my father would recognize the version of America that we have today. We’ve become a nation of chronic illness, of violence, of loneliness, depression and division and poverty.”

A lot of the stats he references have good answers, however, the reason for this is that he is speaking in the vain of thee Democrat Party his father led. Not the LBJ party. That said, know this is a campaign video.

Eco-Fascism Leading the Way To Democrat Utopian Ideals

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Foden Toons: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Fodentoons/)

“Fear is the most powerful enemy of reason. Both fear and reasoning are essential to human survival, but the relationship between them is unbalanced. Reason may sometimes dissipate fear, but fear frequently shuts down reason. As Edmund Burke wrote in England 20 years before the American Revolution,” no passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning past fear.” …. “Facts no longer matter. We simply decide how we want to see the world and then go out and find experts and evidence to back our beliefs.” (WUWT)

The above cartoon notes this recent story (h/t to Climate Depot) from a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Democrat Senator (RI) Sheldon Whitehouse asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch if there “are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?”To which the AG responded,

This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.

  • In a poll of 1,000 likely voters, Rasmussen Reports asked if the “government [should] investigate and prosecute scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming?” A full 27% of Democrats replied in the affirmative, as did 12% of Republicans. (Breitbart)

This is an update to my very frightening post about where Democrats are headed in this country. And that is, where every other leftist government has ventured into… fascism. Except this time, it is “eco-fascism.”

More in this UPDATE from IBD (hat-tip to GAYPATRIOT):

Conform or else. That’s the message of the global warming alarmists. Those who don’t buy into the man-made climate change narrative should be prosecuted as criminals.

“Put officials who reject science in jail,” someone named Brad Johnson who says he’s executive director of something called Climate Hawks Vote tweeted last month.

At roughly the same time, Mark Hertsgaard typed a screed in The Nation which ran under the headline:

“Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us: The victims of Hurricane Harvey have a murderer — and it’s not the storm.​”

“How long,” Hertsgaard asked, “before we hold the ultimate authors of such climate catastrophes accountable for the miseries they inflict?”

And then there’s Bill Nye, the Junk Science Guy, who hasn’t been able to cover up his apparent desire to see “criminal investigations” against those ignoring his truth. It’s not hard to see through him, though. He dissembles like a politician but his appetite is clear.

The urge to prosecute and imprison those who don’t believe as they have been commanded to is not a new wrinkle among the alarmist tribe. Three years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., sounding like, well, a Kennedy, said the Koch brothers “should be in jail, I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals.”

“Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely, that is a criminal offence and they ought to be serving time for it.”

The Kochs’ crime? Selling energy resources to willing buyers and funding organizations that have reservations about the climate change story we’re constantly being told……..

AL GORE

…For the third time in the last few years, Al Gore, founder and chairman of the Climate Reality Project, spoke at the festival on Friday. Naturally, his interactive discussion focused on addressing the climate crisis. The former vice president focused on the need to “punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,’” said the Chicago Tribune.

Gore said forward-thinking investors are moving away from companies that invest in fossil fuels and towards companies investing in renewable energy. “We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore told the Chicago Tribune, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”…

(Eco Watch)

Bill Nye

Via Moonbattery (more at: Climate Depot):

Climate commie Bill Nye the Pseudo-Science Guy has joined the ranks of totalitarians who want skeptics of the floundering global warming hoax imprisoned…

[….]

Science? This isn’t about science. Global warming, climate change, climate chaos, or whatever they call the hoax next week is about hard left authoritarian politics. The Bill Nye–level pseudo-science is strictly window dressing.

Meanwhile, there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 23 years despite rising levels of beneficial CO2, shedding light on why warmists have been resorting to coercion to prop up their hoax.

Various Democrats

Also note that Democrats are actively investigations into people who counter the anthropogenic global warming narrative:

Dem Congressman “sent requests to seven universities asking for detailed records on the funding sources for affiliated researchers who have opposed the scientific consensus on man-made global warming.”

(Washington Times)

Harassment prompts scientist to stop his research debunking extreme weather claims – CU Climate Expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: I am Under ‘Investigation’ – Accuses Dems of ‘a politically-motivated ‘witch hunt’ designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name”

(Climate Depot)

As The Post’s Joby Warrick reported earlier this week, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D- Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, asked seven universities for detailed records on the funding sources for seven scientists, many of whom are unconvinced that humans are the driving force behind recent climate change.

In a letter to Grijalva released this afternoon, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) — a scientific and professional society representing atmospheric and oceanic scientists — expressed strong opposition to the inquiry.

“Publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have expressed and implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources — and thereby questioning their scientific integrity — sends a chilling message to all academic researchers,” the AMS wrote.

The AMS joins a cast of individual scientists who have spoken out against the inquiry…

(Washington Post)

Here are some of tha main Democrat Culprits:

Democrats may be flustered after a week of being accused of engineering an anti-science “witch hunt,” but they aren’t backing down from their investigations into the financial backing of climate change researchers who challenge the movement’s doomsday scenarios.

Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, told National Journal this week that he may have been guilty of overreach even as he defended his probe into the funding sources of seven professors, now known as the “Grijalva Seven.”

Three Senate Democrats — Barbara Boxer of California, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island — are conducting their own probe of 100 fossil fuel companies and trade associations funding climate research….

(Washington Times)

Senator Bernie Sanders

No Dissent Allowed: U.S. Senators introduce amendment to muzzle climate ‘denial apparatus’ – Senator Bernie Sanders co-sponsors

Via: DesmogBlog: U.S. Senators Introduce Amendment, Call On Fossil Fuel Industry To End ‘Climate Denial and Deception‘ – Democratic U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Ed Markey (MA) and Brian Schatz (HI) introduced an amendment into the energy bill yesterday intended to express Congress’s disapproval of the use of industry-funded think tanks and misinformation tactics aimed at sowing doubt about climate change science…Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) joined the amendment as a co-sponsor once it was introduced.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Hat-tip to Climate Depot. This comes from the Weekly Standard:

  • Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI): ‘In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise…The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.”

….That’s right — a sitting U.S. Senator is suggesting using RICO laws should be applied to global warming skeptics. Courts have been defining RICO down for some time and in ways that aren’t particularly helpful. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled RICO statutes could be applied to pro-life activists on the grounds that interstate commerce can be affected even when the organization being targeted doesn’t have economic motives. 

Obviously, there’s a lot of money hanging in the balance with regard to energy policy. But when does coordinating “a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts” go from basic First Amendment expression to racketeering? The tobacco analogy is inappropriate in regards to how direct the link between smoking and cancer is. Even among those who do agree that global warming is a problem, there’s a tremendously wide variety of opinions about the practical effects. Who gets to decide whether someone is “downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change” relative to the consensus? If message coordination and lobbying on controversial scientific and political issues can be declared racketeering because the people funding such efforts have a financial interest in a predetermined outcome, we’re just going to have to outlaw everything that goes on in Washington, D.C.

Who are the cigarette execs? Morano explains:

  • …it’s the global warming scientists who are the ones fulfilling a narrative. I mean we have Michael Oppenheimer, one of the lead U.N. scientists, took an endowment from Barbra Streisand. Hollywood – he’s the climatologists to the stars. It’s so insulting to imply that somehow skeptical scientists are on the pay like tobacco companies. It’s the height of arrogance when you look at the actual data, the global warming scientists, through government grants, foundations, through media empowerment, have the full advantages of government money, foundation money, university money. There’s not even any comparison.’

Green News also notes proposed “jailing” of “deniers:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has a new plan to combat climate change: sue fossil fuel companies for fraud. In a May 29 op-ed in The Washington Post , Whitehouse argued that the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to discredit climate science and attack environmentalists may constitute deliberate deception of the kind the tobacco industry perpetrated in previous decades. In 2006, a federal judge found the tobacco industry guilty of fraud in a civil lawsuit brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Cigarette companies’ efforts to hide the health effects of tobacco consumption included lying about the findings of…

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, Jr.

GayPatriot adds some commentary:

Robert F. Kennedy took his private jet and his motorcade of SUV’s to the Climate Alarmist for Socialism Party in New York City, pausing long enough to explain how people who don’t believe in man-caused Global Warming should be jailed and punished…. Almost half of Americans admit to being skeptical of climate change; the progs better plan on building a lot of camps.

A not so surprising thing happened as they do at all large Democratic gatherings, a whole bunch of trash was left behind. Continuing with Breitbart:

This week in New York City somewhere around 400,000 litterbugs descended on the Big Apple, and not to celebrate the wonderful news that the planet hasn’t warmed in 18 years. Instead they gathered to do, uhm, whatever this is , and to pretend Global Warming is real and dire, so that those pushing this phony crisis can tell the rest of us what to do and how to live our lives. (Breitbart)

Here, PJTV interviews the hypocrisy flowing from JFK Jr:

JOHN KERRY

John Kerry is blaming future calamities on those of us who deny the Left’s main contention that man-made CO2 is the main driver behind our planet’s weather system. Here is the WaPo article via Climate Depot:

…Kerry noted that he was speaking in Hampton Roads, where the land the city is built on is sinking as sea levels are rising twice as fast as the world’s average. He said political opponents who doubt the science of climate change are posing a threat to everyone.

  • “The science tells us unequivocally, those who continue to make climate change a political fight put us all at risk,” he said. “And we cannot sit idly by and allow them to do that.”

Kerry called climate change more than a threat to the habitats of butterflies and polar bears. He said it has a direct impact on military readiness…

Various DEMOCRAT Leaning Person’s

….In 2009, New York Times Paul Krugman accused Congressmen who voted against climate cap-and-trade bill of ‘treason against the planet!’

‘Execute’ Skeptics! Krugman’s sentiment joined by fellow climate fear promoters

In June 2009, a public appeal was issued on an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S.

The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?” (For full story see: ‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’ – June 3, 2009)

After all the attention drawn to it by Climate Depot, the Talking Points Memo article was later pulled and the website published a retraction and apology, but the sentiment was stark and unequivocal and has significant company among climate fear promoters.

On June 5, 2009, Joe Romm of Climate Progress defended a posting on his website warning that climate skeptics would be strangled in bed for rejecting the view that we face a man-made climate crisis. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” warned the message posted on Climate Progress.

Romm, a former Clinton Administration official, pulled the comments after Climate Depot drew attention to them. “The original was clearly not a threat but a prediction — albeit one that I certainly do not agree with. Since some people misread it, I am editing it,” Romm wrote.

Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

A 2008 report found that ‘climate blasphemy’ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.

November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” Yvo de Boer’s comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.

October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun

U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007) Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

Professor Lawrence Torcello

This comes way of WUWT, and highlights the tendency of the Left towards totalitarian thinking in order to make their vision “work.

Scientists who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison, a US philosophy professor argues on a website funded by the UK government.

Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about “global warming” should face trial for “criminal negligence”. (H/T Bishop Hill)

What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.

More @ Breitbart

What next, numbers tattooed on our arms because we hold an opinion different from Torcello?

DAVID SUZUKI

Here is David Suzuki calling for jail, and the PBS host more worried that there isn’t enough space [yet?] for us to be jailed:

David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.

At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month….

(Marquette Warrior; See also the National Post)

Scientist Suggests Imprisoning Former Canadian PM For Anti-Global Warming Views

  • Suzuki: “I really believe that people like the former Prime Minister of Canada should be thrown in jail for willful blindness. If you’re the CEO of a company and you deliberately avoid or ignore information relevant to the functioning of that company, you can be thrown in jail… And to have a Prime Minister who for nine years wouldn’t even let the term ‘climate change’ pass his lips! If that isn’t willful blindness, then I don’t know what is.”

Reason.org ends with a great commentary on this freedom restricting idea of the above lunatic:

In 2012, in a proceeding straight out of the Inquisition, an Italian court convicted six scientists for providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” in the lead-up to the earthquake. Now, a philosophy professor says that case may provide a worthwhile example for the treatment of scientific dissenters—specifically, “climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”…

…He ultimately allows that he wouldn’t actually criminalize poor scientific communication—just anybody who might support dissenting scientists, or receive such support.

If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism….

We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.

If you’re trying to figure out how that doesn’t threaten the free exercise of speech, Torcello assures us, “We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organized campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions.”

InquisitionSo…You can voice a dissenting opinion, so long as you don’t benefit from it or help dissenters benefit in any way?

By the way, according to RIT, Torcello researches “the moral implications of global warming denialism, as well as other forms of science denialism.” Presumably, his job is a paid one. But this is OK, because…the majority of scientists agree with his views on the issue?

Let’s allow that they do—and that a majority of scientists agree about man-made climate change and a host of other issues. Just when does the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition meet to decide what is still subject to debate, and what is now holy writ? And is an effort to “undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus” always criminally negligent?…

More @ Reason

20-Scientists Write Obama

In a recent article, 20-leading scientists have come out to recommend legal action (jail) for those of us who use science to counter AGW types:

Twenty climate scientists called for RICO investigation in a letter to Obama and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The scientists argue that the systemic efforts to prevent the public from understanding climate change resembles the investigation undertaken against tobacco. They draw inspiration from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who said on the Senate floor that there might be a similar conspiracy here, and a civil trial could provide the tools of discovery needed to find out.

[….]

[Note: This call for treating skeptics as racketeers comes the same week that the New York Times promoted equating climate skeptics to Hitler. See: The Next Genocide – NYT OpEd: Climate “deniers” present “intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s”….

(Climate Depot)

World Court

One law professor is calling for the World Court to “rule on climate science to quash skeptics” ~ leading one writer to say:

  • If this thinks that the World Court or any other court is remotely qualified to “settle the scientific dispute,” he is a total fracking moron advocating a crime against humanity on a scale not seen since the trial of Galileo. (WUWT)

Indeed.

Its “funny” how the left HATES profit.