AOC the Light and the Heat: The Grand Facade So Soon Will Burn Without a Noise

"Contained within the FAQ for the Green New Deal is one of the greatest sentences ever written with the intention of being taken very, very seriously: We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast. I love this sentence so much I want to stand outside its house holding up a boom box blasting Peter Gabriel’s In Your Eyes.”



That comment using a quote from the FAQ that Democrats tried--but failed--to memory hole made my week. Go read Jonah Goldberg.

Or listen to his podcast. I'm way more Trump-tolerant than he is, even though I am sympathetic to his concerns. But that's how I roll. I just don't insist that other people must agree with me to be good people (although obviously it helps). In this age I value serious thought while retaining a sense of humor. Don't let his dog fetish put you off (cats rule!).

For you kids, that video shows how people once carried around their music. And there were much bigger versions, too. Seriously.

Also, that scene is probably why wealthier people today live in gated communities that feature armed responses to such pre-dawn gestures of enduring love to your daughter (not that I'm speaking from personal experience on this issue, of course).

Oh, and here is a good observation about the AOC GLF (Green Leap Forward):

The threat of climate change is so urgent that we can't solve it unless we commit to giving everybody free healthcare, free college, affordable housing, healthy food, well-paying jobs, and provide economic security to those unwilling to work.

Is global warming a crisis or just an excuse to do something the Left would want to do if there is no crisis?

On a more general note, I fully endorse Jonah's (I've been reading him long enough so I don't have to call him Mr. Goldberg, right?) view that conservatives should not celebrate the leftward lurch in the Democratic party. We should want a Democratic party that is closer to the center rather than the one wildly careening left now, while it asks America to hold its beer.

We shouldn't wish for a crazier Democratic party in the belief more people will vote Republican in fear of the alternative. Isn't it healthier for America to have a Democratic party that isn't so bad to endure until the next election if they win rather than one that could do any crazy thing that pops into the fluffier heads of its members? Like battling farting cows with an all-powerful state via the GLF ??

On the bright side, I don't think we'll ever see the House of Representatives pass the GLF to see what is in it because Speaker Pelosi made sure to stack the new Committee to Kill the GLF (tip to Instapundit).

UPDATE. The FAQ that was taken down may not have been the correct one. Although it reflects their direction of thinking, obviously, even if someone with a little more sense said "Let's go easy on the whole cow farts issue for now."

Also, the fact that the GLF is modeled on FDR's New Deal isn't as comforting as AOC thinks. When you insist the government "do something" about a problem it sometimes makes the problem much worse.

The Color of Money

"Green" Europe steps up to fight global warming!

The European Union’s (EU) “go diesel” initiative of the mid-1990s is a perfect example [of the folly of government planning of the economy]. After years of negotiation, most countries (with the exception of the United States) signed the Kyoto protocol in 1997, which pledged the industrialized world to binding reductions of greenhouse gases. To meet their pledged twenty percent reduction in emissions, EU environmental planners pushed car manufacturers to invest heavily in fuel-saving diesel technology. But mass markets would subsequently reject diesel-powered cars. Contrary to the planners’ expectations, the diesel initiative did not lower automobile-fuel use or reduce greenhouse gases. Rather, it blanketed cities with air pollution, destroyed the value of used diesels, set back Europe’s car manufacturers in the international competition for a clean and fuel-efficient car, and created a powerful pro-diesel lobby that continues to exercise influence on regulators and bureaucrats throughout the European Union.

But for them, it was always better to look good on the environment than to be good on the environment.



Tip to Instapundit.

The Green Awakening

I know this Governor Brown comment isn't new, but it is timeless in showing an ongoing transformation from religion disguised as science to just religion in global warming belief.

Are you freaking kidding me?

Speaking to CBS’ “60 Minutes” in an interview that aired Sunday, the California Democrat said Trump’s policies on the environment and his stance toward climate change show that he doesn’t fear God.

“I don’t think President Trump has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God, which leads one to more humility … this is such a reckless disregard for the truth and for the existential consequences that can be unleashed,” Brown said, according to The Hill.

I have said global warming--where the science doesn't justify the end times panic--in the public sphere resembles a religion these days. It is clearly getting worse and more obvious.

So sing it, brothers and sisters!

And sadly, even Pope Francis seems like he has decided to dump actual Catholics and become the Green Pope of Climate Change (see the fifth paragraph in the data dump).

I was on that, too.

Honestly, I think my view of global warming is perfectly reasonable based on the science. And it doesn't rest on the fear of God's wrath.

Now go and emit no more.

Global Worming

This pretty much defines peeing in the ocean and expecting to see a measurable rise in sea level:

A powerful alliance of leaders representing American cities, states and business said on Saturday that they would continue to back the Paris climate accord after President Donald Trump announced earlier this year that he would withdraw the United States from the 2015 international agreement.

You may recall that if America had remained in the Paris accord, the entire global impact would have been ... wait for it!

My own peer-reviewed research, published in the journal Global Policy, shows that all of the treaty’s 2016-2030 promises on cutting carbon-dioxide emissions will reduce temperatures by the year 2100 by just 0.05°C. Even if the promised emissions cuts continued unabated throughout the century, the Paris agreement would cut global temperature increases by just 0.17°C. Scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reach a similar conclusion.

And that’s assuming countries actually live up to their promises: The treaty’s nonbinding.

It would be a planet-saving 0.17 degrees Celsius--if the entire world lives up to its commitments.

I eagerly await the cities, states, and businesses to reduce use of heating, cooling, and air travel to save the planet in defiance of the American government.

Now that would be "powerful."

And these preening morons pretend they are saving the planet by combining faux resistance to Trump with faux resistance to global warming.. They are worms beneath contempt (and my apologies to worms everywhere that fulfill a valuable function).

Now go and emit no more.

I Am a Denier

I am a global warming "denier." So you can totally hate me and doubt I have the brain power of a mossy rock or have any faith in science (even as you reject genetically modified crops and vaccinations).

I am a denier because I accept that CO2 is a factor in warming the planet and recognize that mankind is putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

I am a denier because I accept that global temperatures have gone up for the last 150+ years (as the Little Ice Age receded); while mankind has been a factor in warming only since 1950.

I am a denier because since 1950, when mankind became a factor, temperatures have gone up; then gone down, leading scientists to say we faced a new Ice Age; then gone up, leading scientists to say we faced a scorched planet; then flattened, which scientists insisted was but a "pause" before going up again. All this variability occurred despite taking place in the era when mankind has had an effect on the atmosphere with increased CO2 production.

I am a denier because I've noticed that the models do not accurately reflect the actual planet in regard to actual temperatures.

I am a denier because I wonder why scientists keep "adjusting" modern temperature records upward and still can't get the predicted warming in the models they make.

I am a denier because I wonder why defending our current temperature is the hill to die on. Isn't it quite the coincidence that we apparently live in the climate ideal? If not, what is the climate ideal anyway? If we have it within our power to calibrate the global temperature, shouldn't we figure out what it should be set at? Is it, amazingly enough, our own temperature right now? Two degrees warmer? Two degrees cooler?

Yes, with all that, because I consider it unsettled as to whether a changing climate (as it always has been) means the sky is falling; and because I consider it unsettled as to whether mankind is the dominant factor in temperature changes or whether natural factors overwhelm mankind's contribution, I am a denier.

I am a denier because even if warming is a problem I don't think that policies that always seem to involve granting government--run by the people who believe in man-caused climate change--powers to run our lives and to harm economic growth are the proper solution.

I am a denier who should be punished as some global warming fanatics have demanded, as if I am a heretic who cannot be tolerated.

Yes, every fire, volcano, earthquake, hurricane, or any other natural disaster is considered by the climate change believers to be a sign of God's climate's wrath as punishment for our affluence.

And yet the science continues. Including science that focuses on the natural factors that have changed the climate long before 1950 added mankind to the factors that change the climate. I am a denier to note that doubts to Holy Orthodoxy Consensus exist.

Now go and emit no more.

A Serious Question About Climate Change Advice

So hurricanes are getting stronger while the death toll shrinks?

I don't think two hurricanes after such a long gap in deadly strong storms since Katrina in 2005 is enough data to conclude the former. But for a moment let's stipulate that as a fact.

Would we be better off if we had taken the money we spent on being better prepared for storms and responding to them since 2005; and instead plowed it all into fighting global warming, and thus reducing the increase in the global average temperature since 2005 by an amount so low as to be indistinguishable from random changes or instrument error?

Even if the models and predictions of the extent of global warming are correct, we are under no obligation to follow the economic and financial advice of climate scientists in response to that warming, because they will have strayed well out of their lane to be given that kind of authority.

Seriously, people, with renewed calls to punish those who haven't gone full global warming panic out there, are you really telling me that this attitude is a defense of science rather than a case of true believers punishing heretics?

Now go and emit no more.

I generally leave global warming thoughts in the weekend data dump these days. But this seemed like an important enough point to raise in its own post.

I'm Having Trouble Figuring Out Why This is Bad

Bold climate dissenters are fleeing the federal government, no doubt hoping they'll get time on friendly TV to fight the power:

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said many federal employees are leaving the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over “fear” that the Trump administration is going to “suppress their viewpoints” or move them to irrelevant positions.

There is but one response to this exodus:



Yeah, don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on the way out.

Science On the Rocks

Global warmers: Huge iceberg calves off of Antarctica! Surely it is the work of global warming!! Except:

In 1956 an iceberg broke off from Antarctica which was 200 miles long and sixty miles wide. It was the size of “Massachusetts and Connecticut combined”.

That’s six times the size of the one which broke off from the Larsen-C ice shelf in Antarctica this week.

Another iceberg broke off in 1927 which was four times the size of this week’s iceberg.

No one is disputing, then, that a big chunk of ice broke off Antarctica this week.

But it wasn’t unprecedentedly large and it wasn’t anything to do with climate change.

Even global warming science only says mankind began influencing the climate in the 1950s. So this is kind of a normal thing.

Never mind.

Making America Competitive Again

The hysteria over America leaving the Paris climate agreement is just astounding. But German car makers think it is good for America.

Even if the agreement works and everyone carries out their BS goals through 2030, the impact is predicted (by notoriously bad models) to be a global temperature in 2100 that is 0.05 degrees Celsius lower than it would be without the agreement.

I repeat, an effect of 0.05 degrees Celsius.

Yet America's withdrawal will destroy that planet-saving difference? Even though America did rather well in reducing CO2 emissions after pulling out of the Kyoto agreement in the Bush 43 administration?

And in America, supporters of the agreement have also been claiming that this withdrawal would be harmful to America's economy by denying America a leading role in green technologies (why that would be I don't know).

But economically, German auto makers are already worried that America's withdrawal from the agreement will benefit America at Germany's expense!

Germany's powerful car industry said Europe would need to reassess its environmental standards to remain competitive after the United States said it would withdraw from the Paris climate pact. ...

"The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive," Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.

Shouldn't the Germans be chortling in glee at America's decision to abandon the lead in a glorious advance to Green autos?

Seriously, you people on the left need to stop turning the outrage dial to 11 every damn day over every damned thing. You make it way too easy to ignore you.

The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!

President Trump isn't ignoring the world's concerns. He's just concluding that the world is concerned about something stupid that serves their interests rather than ours--and certainly not the planet's.

This should shock nobody:

The US president has announced the withdrawal of the world’s largest economy from the Paris agreement. Europe and China have vowed to push ahead without Washington [emphasis added].

They will push ahead with a toothless and irrelevant pact?

China isn't even required to reduce emissions under global agreements prior to this BS agreement that even Warministas disliked--until America exited--because nothing was mandatory.

And Europe set their base against which they measure reductions the period after the collapse of the Soviet empire in eastern Europe in order to include emissions from heavy industries that would have been shut down anyway as inefficient enterprises unfit for Western economies. So it is fake progress that Europe boasts about even as America made better progress than Europe even after pulling out of the Kyoto agreement under Bush 43.

Truly, the fake progress is baked into the Paris agreement. It just doesn't matter if anybody keeps their commitments let alone whether America does.

This is religious faith--not science. I swear, interpretative dance is next.

I remain far more worried about car bomb footprints than carbon footprints.

How long before some global warming fanatic tells us that the little girls butchered at Manchester will at least be saved from the scourge of living in a world 0.05 degrees Celsius warmer than we'd be if Trump kept America in the Paris agreement?

Enjoy the volume at 11. I'm sure Trump will do three more things to destroy the world next week, too, and keep the shrieking going.

And the odds are good that there will be three more killing sprees by jihadis in that week that won't enrage any leftist one bit.

This is How Gulag Guards Were Recruited

Global warming is a religious-based ideology that provides a higher cause for proto-tyrants to push people around.

Well, yes (via Instapundit):

AGW: when a scientific theory becomes a religion…

…then those with an opposing view become apostates.

Yes! Punish the unclean heretics!

Believe me, I've been all over this aspect of global warming activists.

Hell, I wrote a friggin' song in their honor.

But this faith/apostate clash makes sense when you consider a survey of Dartmouth students showed liberal students to be way more intolerant of different political views than conservative students:

Yup. The side that is currently breeding violence against speech they disagree with happens to be intolerant of opposing views. They've practically built an entire movement on preaching "tolerance," while those of us who didn't fall for it recognized it as Orwell's "newspeak."

Yeah, they can go scrape those COEXIST bumper stickers off their cars right now.

Long-time readers will recall that I've often said that it is a crime against language to have "liberal minded" considered the equivalent of "open minded." I've never claimed conservatives are more open minded, but deny that liberals are necessarily open minded just because they loudly insist they uniquely are capable of rationally weighing evidence.

Perhaps I should change my mind on that because of the data, eh?

But not that even general trends speak to what any individual on the left, right, or middle believes in this regard. There are of course clearly open- and closed-minded people across the spectrum.

So even with some data, I won't say that liberals are more likely to be totalitarians than conservatives:

The lie we were told as kids was this: The end of American liberty would come at the hands of the political right. ...

But the lie is obvious now, isn't it?

Because it is not conservatives who coerced today's young people or made them afraid of ideas that challenge them. Conservatives did not shame people into silence, or send thugs out on college campuses to beat down those who wanted to speak.

The left did all that.

I will say that it has long been nonsense that the left is the protector of freedom.

Just look at those "anti-fascist" violent thugs who look oddly fascist-like.

Just look at those who preen at being the founders of "free speech" eagerly suppressing or (just as bad) failing to defend free speech when it is within their power to preserve freedom of speech.

Part of that similarity is that communists are international socialists are actually very similar to Nazis (who called themselves "national socialists"). So going from one to the other is a simple word change, as you might notice Stalin did for the USSR when he proclaimed Russia would forge the path of "socialism in one country." That's way different than national socialism, eh?

So I think it is clear that left-wing tyrants at least need a "good" cause to justify suppressing dissenters and cleansing them from society. Right-wing tyrants generally are content to leave the people alone as long as they accept their place and provide the goodies to the palace. The left needs a reason that saves the world to justify hating those who stand in their way and crushing them, while sleeping just fine at night.

Global warming is the mother of all causes in this regard. It is an all-purpose Apocalyptic crisis--complete with a fiery Hell on Earth and the flood!--that justifies anything.

Seriously, people, Yahweh sent but ten plagues to torment pharaoh. Global warming's toll is orders of magnitude greater to compel us to let our carbon go!

I like to flatter myself that my disagreement with global warming claims rests on the failure of the science to prove that mankind's influence is the driver of climate change (the climate always changed even without mankind's influence and continues to change vectors even in an age--since 1950--of human influence); the failure to admit that climate change can't be good to a certain point or prove climate change can't at least be adapted to if it does get severe; or that their left-wing state-driven (or even supranational power) ideas that always seem to enrich themselves and reduce freedom and well-being for the rest of us is the answer if humans are responsible for changes that will be too dangerous to adapt to.

But so far, the way global warming activists react to any questions of the science (and there is real science going on out there) as a challenge to their faith, I'm inclined not to think they are doing anything but knocking on my door some Sunday morning and asking me in increasingly insistent tones if I'd like to discuss my faith.

Act like a fanatic and I'll view you as a fanatic who is possibly dangerous.

Now go and emit no more.

(Sorry, I meant to stop this post after the song. But I value individual freedom--even for those who disagree with me--and see the foundations of totalitarianism in the increasingly strident voices who would order the world as they see fit and regiment the people to save us all from a Hellish future that only exists in their minds. Their extremism and growing hysteria is alarming. The guards of the gulags and concentration camps believed they were good people, too, don't forget. So the post got longer and the title changed from mere mockery.)

So We Need What, Now?

It's nice to see money-saving joint programs like this:

The U.S. and Canadian governments on Feb. 7 established a partnership that will enable the U.S. Coast Guard heavy polar icebreaker acquisition program to test and validate potential heavy polar icebreaker design models at Canada’s National Research Council (NRC) in St John’s, Newfoundland, the Coast Guard said in a Feb. 9 release.

Wait, what? A new heavy icebreaker?

I was under the impression that the polar ice would disappear under the onslaught of global warming.

Never mind.

The ConSUNsus is Settled

I enjoyed this:



I especially enjoyed his comment about the lack of emphasis on that huge fusion reaction going on above us in favor of blaming human production of carbon dioxide for being the driver of our climate.

In related news, global warmers at NASA relied on junk data and methods for a rushed paper designed to support politicians. And the NASA authors failed to maintain data and methods to allow others to verify their results. Ah, science!

Shocking, actually.

As I've long said, I have no doubt man influences the climate. But I have severe doubts that it is a major component. I don't see the proof that warming will be catastrophic or even dangerous. And I sure don't think that the "solution" to any problems as the global warmers promote is more government--ideally international--that reduces liberty and cripples economic growth.

The Green Vow of Poverty

If global warming fanatics truly feared global warming they would support nuclear power as much as the Iranians claim to want it (as their excuse to get nuclear weapons). But no, the fanatics want people to be green and poor.

You know I am critical of the whole global warming full ideology. I don't deny that CO2 warms the planet and that humans put CO2 in the atmosphere, but that's about the extent of my confidence in the so-called science and the policy solutions the global warmers advocate.

It is a pet peeve of mine that gets its own label. Which is a rarity here.

But you'd think that there are ways that global warmers and "deniers" such as myself could agree on some policies that would support their view and not offend mine. Like supporting nuclear electricity generation:

So when the leading science academies in 20 developed countries, along with several major American corporations and the national security community, all tell us that burning fossil fuels is causing dangerous changes to the climate, we think it’s time for the United States to get serious about clean energy. It also means supporting safely operating nuclear power plants that produce carbon-free electricity.

Already, 60 percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from the 99 nuclear reactors that dot the nation’s map[.]

I dismiss the first portion of that first sentence, accept with caveats the second part of the first sentence, and support the second sentence in light of the fourth.

Yet I know that global warmers will not join forces on this theoretical area of overlap.

I know because at one time global warmers believed natural gas was a green alternative to oil and coal. They were right.

But as soon as natural gas became cheap and plentiful with the advances in technology, including fracking, that made it profitable to switch, the global warmers turned against natural gas.

It's almost as if the most important thing for global warmers is to make energy expensive in order to punish a sinful humanity for past ecological sins rather than have greener--but cheaper--energy.

There are real scientists doing work on climate change issues, of course. But the culture of the global warming movement is anti-progress and more of a religion than science.

Now go and emit no more.

Baby It's Cold Outside

Aside from what I'd expect to be a general rise in global temperatures since 1850 when the Little Ice Age is deemed to have ended, and given that the small human portion of greenhouse gasses began to affect the climate after 1950, the fluctuations we've seen since 1950 are especially noteworthy for showing that human impact on the climate is not as decisive as global warmers claim.


This is fun:

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

If the science discussed in that article is correct, we can expect a couple more decades of cooling.

There are natural forces that change our climate which overwhelm human activity. So sure, when natural factors--like the long-term retreat from the Little Ice Age and the periodic changes in ocean effects on climate--warm the climate, human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere adds to the warming.

But when natural forces cool the Earth, human factors are negated. If not, we wouldn't see these fluctuations since the late 1940s, eh? It would all be warming with perhaps just variations in the speed of warming.

We are in an ocean cooling trend--and reduced sunspot phase--that has nullified the warming due to the exit from the Little Ice Age and significant human factors new since 1950.

This effect of numerous factors is separate from the question of whether warming is good or bad for life on Earth, on balance.

And that question is separate from whether the left-wing government power grab solutions that the global warming Left claims must be our response to warming is the smart way to go, if global warming will take place to a degree that will actually harm people.

I am a climate "denier" because while I don't deny that CO2 warms the atmosphere, that people put CO2 into the atmosphere, and that this addition has some impact on warming the atmosphere; I don't think that the science has proven that human action is decisive compared to all the natural factors that warm the atmosphere, I don't think we have a handle on how all the natural factors affect the climate one way or the other, I don't think the science has determined that warming is absolutely bad and at what level it can actually harm life on our planet, and I sure as Hell don't think that the left-wing policies that kill economic growth and expand government and international powers over our lives are the proper answer to any problems identified.

Tip to Instapundit.

Defenders of the Faith

I enjoyed this.

Really, global warming activists don't act like science is on their side.

They act as if skeptics could end their crusade of the faithful.

I'd be remiss if I didn't link to my Prattle Hymn of the Republic.

Save the West--Not the Planet

Well that's nice:

President Obama issued a new policy directive Wednesday to consider the effects of climate change in developing national security policy and planning across all major security agencies and the military.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, our leaders need to worry more about car bomb footprints than carbon footprints.

We might be safer if we just did a better job preventing "known wolf" jihadis from acting out their hate-filled beliefs.

Although I admit I'd pay good money to see the military troll the global warmers by issuing a report on how to lower carbon emissions by killing all enemies--including the wounded--rather than taking any prisoners who would continue to exhale and otherwise put carbon into the atmosphere by buying stuff over a lifetime.

Just what is the carbon footprint of building a prison camp and taking care of prisoners, anyway?

How Convenient

Data is increasingly unnecessary because we now have Mann-made global warming:

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Well, Mann-declared global warming, anyway. Ah, Science!

Does Mann's claim mean Congress can safely cancel all funding for global warming research?

This is why I don't need data to conclude that Michael Mann is a clown. It's playing out in real time before us.

Of course, different data might lead to different things playing out in real time.

Tips to the Instapundit Borg.

Adding Insult to Injury

It's bad enough that our military resources aren't matching escalating threats in virtually every theater. Now the military is supposed to divert the inadquate resources it has to fighting the dread scourge of climate change.

This focus is nonsense, as retired Army general Scales said to Congress:

The common spark for all wars is jealousy and greed amplified by centuries-long animosities and political ambitions. The catalyst for war is the ignorance of leaders that leads them to misjudge. Humans start wars believing they will be profitable, short, glorious and bloodless. These truths never change. None are affected in the least by air temperature.

But the myth of climate change as an inducement to war continues to curry favor among Washington elites.

The idea that global warming has caused the Syria war, for example, is nonsense based on the simple facts that we've been in a pause for about 19 years and that Syria's average temperature has gone up 2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.

And what about, as that post notes, Syrian government policy that contributed to exacerbating the effects of drought?


Even if you can say that weather contributed to the war, a not unreasonable position, you have to ask why in Syria the reaction to drought is sectarian slaughter when in California or other places the reaction is different?

But what the heck. What else does our military have to do but combat climate change? Things have gotten better since then, right?

So I guess compelling the military to focus on climate change as a national security threat is more like adding more injury to injury.

Gathering the Choir

Al Gore is involved. No doubt he'll make a buttload of money shaking down companies.

Via the Instapundit Borg, Al Gore has gathered his back-up singers:

Remember that silly ol’ “freedom of speech” chestnut those silly elderly white guys founded this country on? Well the attorneys general of 16 Democrat-controlled states are looking to do away with that boring old rule and are now announcing their intentions to prosecute companies trying to speak out against global warming alarmism.

This is all about control and stifling debate (and this from someone who is basically on the side of global warming theory):

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman gave the game away when he explained that they would be pursuing completely different theories in different jurisdictions -- some under pension laws, some consumer protection, some securities fraud. It is traditional, when a crime has actually been committed, to first establish that a crime has occurred, and then identify a perpetrator. When prosecutors start running that process backwards, it’s a pretty good sign that you’re looking at prosecutorial power run amok.

We all know the song they'll be singing.

UPDATE: What the attorneys general are doing is the crime, actually.

UPDATE: Seriously, what these people are doing is a crime.

Last week, a line was crossed in the ongoing campaign of liberals to criminalize freedom of expression. The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands subpoenaed a decade of materials and work by a private advocacy group that had dared to question the orthodoxy of climate change.

The group is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the attorney general is Claude E. Walker, who had recently signed on to a campaign of over a dozen attorneys general to ferret out so-called climate change “deniers.”

Are we actually going to accept a New Inquisition by these religious fanatics?

UPDATE: Related. For the global warmers, they have always been at war with Eastasia.

UPDATE: This is late, buy I didn't feel like a new post. Just what have these clowns gotten right, anyway?