“The haters may rule the streets, hog the microphones and cow the conservatives, but they do not change the opinions of the quiet.”
Long live the democratic and peaceful silent majority.
By Andrew Bolt ~
From the outcry you’d think Donald Trump’s temporary ban on travellers from seven jihad-prone countries is wildly unpopular. But a Rasmussen poll, taken just before the protests, finds it has two-to-one support.
Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided…
This survey was taken late last week prior to the weekend protests against Trump’s executive orders imposing a four-month ban on all refugees and a temporary visa ban on visitors from these seven countries.
So the protesters are trying to block Trump from implementing a policy that was an election promise, that is lawful and that is backed two-to-one by voters.
Don’t they respect democracy.
View original post 299 more words
Great analysis of the hysterical campaign by the Leftist mainstream media and the Clinton’s to delegitimise Trump’s landslide electoral college win.
A free and fare election won by Trump by 30 states to 20, or an overwhelming 306 to 232 EC votes.
First they tried “recounts” then “Comey FBI” then “fake news” now “Russian hackers”. What next…”global warming”?!
“….They voted against your kind because they are absolutely sick of this arrogant, patronising, sneering kind of analysis by a media and political elite so wildly out of touch.”
Read it all…
By Andrew Bolt ~
Remember how the Left, when it assumed Clinton would win, jeered that Donald Trump would be a sore loser who wouldn’t accept the result?
“That’s not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. President Obama said the other day that when you’re whining before the game is even finished it just shows you’re not even up to doing the job. “
She added, “And let’s be clear about what he’s saying and what he means. He’s denigrating—he’s talking down our democracy. I for one am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our major two parties would take that kind…
View original post 1,037 more words
Good to see Trump following through with his election promises “No more money for politicized science!”
And as for radical eco-activist groups like “The Sierra Club”, whose income stream relies on peddling eco-hysteria and climate alarm (supported by the activist EPA), they took fossil fuel money. Lots of it…
From E&E Legal:
“We are delighted with President-elect Trump’s selection of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Pruitt has led the charge in recent years to confront head on the enormous federal regulatory overreach proposed by the EPA as epitomized by the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule. As a litigator, he also understands how environmental fringe groups like the Sierra Club and the NRDC – who are bankrolled by renewable energy tycoons like Tom Steyer and George Soros – use the state and federal court systems to essentially create new laws through such schemes as ‘sue & settle.’
It is also reassuring that President-Elect Trump has chosen someone from the state ranks, particularly a state so important to energy production, since it’s the states and their citizens who are suffering the most by this Administration’s out-of-control EPA.
View original post 333 more words
The mainstream media has played a hugely successful role in corrupting the ‘science’ of global warming, aka climate change, into the fashionable new eco-religion that it has become today.
Add literally, trillions of government ‘green’ (taxpayer money), a ton of celebrity eco-virtue-signalling, a pinch of data manipulation, and the religion of ‘climate change’ has rapidly morphed into, as Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University California, famously coined in his blistering resignation letter to the APS:
“The greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
Hence, we give thanks to “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change” – WUWT, led by Pastor Watts, for giving us our daily dose of climate reason and rationalism! Amen 🙏
Nice post Anthony.
The late Dr. Michael Crichton was wonderful writer. In 2003 he presented a wonderful essay in San Francisco equating environmentalism to religion. Nobel prize winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaver makes the same point in a presentation here. In religion man is meant to be saved from the consequences of his sins. In the environmentalist religion the world was a wonderful, beautiful Eden until man and his technology came along. Man has eaten the apple and lost Eden. Now we must give up our “evil” technology and go back to nature, otherwise all is lost.
As Crichton notes:
“There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40…
View original post 476 more words
“we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.” – Richard Lindzen on the broken field of ‘climate science’…
Natural scientists have sought to understand the workings of the climate system and its various parts. But in recent decades the process of discovery has been subverted, and the science is going in circles. Richard Lindzen tells how it came to this in his essay: Climate Science: Is it Currently Designed to Answer Questions?
As you might guess, the title is a rhetorical question. From his long and deep experience with the field, Richard Lindzen can and does describe in detail how and why climatology is failing as a natural science. The machinations and convolutions bring to mind the quotation:
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
– Otto von Bismarck
Perhaps because the field was contaminated with political aims early on, the whole enterprise has come to resemble a legislative process:
Lindzen sets the record straight with names and maneuvers which have crippled…
View original post 419 more words
“Even if alarmists were right about anthropogenic climate change, what a complete and utter waste of effort.”
Has anyone off to Paris worked out exactly what the figure for climate sensitivity is yet? If not the 2C figure is utterly useless as is the latest climate gabfest / junket …
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A report by the International Energy Agency claims that emissions which will be saved by COP21 / Paris climate pledges currently on the table, will only delay Climageddon by 8 months.
According to the IEA;
Nationally determined pledges are the foundation of COP21. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) submitted by countries in advance of COP21 may vary in scope but will contain, implicitly or explicitly, commitments relating to the energy sector. As of 14 May 2015, countries accounting for 34% of energy-related emissions had submitted their new pledges. A first assessment of the impact of these INDCs and related policy statements (such as by China) on future energy trends is presented in this report in an “INDC Scenario”. This shows, for example, that the United States’ pledge to cut net greenhouse-gas emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025 (relative to 2005 levels) would deliver a…
View original post 377 more words