The world signed on to a really bad agreement in Paris and the US mistakenly agreed to part of the charade so that the politicians could feel better.
I am not a Trump supporter, but it was wise for him to reverse the foolish commitment made by Mr. Obama.
The Paris Climate Fraud
Thanks President Donald J. Trump for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement! City Journal's Oren Cass explains that it's even worse than I thought:
Posted by John Stossel on Wednesday, June 26, 2019
I have read a lot on the subject of climate change.
There is a lot of misrepresentation and foolishness on both sides of the issue but this very long article is among the most thorough and best written that I have read in a long time. It is about 9000 words so you are going to have to sit and read for awhile. Also, you would be wise to click on his sources but since there are so many that will increase the time you spend.
@Pullnews asks hard questions about climate change, read and tell him what you think on Twitter and give me your thoughts on Twitter or below.
We have all heard the cries of doom.
The oceans are going to rise and destroy mankind! The animals that we are used to in our local environment are all going to die. The tornados will cause mass destruction. Hurricanes will destroy our coastlines.
These have been going on for a LONG TIME now.
One of the biggest fear mongers was Jim Hansen. In 1988, he was looking out on Broadway in New York City and observing the Hudson River. Here is his prediction as remembered by the reporter beside him:
Click here to read the rest of this article... (598 words, 4 images, estimated 2:24 mins reading time)
Interesting post over at “Is It Getting Warmer?“. It is a discussion of scientists and their thirst for getting too involved in politics.
It is an unfortunate turn of events that most big scientific discussions (such as global warming, in this case) turn into political discussions. This could include other things such as abortion, stem cell research, and the teaching of evolution in the classroom. All of these things have a strong scientific discussion which implies that there is a truth somewhere. However, in these cases, the truth is not clear cut and the science is probably not solid. In most of these cases, there is some level of gray in the conversation and much of what is discussed as fact is simply hypothesis.
Click here to read the rest of this article... (208 words, 1 image, estimated 50 secs reading time)
Newt Gingrich wrote a great editorial in the Wall Street Journal recently that includes 7 “achievements” that he thinks should be offered as prizes similar to the X Prize Foundation’s prizes. Personally, I think the idea of prizes to drive innovation is great and wish that the government would do this on a regular basis. Newt’s list is a great first start and there are probably others but if we have too many it would dilute the importance of the targeted list.
I do question Mr. Gingrich’s 7th item. While certainly noble in intent, it doesn’t appear that it is measurable enough to warrant a big prize. Perhaps a prize for the public school system that gets 99% of their non-special needs kids to some extremely high level of attainment on a standardized test. If we use the SAT as an example, the school system that can get 99% of their kids to over 600 on the SAT test (the average is 515 out of a possible 700 and that was for college bound seniors – the challenge would be for ALL students in a public school organization).
Click here to read the rest of this article... (516 words, 1 image, estimated 2:04 mins reading time)