More Lies About Climate Change

This week the news reported that the last decade was, “the warmest decade ever recorded.”

To the uncritical mind it sounds like we’re doomed.

But if we unpack the statement we discover that the term “Warmest decade” isn’t so bad, and certainly doesn’t mean we’re going to boil anytime soon.

Record keeping started in 1880, which means a more accurate statement would be, “of the fourteen past decades, the last decade was warmer than the 13 previous decades.” 

But what does it mean to be “the warmest.”

The Global Mean Temperature, or GMT is 50.1, which means that if you add up the several dozen globally placed thermometers, the average daily temperature at sea level over 365 days is 50.1 degrees Fahrenheit.

To put things into perspective, the last decade’s average was 50.6 degrees, or one-half of a degree warmer than the combined average over the previous 13 decades. The latest decade will also now raise the average GMT moving forward, so now the average is slightly higher, at 50.2 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Breaking it down, the average global temperature rose a half degree warmer within a ten-year period between 2011 and 2019 (which is actually only 9 years, by the way), which means one or two warmer years by one degree might increase the overall average by a little less half a degree.

Listen, folks. I don’t know about you, but half a degree over a ten year period, and even still, over a 140 year period of averages is not that significant. Statistically speaking, it’s not significant at all, especially with a margin of error above +/-1 degree variation. We should also consider that from 1880 to 1910 the measuring equipment used was only as reliable as the people who used it.

That this significance is tied to human activity means we really aren’t making that much of an impact. Last weeks volcanic activity produced 100 times more soot in the atmosphere than humans did all year. And yet, the earth always seems to find equilibrium. If you consider all of the carbon humans have produced, the impact has been minimal, which leads me to believe there is far more panic than there needs to be about climate change, and specifically, globally warming.

The scaring we see going on is counterproductive to our real efforts, which should be working towards a cleaner environment, not a more expensive energy system that does nothing to clean the environment. We need to stop wasting.

We can argue renewables and the climate, but the real discussion should be on plastics and dirty water supplies. 

Expensive energy policies hurt the poor, what helps the poor is more access to cheap energy and access to the market, being able to buy and sell goods and services. Communications has made it possible now for villagers in rural Africa and elsewhere to sell their products and make an income for their family. Taking land from them to build solar panels is not smart policy, even if it makes members of the IPOCC in Brussels sleep better at night.

Carbon is not the problem. Waste is the problem. We need to be better at reducing waste so that our natural resources go further. 

Certainly AI can help aid us in producing better ways of food distribution, and even more effective ways of producing food. Think of, instead of solar panels, we build greenhouses that produce food for people so they have a reliable source for fruits, vegetables, protein rich food supplies, improved water filtration and irrigation systems, instead of worrying about whether the weather is going to get hotter. 

We know the earth will warm, or cool, but if we tackle things at home, on the ground, those issues that affect us locally, the global aggregate effect of this will produce far better results, which will improve and preserve a higher quality of life for all.

Instead of worrying about whether the last decade was half a degree warmer than the previous 13, we should instead, learn how to better manage our resources so that we raise the standards of living for those hardest hit by climate events that may, or may not be related to human activity. 

Real concern for human activity should be directing our energies toward being more efficient, not being more expensive.

James Watkins is a climate researcher, author and host of the podcast Speaking Out.

The Very Real Danger of Climate Change Isn’t The Climate

(Note: This is all caps because of the urgency of the message)

THE BATTLE LINES HAVE BEEN DRAWN

RIGHT NOW DELEGATES, INDUSTRIALISTS, WORLD LEADERS AND SCIENTISTS DRIVEN BY PROFITS ARE CONVERGING IN LONDON FOR A CLIMATE ACCORD.

I WANT TO TELL YOU WHY THESE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS.

EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.

THEY WANT TO CAP THE USE OF CHEAP ENERGY, THEY WANT TO FORCE THE ADOPTION OF EXPENSIVE AND LESS EFFICIENT RENEWABLE ENERGY THROUGH GLOBAL REGULATION. THE BELIEF OR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS GLOBAL POLICY IS PREMISED ON THE THEORY THAT THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS WILL CAUSE A CLIMATE CRISIS AND IS RESULTING IN CATACLYSMIC CLIMATE ACTIVITY, FLOODS, ICE CAP MELTING, MASS MIGRATORY CHANGES FOR PEOPLE AND ANIMALS, ETC. IN ESSENCE, THIS CABAL OF PEOPLE HAVE CONVINCED THEMSELVES THAT BY NOT USING CHEAP ENERGY, WE WILL LOWER THE TEMPERATURE OF THE GLOBe BY 2 OR 3 DEGREES, WHICH THEY BELIEVE WILL OFFSET GLOBAL WARMING ENOUGH TO PREVENT CLIMATIC DISASTERS.

NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN. MOST OF IT IS DRIVEN BY MAN-MADE CLIMATE MODELS FED INTO A COMPUTER, WHICH SPITS OUT PROBABILITIES BASED ON THE DATA SET AND ALGORITHMS THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES CREATE (THAT ARE CONSTANTLY BEING READJUSTED). THIS IS HOW IT WORKS: A RESEARCHER INPUTS DATA THAT STIPULATES CARBON (CO2) LEVELS EQUATES TO A CERTAIN RISE IN TEMPERATURES. IF CARBON LEVELS GO FROM 250 TO 400 PPM, WHAT EFFECT DOES THIS HAVE ON THE TEMPERATURE?

DO YOU SEE THE ERROR? THE ERROR IS THE QUESTION. YOU HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT TEMPERATURES ARE RELATED TO CO2. THE COMPUTER ASSUMES THAT X – 1 AND Y = 3, THEREFORE IF YOU MULTIPLY X, THEN Y ALSO INCREASES. THE FALLACY IS IN THE PRESUMPTION THAT CARBON AFFECTS TEMPERATURE. IT MAY OR MAY NOT, BUT IF THIS IS YOUR DATA SET, THEN OBVIOUSLY THE COMPUTER MODELS WILL ADOPT THESE SETS INTO A PREDICTABLE OUTCOME BASED ON DATA SETS THAT ARE NOT PROVEN.

IT MIGHT SOUND PREPOSTEROUS, BUT THIS IS WHY AL GORE, LEONARDO DICAPRIO AND MILLIONS OF LAY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE, PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF CLIMATOLOGY ASSUME SCIENCE HAS THIS NAILED BECAUSE OF A SIMPLE ASSUMPTION (THAT CARBON CREATES A WARMING EFFECT ON THE EARTH’S SURFACE).

THE GOAL IS TO CONTROL WEALTH, NOT ENERGY

WHILE THERE IS CERTAINLY CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE BEING DRIVEN BY EXCESS CARBON, THERE IS NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE AS TO JUST HOW MUCH THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS CONTRIBUTES TO CLIMATE WARMING. IT’S HARD TO KNOW THIS BECAUSE MOST MAJOR NEWS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE PROMOTED THIS CONSENSUS AS EVIDENCE. ASK ANY SCIENTIST IF CONSENSUS IS EVIDENCE AND THEY WILL TELL YOU ABSOLUTELY NOT. CONSENSUS IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY, WHICH IS TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR HYPOTHESIS WORKS REPEATEDLY. IF THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC FACT. AND YET CONSENSUS IS DRIVING THIS GLOBAL EFFORT TO CONTROL CHEAP ENERGY, AND FORCE ENTIRE NATIONS TO ADOPT ENERGY POLICY THAT WILL CRIPPLE PEOPLE’S ABILITY TO GET OUT OF POVERTY.

WE ARE LEARNING NEW THINGS ABOUT THE SOLAR EFFECT AND CYCLICAL DATA THAT STRETCHES BACK MILLIONS OF YEARS. WE KNOW NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT CLOUD COVER IS NON-PREDICTABLE, AND YET PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN SURFACE TEMPERATURE NOT AFFECTED BY “GREENHOUSE GASES.” WE KNOW FOR EXAMPLE, THAT OCEANS PLAY A MUCH LARGER ROLE IN ENERGY DISBURSEMENT, AND WATER MAKES UP 75% OF THE PLANETS’ SURFACE. WE KNOW FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE SUN GOES THROUGH NOT ONLY 11-YEAR CYCLES OF SUNSPOT ACTIVITY, BUT ALSO A 300 YEAR CYCLE THAT CAUSE THINGS LIKE MINI ICE AGES TO OCCUR AS WELL AS EXTREMELY WARM PERIODS LASTING HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT MOST OF THE PREDICTIONS ABOUT CLIMATE GOING BACK 100 YEARS HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE WRONG, AND YET DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE KNOW THIS, “EXPERTS” ARE NOW TELLING US THAT WE NEED TO STOP USING OIL, GAS, HYDROGEN AND NATURAL GAS, WHICH ARE IN ABUNDANCE, AND GO BACK TO THE WINDMILL.

WE ARE BEING TOLD THAT WE NEED TO STOP USING ELEMENTS THE EARTH PRODUCES IN ABUNDANCE, ENERGY THAT HAS PROVIDED A WAY OUT OF POVERTY FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, IN FAVOR OF LESS RELIABLE ENERGY THE EARTH PRODUCES WHICH WILL KEEP MOST OF US IN POVERTY. IN FACT, UP UNTIL WE MOVED AWAY FROM “RENEWABLES,” (OR WHAT I CALL UNCOMPRESSED ENERGY – AS OPPOSED TO STORED ENERGY, I.E., COAL, OIL, ETC)” THE EARTH WAS ONE GIGANTIC POVERTY-STRICKEN PLACE. IT WAS CALLED THE PRE-INDUSTRIAL AGE. IT WAS WHEN IT WAS NORMAL FOR MILLIONS TO DIED FROM STARVATION AND FROM LACK OF HEAT.

TODAY, IN AREAS OF THE WORLD WHERE THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO CHEAP FUEL, THEY STILL STARVE AND THEY STILL LIVE IN POVERTY. NOW, THE EU AND THE IPOCC WANT TO KEEP THESE PEOPLE IN POVERTY TO “SAVE THE PLANET.”

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE CLIMATE ACCORD.

WHAT WILL BE DISCUSSED IS HOW TO CONTROL ENERGY IN THE WORLD.

THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THESE POWERFUL WORLD LEADERS GET THEIR WAY AND TRY TO FORCE COUNTRIES INTO ACCEPTING THEIR STRICT REGULATORY CONTROLS OVER THE SPECIFIC USE OF CHEAP ENERGY, NAMELY GAS, OIL, COAL AND OTHER RAW MATERIALS THAT PROVIDE INEXPENSIVE ENERGY FOR BILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

THERE WILL BE REVOLTS IN THE STREETS

FIRST, IF THEY GET THEIR WAY, SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR, RUSSIA, THE U.S., MEXICO, VENEZUELA AND IRAN WILL HAVE MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT, ENERGY COSTS WILL SKYROCKET, FRAGILE ECONOMIES WILL COLLAPSE. COUNTRIES THAT GET ENERGY FROM THESE SUPPLIERS WILL HAVE RIOTS IN THE STREETS. IT’S ALREADY HAPPENING IN PLACES LIKE BOLIVIA AND IRAN BECAUSE OF STRICT ENERGY CONTROLS IMPOSED THROUGH SANCTIONS AND POOR LEADERSHIP.

MANY OF THESE COUNTRIES’ GDP SOLELY DEPENDS ON THE FACT THAT HAVE LARGE OIL RESERVES. TAKE THAT AWAY AND WHAT DO YOU THINK 500 MILLION ANGRY UNEMPLOYED MUSLIMS, AMERICANS, RUSSIANS AND HISPANIC PEOPLE WILL DO WHEN THEY ARE BROKE, UNEMPLOYED AND STARVING BECAUSE A FEW EUROPEANS, LED BY A 16 YEAR OLD EMOTIONALLY DRIVEN TEENAGER, DECIDED TO MAKE FOSSIL FUELS TOO EXPENSIVE TO USE?

CLIMATE POLICIES WILL ENSLAVE AFRICA – AGAIN

MOST OF AFRICA WILL BE DRIVEN TO ACCEPT INEFFICIENT ENERGY ADOPTION, ESSENTIALLY ENSLAVING THEM TO OTHER COUNTRIES’ RULES AS DESPOTS GET RICH ACCEPTING IMF FUNDING (THAT NEVER GETS USES FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE), WHICH IS TO PROVIDE ENERGY TO PEOPLE THROUGHOUT AFRICA. WHAT KIND OF CORRUPTION WILL WE SEE?

PLENTY.

THE AFRICAN PEOPLE WILL ONCE AGAIN BE SUBJUGATED BY FOREIGN ENTITIES.

RUSSIA AND CHINA WILL CONTINUE TO USE COAL AND WILL BECOME DE FACTO OIL CARTELS WHO WILL CONTROL THE MARKET WHILE EUROPEAN AND WESTERN COUNTRIES PAY HEAVY FINES TO CLIMATE ORGANIZATIONS WHO RUN BY NON-ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ACT ON BEHALF OF A PUBLIC THAT HAS BEEN INCULCATED INTO BELIEVING THE WORLD IS GOING TO END UNLESS WE “DO SOMETHING.”

INSTEAD OF LIFTING PEOPLE UP WITH NEW ENERGY POLICIES, COUNTRIES WILL BE UNDER THE THUMB OF CENTRALIZED PLANNING.
CONVERSELY, WITH CHEAP ENERGY RIGHT NOW FLOODING THE WORLD MARKETS, THIS HAS BEEN IS A BOOM FOR COUNTRIES LIKE AFRICA, WHO CAN NOW FINALLY DRAGTHEMELVES OUT OF THE STONE AGE, THEY CAN ANND ARE BECOMING PROPSEROUS BECAUSE OF ACCESS TO ENERGY, WHICH TRANSLATES TO INFRATRUCTURE IMPORVEMENTS, INCREASED ACCESS TO JOBS, BETTER FAMILY PLANNING, EDUCATION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN IN SMALL VILLAGES, BETTER SANITARY CONDITIONS, FOOD PRODUCTION, ETC. ALL OF THIS GOES AWAY IF WE FORCE THESE UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO STICK A GIANT WINDMILL IN THEIR VILLAGE AND ARE BEING TOLD TO WAIT FOR ELECTRICITY (AND TO BE GRATEFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE “SAVING THE PLANET”)

COMMUNICATIONS, CHEAP TRAVEL, ACCESS TO INFORMATION, CELL SITES, SMART PHONES, CHEAP ENERGY IS HAVING A PROFOUND EFFECT ON HELPING POVERTY-STRICKEN PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD—THIS IS A GOOD THING. A GLOBAL INITIATIVE TO FORCE PEOPLE TO ABANDON CHEAP ENERGY IS REGRESSIVE, AND IN MY OPINION, CRIMINAL.

STRADDLE THESE SAME GLOBAL VILLAGES WITH MASSIVE REGULATION THAT DOES NOTHING BUT PENALIZE PEOPLE FOR USING NATURAL RESOURCES, UNDER THE GUISE THAT THESE RESOURCES ARE SOMEHOW KILLING THE ENVIRONMENT OR CAUSING THE TIDES TO RISE, IS A RIDICULOUS ATTEMPT TO SEIZE POWER AND AUTHORITY THROUGH MISINFORMATION, THROUGH FEAR, AND ON A GLOBAL SCALE BY AN ELITE FEW WHO ARE EITHER KNOWINGLY LYING TO US, OR FOOLISHLY BUYING INTO THE NOTION THAT MAN CAN ACTUALLY MANIPULATE AND CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT.

IT’S TIME TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THESE DARK FORCES

THESE WORLD LEADERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES, ESPECIALLY FOR USING LITTLE GRETA THUNBURG AS A TOOL TO SWAY YOUNG PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING THIS RUBBISH, SCARING CHILDREN INTO COMPLICITY, AND TAKING AWAY THE HOPE OF THE VERY PROSPERITY NOW BEING AFFORD TO SO MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD BECAUSE OF CHEAP, EFFECTIVE ENERGY, JUST SO THAT, THE ELITE, THEY CAN FEEL A LITTLE LESS GUILT FOR HAVING SO MUCH ABUNDANCE THEMSELVES AS A RESULT OF THE VERY ENERGY THEY WISH TO CONTROL AND REGULATE.

WE CANNOT BE MISLED INTO THINKING NATURAL RESOURCES ARE KILLING THE PLANET.

AT THIS STAGE WHEN SO MANY ARE BEING LIFTED OUT OF POVERTY, AND SO MANY ARE ENJOYING THE FRUITS OF EFFICIENT ENERGY DISTRIBUTION, HOW CAN THESE SUPPOSED WORLD LEADERS KNOWINGLY BETRAY THE HUMAN RACE BY LYING TO US ABOUT RENEWABLES, LYING TO US ABOUT CARBON, LYING TO US ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, ALL SO THEY CAN PAD THEIR POCKETS WITH OTHERS PEOPLES’ POTENTIAL.

PEOPLE IN GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND ARE BEING TAXED TO DEATH BECAUSE OF STRICT ENERGY POLICY, A MICROCOSM OF THINGS TO COME. CALIFORNIA, RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES, IS PAYING TWO DOLLARS MORE PER GALLON FOR GAS BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS MEANT TO CURB POLLUTION, EXCEPT THAT BETTER CARS HAVE DONE MORE TO REDUCE POLLUTION. ALL THE TAXES HAVE DONE IS ALLOW FOR MORE BUREAUCRACY TO DEVELOP. BUILDING A NEW HOME, WITH ALL OF THE NEW REGULATIONS LIKE MANDATORY SOLAR PANELS (FILLED WITH TOXIC CHEMICALS) WILL COST A MINIMUM OF $400,000 DOLLARS, PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER, OR COURSE, DRIVING UP REAL ESTATE VALUES, THUS MAKING THEM UNAFFORDABLE TO THE AVERAGE MIDDLE AMERICA, IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW GOVERNMENT REGULATION – IN THE NAME OF THE ENVIRONMENT – KILLS PROSPERITY WHILE MAKING THE STATE RICH.

I’LL CLOSE WITH THIS. IN ALDOUS HUXLEY’S 1932 NOVEL BRAVE NEW WORLD, YOU MIGHT RECALL HOW YOUNG CHILDREN, TODDLERS REALLY, ARE REGULARLY PUTTON PATCHES OF GRASS, AND THEN THE CHILDREN ARE SHOCKED WITH ELECTRICITY TO TEACH THEM TO BE FEARFUL OF GRASS.

WHY?

SO THAT THEY WILL NEVER VENTURE OUTSIDE THE CONFINES OF THE CITY, TO STAY AWAY FROM THE OUTSIDE WORLD, WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD IS A BAD PLACE FULL OF DISEASE AND PAIN. IT TEACHES THEM TO PUT THEIR FAITH IN THE STATE. WHAT IT ALSO TEACHES THEM IS SUBMISSION.

IT’S THE SAME KIND OF FEAR YOU SEE WHEN YOU OFFER SOMEONE A PLASTIC STRAW IN CALIFORNIA, OR WHEN YOU ARE LABELED A “DENIER,” A THREAT TO THE PLANET. IT’S A REFLECT BORN OF SOCIAL CONDITIONING., OF BEING TAUGHT SOMETHING WITH THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR.

THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING NOW FOR TWO GENERATIONS. OUR CHILDREN HAVE BEEN TAUGHT THAT PROSPERITY IS EVIL, THAT WEALTH IS EVIL, THAT PEOPLE OF WEALTH (EXCEPT POP STARS AND ENTERTAINMENT FOLK) ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY MAKE PEOPLE POOR (INCOME INEQUALITY), AND FINALLY, THAT USING CHEAP OIL THAT COMES OUT OF THE GROUND IS BAD BECAUSE IT KILLS THE PLANET.

WE’VE COME ALONG WAY. AND IF THEY CLIMATE CHANGE PROPONENTS WIN, WE ALL LOSE.

DECEPTION IS THE WORST FORM OF TYRANNY. IT LULLS THE BELIEVER INTO THINKING THEIR OWN DEMISE SERVES A GREATER PURPOSE.


James R. Watkins is a climate researcher, national public speaking author and host of Speaking Out, the Podcast. follow Jim on Twitter @jimthetalker

Truth Is Killing The Left

Commentary | James R. Watkins, Editor at Large


Most Americans are not racist. Most Americans know this fact and they also recognize the following truths:


1) Slavery was and is bad

2) Blacks paid a heavy price

3) There are still racists but thankfully, most people are NOT racists because they know racism is wrong. It goes against God and against human decency.

What the press and the Democratic party have done is to consolidate all of their hatred towards Donald Trump, to a degree never seen before in this country, and are now attempting to project that concentrated hatred of Trump outward to include all who support him. In other words, the Trump-haters think they can convince people that if you vote for Trump you, too, are a racist, coupled with another goal, which is to convince Democrats that if they know someone who supports Trump, it is their moral duty to label such supporters as ‘white nationalists,’ which is now equated with ‘white supremacy.’

But none of this will work because most people can see through the charade.  Human beings have a great ability to discern truth as well as deception. Which is why once the Democrats and the endless parade of Trump-haters in establishment media realize they have become the very intolerant person they despise, once movies like The Hunt expose their dark intentions, there will be a huge awakening as more of us come to recognize Leftisms’ ugly face, exposed for all the world to see.

Everyone with a brain and a sense of truth understands that Trump didn’t cause the recent mass shootings. Most are well aware Trump has done more for minorities in two years than the Democrats have done for them in twenty. Everyone knows that when Trump called out Elijah Cummings he did so because no one else had the courage to ask Elijah why Baltimore is in such ruins when the President’s administration has given $18-billion to the city of Baltimore in 2018.

Where did the money go? And you know what happened when Trump started asking??

People became woke to what the president was saying, Elijah’s media buddies and fellow Democrats had to deflect with charges of racism towards the President. Cummings was being held accountable, but because he is an African-American, he assumed he could hide behind charges of racism rather than be called upon to explain his poor leadership for his constituents.

But then the script was changed. A new drama emerged. People could see what the media was trying to do, what the Left does. Deflect. By the third day, the cameras shifted away from the Trump-Cummings skirmish (‘thank God,’ said the Dems) to mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. And not skipping a beat, the blame for these shootings were laid upon Trump’s feat, yet again. It was his fault for stoking flames of racial hatred, a charge he has carried since they day he came down that escalator in Trump Towers tellings us Mexico sends us their worst.

Watching the presidential candidates exploit the shootings for political gain was quite embarrassing. It was as plain as rice is white, and I am sure I am not alone in my assessment.

People died, and yet…

Beto, Kamala, Pete, all of them, prostrating themselves before the altar of political exploitation, to charge such heinous events as being the result of Trumps’ racist rhetoric, the same rhetoric now coming out of their mouths? Exposing their empty souls and their hypocrisy, as if we were so stupid to believe these people could ever lead the world’s greatest nation with such vacuous character traits on display, using dead bodies to destroy their political opponent in the name of feigned compassion.

Shame on all of them.

People continue to die every week in cities like Chicago and Baltimore, and yet this weekend, “America grieved.”

Why aren’t we grieving every weekend when innocents are shot? Because the media can’t blame Trump for those deaths, that’s why. The lack of lawlessness in the streets is brought on by gangs (Trump is trying to fight) and poor democratic leadership in many of these inner cities.

Meanwhile, the media picks and choose which murders to cover, based on the ties it might have to the Orange Bad Man.

And we all see it.

2020 is going to be a landslide if Trump can maintain the economy (which I believe he will), but it won’t be because we all love Trumps’ not-so-wonderful demeanor, brash as it is. It will be because Trump has done what he promised. The country is doing better because he was spot on with limiting regulation, cleaning up the “swamp” by reducing waste, and having the tenacity to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on feel-good programs that benefit only lobbyists and elites.

Trump will win because Americans are cognizant of the fact that for the first time in a long time, we have someone who holds government accountable.Trump will also have won because the country has grown sick and tired of the flagrant establishment media that has sold their souls – and their minds – to a failed ideology that seeks to make everyone a victim.

Trump’s reelection will be a vindication, a referendum against Leftism, even a condemnation of the Left’s attempt to take over this great country and turn it into a surveillance-state of political correctness.

For every lie they spew about the America they hate, Americans remember.

You can already see the pushback. Cable news is down (by as much as 60%); the Mueller investigation was a sham, and there was no accountability by the Press or by leadership in Congress when President Trump was not charged for conspiracy to collude with Russia. Instead, they kept the impeachment movement going because, well, they don’t like the guy.

Americans are a forgiving people, but you have to ask for redemption, or lose your reputation and credibility. The media has lost its reputation, it has squandered its credibility as an important part of the American system of politics, it has become a joke, trivial, untrustworthy and jaded by ideology an of hate. Ironic since the Left complains most loudly about hate even while they foist all of it upon one man who was duly elected as president.

Meanwhile, the economy roars on. Consumer confidence reigns, people’s wages are rising. Americans are proud.

Most of us anyway.

Even the sham of climate change is starting to be exposed.

The Left is losing its grip on trying to globalize our country through fear-based, socialist climate-change policies that undermine a free and open society. Some people are starting to realize that Climate Change is normal, natural and having nothing to do with human beings (except for our trash, of course).

Now referred to in media as a Climate Crisis, the fraudsters are embarrassed by new data revealing startling new information which proves carbon dioxide is not causing global warming. Just this week, as if to rebut the new findings by NOAA scientist Max Fleming and others, members of the IPCC tried again to claim that “excessive carbon dioxide will create deserts,” if we don’t curb our usage of fossil fuels.

Carbon dioxide, we all know from 5th grade biology, feeds plants, not starves them. We also now know, according to NOAA, that man only produces 3% of all carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere. This suggests that even if we stopped producing carbon dioxide altogether, the earth would only have 3% less carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, a literal drop in the bucket, showing that this has been about fear all along.

We can all now see what is going on with the now incestuous relationship between the extreme political Left and the Establishment Media. We see the emperor has no clothes. We see that traditional family values are under attack by the Left, who now trying to convince us that there is no such thing as gender, that income inequality is because of patriarchal capitalism, that caucasians are inherently racist and oppressive as well as the source of all of the worlds social ills. But we aren’t buying it.

We see the Left’s agenda and its attempt to undermine the principles of this country by attempt to marginalize people of faith, by using media to portray people who are proud of the United States as bigots; that things like liberty, freedom, the right to self-determination are merely patriarchal ideas that oppress people of color, when nothing could be further than the truth!

Only now Black Americans, Asian and even Mexican Americans are realizing that the Left wants to take every dream they ever had away, replacing it instead with an ideology that declares the State can pick and choose losers and winners, that the rich need to pay up; that we are all equally victims, and we need to be protected by authoritarian policies based on output and social worth to the State – not to the individual who simply wants to be left alone.
 

I could go on because I am moved, not by my hatred of the Left, but by my belief in the human spirit and its ability to see through the lies of the Left, whose days are numbered because truth reigns supreme.

We can thank our creator for giving us the ability to see truth.

It will be fun to watch the Left drown in their hatred come November of 2020.


James R Watkins is a former national talk show host, and producer for Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and others, is currently a national media consultant.


The Heat Index is Stupid – And Wrong

I am not buying this new thing they do in weather called the “Heat Index”. I think the media is sensationalizing the weather and using false science to do it, probably as a way of convincing people the planet is getting warmer (which it is NOT).

For example, they say if the humidity is at 40% and it’s 100 degrees, then it will “feel” like 109 because of the way we sweat, and in particular, how we “feel.” But feeling is relative. How I feel is not the same as how you feel and if we attach an estimate, or in this case, an “index,” you are quantifying a subjective feeling that, by nature, is relative to the person feeling it and not a fixed value.

We have no idea what a person senses at 100 degrees or 120 degrees, this is our assignment to the number. What we do know is that when a thermometer increases from 75 to 100 degrees the mercury goes up to reflect the actual temperature of the environment. If that same thermometer were in a room with much higher humidity, the mercury would remain unchanged or unaffected by the humidity. It is fixed and the number designation is consistent. A mercury thermometer doesn’t feel the humidity, it only registers the actual temperature of the air, but even still, it remains 100 degrees in the room, no matter what the humidity level is.


What about a fat index? What if I weigh 300 pounds, won’t I feel even hotter than someone who might only weigh 120 pounds, or even fifty pounds. How can we possible know that a kid feels hotter than an adult, or vice versa.

If we go back to historical highs and lows spanning 200 years, are we now supposed to factor in the heat index and include the humidity on said date?

The conversion table they use is not arithmetically consistent, and therefore is not scientific, which means it’s baloney and completely subjective.

The only reason I believe they have come up with the so-called heat index is to make hot weather seem hotter, and this is probably tied to being alarmist about global warming or some other agenda they want to push having to do with climate change. 

What do you think? Do you believe in the so-called “heat index? or is it just more false science meant to provoke fear and confusion to an already dummied society produced by an ineffective public educational system that failed to teach critical thinking?


Climate Scare Update

People now believe it’s now hotter because of human activity. People also believe when it is really cold, this too is caused by human activity. The average dummy on the street, (as far as the media is concerned) accepts that man-made climate change is a fact. It makes me ill to know that people are so gullible.

The media carries the message, faulty science promotes the mantra, our educational system has been infected by this massive untruth, and the common man, without his knowledge, has been convinced through decades of propaganda pushed by profit driven so-called scientific research, that all extreme weather we experience now is because of human beings producing carbon, enough of it to effect the weather. How many times have you been in conversation when someone starts talking about the “freaky weather,” and the words “climate change” are thrown on, like, “well, you know, its that climate change…”

We have been convinced that we are paying for our sins of luxury and human activity.

It’s because we suck that sweet crude out of the ground for almost nothing and can pump it into our nice driving machines that we have unbridled freedom to move about, and it is this same sweet oil that can power our homes, including every cell-phone, battery charge, 4k big screen TV and computer monitor in it, including my washer, dryer, fridge and air conditioner as well.

Ah, the luxuries we enjoy – all because moss settled under the earth eons ago and was pressed into sweet, precious, life saving fuel.

God is good.

Just last night on our local news, as they were forecasting a pending heatwave (which is normal), they went to a connected news piece were local mayors are reportedly banding together along the central coast of California to “fight climate change,” (central California has some of the strictest land use regulations in the State, has among the highest municipal taxes than any other part of the country, and the weather is also among the most pleasant in the country). One wonders if these mayors getting together was funded by tax dollars (which pay their salaries) and were these meetings about climate change considered “work?” Is that what we pay our mayor to do, go to meetings and discuss climate change?

The punchline was of course that the mayors, in order to fight climate change, need federal dollars. It’s always about the dollars. These dollars are used, of course, to create projects and form new committees that will cost money, all of it of course, to fight climate change.


We have been convinced we can fight climate change (raise and lower the earth’s temperature) by raising money, forming committees, doing studies, and creating liberty-sucking legislation. Let us not forget that regulation always ends up costing the taxpayer. But for all of this to work, we all have to “buy in,” to climate change.

I’ll end with this, and fact is 100% confirmed by science. Man accounts for 0.3% of all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Our earth produces 99.7% of the carbon in its atmosphere. 

If you think about that number for a long time, 0.3%, which is less one third of a penny that makes up a dollar bill, you start to understand that you have been lied to. This woke feeling will be followed by your awareness that every time the word man-made climate change is use, a dollar figure is attached to it. 

And then you will realize that this has always been about money. It is simply not possible for 0.3% of anything to effect any system, including our atmosphere, when the earth is the main culprit of carbon production.

More likely, as scientists are now starting to suspect, the earth is going through a warming cycle. Warm and cooling cycles last for about 50,000 years, and we are at the tail end of this cycle. It began when the last ice Age ended about 40,000 years ago.

We are at just under 445ppm of Carbon. This is up from 220ppm sometime around 1750 (though how they were measuring this remains speculative). During the last Ice Age, carbon molecules in the atmosphere, according to tree circles and ice entrapment of air molecules measure in the polar regions, were as high as 1500ppm. Makes no sense. If there is more carbon, shouldn’t there be warmer temperatures?

That is the current theory. Maybe the theory is wrong.

Again, man makes makes us 0.3 of all carbon produced. It’s a very small number, and certainly not enough for us to believe this almost negligible impact could make us scorch in the middle of July, when it happens to be the middle of our Summer season. The whole argument, if presented in a court of law, hinges on the theory that more carbon means warmer temperatures. The second part of the argument is that if humans are producing more carbon and more carbon is making the earth warmer, then producing less of it, one would think, eans cooler temperatures. But, as new discoveries now reveal show, a) more carbon does not necessarily mean warmer global temperatures, and b) man produces so little of it, it effect is almost non-exsitent. Case closed.

In a sense of irony, if we were to switch to renewable energy right now,  we would only be able to power 7% of all of the earth’s air conditioners to keep us cool in July. That means 93% of us of would not have air conditioning. Thanks to fossil fuel (and because it is very cheap), you and I can debate this issue in July without breaking a sweat.


From Climate Change to Climate Crisis: We Need To Scare People

What’s in a word? We’ll see.

For decades the term was global warming. Then it was changed to climate change, a lowering of the bar to include all major climatic events driven by man’s influence. Very soon, it will be climate crisis.

Soon, within a year, maybe two, when people say climate change they will instead say climate crisis because a few people in media working with a few climate activist groups, have decided there needs to be urgency since we only have, according to them, a few years left to change the climate and save the world.

Changing the climate involves everyone being concerned and allowing for the government to do its job by supporting whatever means are necessary to reverse the effect of this man-made climate crisis.

Mostly people will simply allow a carbon or ‘renewables’ tax. It will be included on almost everything that we buy or use. A surcharge is what it is, designed to help fight climate change. How exactly this new surcharge will be used to fight or curb climate change, oops, I mean, the climate crisis, is anyone’s guess. I assume it will go into a big pot and every person who shows up with an idea on how to fight the climate crisis will be given some of that money. That’s what the Paris Climate accord was about. It was about large amounts of money to help fund renewables and raise awareness of the man-made climate crisis.

And the people who willingly go along with this will feel better giving up some of their money for a good cause, saving our planet.

It’s a small sacrifice, and everyone does it because it’s “the right thing to do.”

Except that it is all built on a big, fat lie.

Someday, when people do finally figure out that the climate is NOT changing because of our carbon output, when people realize that carbon is natural, that clouds, wind, the oceans, the sun and seasons all play a much greater role in climate than us humans could ever conjure, Science will never be trusted again.

Are scientists really willing to sell their souls to the climate-scare gods just to make a few bucks?

Two weeks ago NASA issued a statement saying the evidence is conclusive that carbon output since 1800 has increased dramatically. Our carbon PPM (number of carbon molecules per million) has gone from 350ppm to 425ppm. They say it is most likely caused by our carbon output (cars, airplanes and coal factories, I assume).

They say that since 1800 the earth’s global mean temperature has increased 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit.

How long do you think people will realize that 1.7 degrees over a 220 year time-frame is a blip, It’s nothing. It’s less than a 1/10th of a degree change per year. It’s about the close as you can get to being nominal without being obvious.

And that’s when it’s going to hit people. It’s a fraud. This is why the news media that covered the NASA report focused almost slowly on the carbon number instead of the actual degree change. The margin of error is actually higher than the differential!

In statistics nominal difference is called normal.

Now go get some sleep, and rest easy knowing that man is NOT destroying our planet, after all.


What ‘Addressing Climate Change’ Really Means

You hear it all of the time:

“Students demand we address climate change,” or you hear about a ‘March on climate change,’ or you hear government leaders telling us they will “address climate change.”

Anyone who is against addressing climate change is a fool. Who could possibly be against addressing climate change, right? Even my kids look at me funny and say things, “geez, Dad, don’t you care about climate change?”

Meanwhile, mass media continues to pump out one story after another about the effects of climate change, furthering the argument that we all need to ‘address climate change’ and like the little foot soldiers we are, people are naturally concerned and push their leaders harder to “address climate change,’ or risk being booted out of office.

And the leaders just sit back and smile and say (with a tear of compassion in their eye), “we hear you , poor person of planet earth, how can we save you?”

And the crowd calls back, “we don’t care, just save us from climate change!”

The politicians, now emboldened, look to the well-funded researcher-scientist, who also agrees that climate change is very scary and ‘very real,’ and they believe they can address climate change simply by forcing us to reduce carbon emissions. The argument goes that if we can cut carbon emissions, we can keep the global mean temperature (GMT) from exceeding 2 degrees celsius, and this will be just enough to offset Mother Nature – should the global mean temperature exceed 5 or 7 degrees celsius due to that nasty greenhouse gas known as carbon.

Whew! That was close.

So how exactly do we cut emissions and ‘save the planet’ by ‘addressing climate change?

Oh, well, that’s the hard part, but we have no choice. All we have to do is charge a carbon tax, force people (and mostly rich countries) to stop using fossil fuels by half and convert to renewables, which will require billions of dollars in investments (taxes paid by wealthy countries who caused all of this), and scientists say if we do this, earth can be saved, the temperature will stay put, the oceans will lower and the bees will be ok. We will have finally ‘addressed climate change’ once and for all. The children will play again, moms and dads (and moms and moms, plus dads and dads) will make love again, and some will have gender-neutral or non-binary offspring. All will be well again in the world.

Except that no one knows if any of this will be true. We will never know cutting carbon emissions will have any effect on the planets temperature because we don’t have scientific precedent.

We assume, for example, that because man-made carbon emissions are up, the climate is warming, and therefore 1+1 = 2. This is the ‘hockey stick’ scenario taught to us by the Moses of climate change: Vice President Al Gore. This theory has been taught as a fact in our public schools since the 90’s, and this hypothetical premise has been embraced by most of non-science academia, in what is otherwise known as the Consensus Principle, which states that even though there is no proof, if enough people can be convinced a theory is true, then it must be true. Now that is really good science, isn’t it? Something I would not have expected in the year 2019; that Science no longer uses the outdated “scientific method,” but rather prefers “scientific consensus” as a way of deducing reality.

It’s the same principle now being applied to gender-science, and is quite popular.

So with this new and improved way of asserting facts, we take this climate change idea and move it over to energy consumption, and this is the really important part, so please stay with me.


The very notion of ‘addressing climate change’ can only mean one thing: make fossil fuel and coal so expensive or so restrictive that mankind will be forced to convert to energy that is 90% less efficient and fifty-times more expensive to produce. Windmills and solar panels are extremely expensive to produce, horribly destructive to land (and the environment), and both produce about 8 percent of what that dirty stuff in the ground produces.

Putting it another way, all of those people who are protesting, marching, pushing, screaming and begging for world leaders to “address climate change,” think they are saving the planet, but in reality, what they are really asking leaders to create is a permanent underclass of impoverished people, a new class of earthling: poor people everywhere.

“Addressing Climate Change,” means “making everyone poor.”

Imagine if people started protesting 7-11’s asking them to double their prices on everything they sell – or else!” Imagine if people were demanding Exxon Mobile cut fuel and double, even quadruple gas prices. Imagine if people started showing up at hospitals demanding said health facility to turn off half of its electricity and cut back on operations to save energy. Imagine if you protested fire departments and emergency services and told them to stop saving people and to use less water to put out fires and drive slower when taking someone to the hospital to reduce carbon. And lastly, what if every one of those people who is clamoring for climate change regulation were then forced to give up half of their income every week for the rest of their lives -all based on a theory?

And yet, this is exactly what people are doing when they demand that we “address” climate change. People are essentially asking for laws that would result in their own demise. No more cars, no long drives to the beach, no cheap abundant food at the store, or fire to relax in front of with your signifiant other during a winter storm, all of it gone!

And this is the stupidity of modern man, fueled by politicized science, brainwashed by altruistic – yet scientifically-illiterate public administrators, mislead by agenda-driven activists who are funded by corporations driven by shareholders who want to support climate change policies, because none of us are allowed to question the status quo, and are further misled into believing in the false science that states man can actually control the temperature of the planet, because, well, Al Gore and Barack Obama said so.

Think about that the next time you hear someone demand that we ‘address climate change.’

Be careful what you ask for because you might just get it.

________________________

Jim Watkins is an author and host of the wildly popular podcast Candidly Speaking

4 Signs That Things Are About to Get Much Worse

I am going to pretend I am a great prophet, a seer in the tradition of old and see if I can connect the dots on what I predict will usher in The Occidental Spring (remember the Arab Spring?).

These four tell-tale signs indicate that soon a nearby fan will be overwhelmed with fecal matter:


1. Unrest in France. For 18 weeks the Yellow Vests have been protesting France, nearly 40% of the French now believe a revolution is not only imminent, but necessary, because of France’s liberal migrant policies, but more importantly, because carbon tax policies are creating poverty. When your gas goes up 400% in one year, you have a problem.

Look for an uprising of major proportions within 12 months.

2. Unrest in England. Brexit is being delayed contrary to the wishes of 14 million Britons who voted to leave the EU, no strings attached. The Government keeps delaying it because they believe without the EU, England will drivel up into a little ball of dust. The people are getting more upset by the day, only exacerbated by the increasing violence, State surveillance and   migrant policies that have led to civil unrest and general fear. Add to this the government, in an effort to offset carbon output, continue to tax the hell out of its citizenry literally to death (because many who live on fixed incomes are not able to afford required medicine dispensed meagerly by the UK’s horrible healthcare system AND rising energy costs. England is fast becoming a hellhole and the people are rightfully getting angrier by the day because of it.

Look for total violence in the streets within the next six months.

3. Migrant Conflict. Belgium, Sweden, The Netherlands and Germany are sick and tired of migration, and to boot, the migrants themselves are growing tired of life sucking in a foreign country. What’s worse, people who oppose the EU-mandated migration open-door policy are being charged with hate-crimes if they oppose publicly (because the governments fear such expressions might create an angry mob mentality). This double-edged sword is only fomenting more anger on both sides and the local governments are losing control.

Look for one side to start the fight and another side to end it, causing the dominoes to fall throughout Europe with 18 months.


4. Trumps 2020 re-election. Even if he wins, and he probably will because the Democrats have become radicalized, the Left simply will go bonkers if Trump wins a 2nd term. If, for whatever reason, Trump is legally elected but forcibly removed his supporters will revolt. If he somehow loses, whoever takes his place will make damn sure every Trump supporter pays dearly, and this could also inspire protests on a profound level.

Look for several riots to break out in major metropolitan areas like Seattle, San Francisco, Washington, Baltimore or other places right after the 2020 elections.

These four points all seem to be simultaneously getting more tense by the day at the same time. I can see an eruption, an Occidental Spring not unlike a few years ago when there were uprisings throughout the Arab world, cause in part by radical Islam and terrorist activity, coupled with military intervention and authoritarian governments cracking down on public dissent.

For us in the West, there is a true ideological struggle going between globalists and nationalists. The problem is that technology is giving government the upper hand. 

Here at home freedom of speech is under attack, freedom of expression is under attack, strange cult-like devotion to sexual and gender dysphoria is being embraced, apocalyptic-climate paranoia is being promoted in schools through politicized science, and lastly, techno-giants are using their vast empire to censor speech that is contrary to progressive views.  

…and if we watch what happens in the UK we will see a microcosm of what could happen here in the U.S. very quickly if we begin to adopt the same lunatic policies now being embraced in England (Members of Parliament are now embracing the Green New Deal platform which will force the UK to raise energy prices and cut fossil fuels in ten years), many of those ideas which actually started here in the U.S.

And finally, I see China watching all of it with a grin.

___________________________

Jim Watkins is a radio journalist and host of the weekly Podcast Candidly Speaking

A Smarter Approach to Saving Our Planet

Kids are demanding “action” to fight climate change, to save the planet.

What action do they want? 

Do they want to tax companies, fine energy producers, force people to use renewables, arrest deniers, any and all of the above?

And to what end?

When it comes down the very core point of climate change, what we are talking about is a 2 to 3 degree difference in the average global temperature. This is what the IPOCC report states, and it will be in the reduction of greenhouse gases that will bring down the earth’s global mean temperature. 


It is important to remember this because what most people think of when they think of climate change are tornadoes, flooding, famine, rising seas, arctic warmth, dying polar bears and melting ice sheets. None of which, according to the IPOCC report reflects the current climate of the world, nor is anthropogenic climate change having any measurable effect on weather – at this point.

That is the core belief surrounding the whole “consensus” of climate change. 

In fact, many studies seem to agree that a little warmth is actually good for the planet. Cold weather is actually much more deadly and requires much more energy. But that is besides the point.

The other day my wife asked me,”you don’t really deny climate change?”

My response was “of course I believe the climate is changing, but I am not convinced human beings have much to do with it. The science isn’t there yet for me.”

“The reason,” I started to explain, “was that we are only talking about a 2-3 degree variance, and if we can easily lower the temperature, then this must mean that man has immense power over nature.”

But it was enough for her to hear I was a “denier,” (in reality just a skeptic) and we moved on.

But this is my point. Anyone who actually looks at the evidence, or evaluates actual climate concerns, realizes that the real issue isn’t cooling or warming, it’s trash and waste. Man pollutes and that is the real issue, not whether or not the world will die because we killed it with overheating.

So when I see kids screaming for change, for “action,” I think our efforts are best directed at fighting pollution, improving access to drinking water, reducing air pollution, etc. 

Our efforts at trying to control the earths temperature is almost ridiculous. If it were that simple and if man had that much power, then yes we could take action, but we can’t because well, we don’t know how. 

We assume cutting CO2 would achieve our goal, but science shows C02 was much higher during the last Ice Age (1500 ppm) compared to today (350-400 ppm). Science also shows that decreased solar activity (what we are experiencing now) would bring on a small and temporary ice age in the coming decade, so the whole argument of global warming becomes moot. 

What remains is the same problem that has nothing to do with the earth’s temperature, and is simply our trash.

We waste too much and we can improve this behavior, that is the action I would like to see taken. 

Instead of carbon taxing the hell out of everyone, let us reduce plastic wrappers on products. Instead of switching to ineffective renewables let’s lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and switch to natural gas, which leaves no greenhouse gas when used and is easier to produce. Instead of pumping sweet crude out of Saudi Arabia, lets promote Shale, which is far lighter and much easier to refine.

And, instead of getting in our cars just to run to the store to get a can of cat food, let’s only drive when we need to, instead of every time we get bored.

And lastly, instead of pumping billions and billions of dollars into “scare” research and government bureaucracies  let’s just be better and separating our trash and being less wasteful, and let’s not forget donating to worthy causes like Compassion International, organizations that do a good job giving poor villages water filtration systems so they can have access to clean water.

In other words, instead of climate “scare,” how about climate clean up. Instead of worrying about the temperature, of which we have little control over, let’s focus our energies into just cleaning up our messes. It’s far less expensive and the results are immediately understood to be beneficial.

The term “climate change” means different things to different people; it has become a term that signifies man-made destruction to the earth. And the research attached to it must remain scientifically sound, not politicized weaponized. 

Most people will get behind a plan to clean up earth and make it a cleaner place, but once you start stepping into the notion that man is “killing the planet,” you start to scare off people who, with just a little bit of scientific understanding,  recognize that consensus isn’t science, it’s popular opinion. 

James Watkins is a climate researcher and host of the weekly podcast Candidly Speaking