MLLG

MLLG Special: The Camouflaged Nexus Of . . . Climate Change, Critical Race Theory and the Spending Crisis

There is a hidden connection among climate change, race and the spending crisis.

MLLG Special: The Camouflaged Nexus Of . . .

Climate Change, Critical Race Theory and the Spending Crisis

By: George Noga – July 18, 2021

Three mega-issues changing America are linked in ways not well understood. Climate change is regarded, including by President Biden, as an existential issue in the literal sense and not the philosophical sense of mankind’s search for meaning. The spending crisis will change America forever and Critical Race Theory has become an accepted part of pedagogy in schools, universities and workplaces throughout America.

The common denominator of these three issues is socialism along with its misanthropic stepchildren: communism, progressivism, and liberalism. In each case, unreconstructed socialists are the driving force behind the cause. They are working in tandem toward the same goal – whether or not they coordinate their efforts. They receive financing and succor from a coterie of camp followers and useful idiots including progressive groups, academia, public sector labor unions, teachers, media, government bureaucrats, NGOs, entertainment, organized religion, social media – and even sports and business.

Climate Change and Socialism

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, die-hard Marxists were homeless. They decided to pursue their goals via a back door by taking over the environmental (and later, climate change) movement. They simply cloaked their anti-capitalist agenda in green language and became watermelon environmentalists, i.e. green on the outside but red on the inside. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, said, “Following the collapse of communism, Marxists hijacked the (climate change) movement. Their far left agenda is about socialism, not ecology or (climate).”

Critical Race Theory (“CRT”) and Socialism

Marxism is based on class conflict and the belief that workers would seize the means of production and create a utopian socialist society. However, socialist-style regimes proved dismal failures, murdering over 100 million of their own people. The human carnage and economic toll were so great even die-hard Marxists couldn’t hide from it. Moreover, Marxists came to understand workers in the USA, Western Europe, Japan and many other places never would buy into the notion of class struggle.

Just as Marxists knew they needed a back door (environmentalism and climate change) to achieve their goal, they also recognized they needed an alternative to class struggle. They decided to substitute race (and ethnic) struggle for class struggle and BINGO, Critical Race Theory was created. Masters of maskirovka, commies decided on the euphemism “equity” as their mantra. By equity they mean an end to private property and redistribution of everything according to race. There would be no individual rights, only group rights. At its core, Critical Race Theory is virulent socialism.

Spending Crisis, Modern Monetary Theory (“MMT”) and Socialism

Most groups pushing for MMT and massive spending, debt and deficits are socialist. Once again, they are seeking a back door to socialism. Progressives understand Americans will not accept socialism under normal circumstances; therefore, they must create an emergency serious enough to beguile Americans into accepting the hitherto unacceptable. Thus, we have a spending crisis that will result in horrors so frightening people will accept anything – especially if they are promised it is only temporary. The spending crisis is yet another back door to a socialist United States of America.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

There you have it – the nexus of climate change, CRT and spending; they all represent back doors to socialism. The leaders of these movements know full well what they are doing but are few in number. They must rely on camp followers and useful idiots, i.e. clueless liberals besotted with feel-good progressive bromides and good intentions.

We must stand up to these assaults on our liberty and way of life. That requires the courage to speak the truth and to withstand the slings and arrows directed at you by elitist mobs. But courage begets courage and a majority is one person with courage.


Next on July 25th – The school choice movement in America.
More Liberty Less Government – mllg@cfl.rr.com – www.mllg.us

MLLG Book Review: Unsettled by Steven Koonin – The Science of Climate Change is Unsettled

“Earth is warming and humans exert a warming influence; beyond that, nothing is settled.”

MLLG Book Review: Unsettled by Steven Koonin

The Science of Climate Change is Unsettled

By: George Noga – July 11, 2021

The May 2021 publication of Steven Koonin’s book “Unsettled” is the latest salvo from a distinguished mainstream scientist to debunk the so-called climate consensus and to expose the truth about manmade climate change. The climate alarmist dam cracked with Michael Shellenberger’s 2020 book “Apocalypse Never“, which was reviewed by MLLG on 8/16/20; read it on our website: www.mllg.us. If Shellenberger, a Time magazine “Hero of the Environment“, cracked the dam, Koonin blows it to bits.

Shellenberger refutes the fear mongering about climate change and the environment, concluding there is more reason for optimism than pessimism. He calls climate change the secular religion of rich educated elites, replacing God with nature. Apocalyptic environmentalism meets the same psychological and spiritual needs as religion and provides its acolytes a purpose and storyline that casts them as heroes, while retaining the illusion they are people of science and reason, not superstition and fantasy.

Unsettled: By Steven Koonin

Dr. Koonin, one of America’s most distinguished scientists, got his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from MIT and was a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech for 30 years including serving as VP and Provost. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a governor of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He published over 200 peer-reviewed papers. Recently, Koonin served as Undersecretary for Science at the Department of Energy in the Obama Administration where his portfolio included climate research. We could fill this entire post listing Dr. Koonin’s credentials.

Dr. Koonin goes directly for the jugular in the opening pages by proving:

  • Heat waves in the USA are no more common today than in 1900 and the warmest temperatures have not risen during the past 50 years.

  • Humans have no detectable impact on hurricanes in the past century.

  • Greenland’s ice sheet is not shrinking more rapidly than 80 years ago.

  • The net economic impact of humans on the climate is minimal.

The above is just to whet readers’ appetites. Koonin goes on to disprove most of the climate alarmist narrative including: (1) the climate is broken; (2) temperatures are rising; (3) sea level is surging; (4) ice is disappearing; (5) extreme weather is more frequent and more severe; (6) greenhouse gas emissions are causing all the preceding; (7) radical changes in human behavior are needed; (8) Earth is doomed; (9) global CO2 is at a high level; and the biggest whopper of all, (10) the science is settled.

In the few months since Unsettled was published, Dr. Koonin has been attacked by all the usual climate alarmist suspects – particularly those in the media. It is notable that not one critic has taken issue with any of the sources, data or logic used by Koonin.

If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. (Crichton)

Only when the miasma of anthropological climate change finally is in humanity’s rear view mirror, may we begin to understand how so many people were hoodwinked so completely and for so long. Eventually, we may even fathom why Time magazine named a know-nothing Swedish teenager its 2019 person of the year despite her pallid screeds directly contradicting Time magazine’s own hero of the environment.

Dr. Koonin’s book will hasten the end of the manmade climate change madness that has held our planet in its vise-like grip and terrorized our children for decades.


Next: We reveal an occult nexus among three of the biggest issues of our time.

Click here to join our mailing list

More Liberty Less Government – mllg@cfl.rr.com – www.mllg.us

Facebook ‌ Twitter ‌ LinkedIn

MLLG State of the Union Address

Biden’s SOTU address is this Tuesday. Following is MLLG’s SOTU speech.

MLLG State of the Union Address

By: George Noga – February 21, 2021

My fellow Americans:

I begin with first principles. Governments are instituted among men to protect their rights, which include life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is its only legitimate purpose. Experience shows legally sanctioned force, i.e. government is necessary to secure our rights and to protect us from foreign and domestic violence. Government is a dangerous, albeit necessary, force but is preferable to the alternative, i.e. anarchy.

All human history demonstrates that free people, free trade and free markets result in the greatest prosperity for everyone. Civil society and markets are 100% voluntary and non-coercive. No corporation, no matter how powerful, can compel you to buy its product. A consumer armed with a free choice is the most powerful force on earth.

In contrast, government is inherently coercive; it is not about reason, persuasion or logic. It is about brute force. If you run afoul of a government diktat, ultimately men with guns will come and take away your property, liberty or even your life. Because government is such a powerful and malevolent force, it must be limited, controlled, confined to its constitutional box and used only when absolutely necessary.

Ours is a government of laws and not men. Who holds executive, legislative, or judicial offices should be of little import to citizens, provided they remain inside the constitutional box. We must gradually shrink a severely bloated government back to its core responsibilities; this means we scale the government back to 15% of GDP, a level which empirically has been shown to maximize the well-being of all Americans.

The few legitimate functions of government should be vigorously carried out. Of these, none is more important than protection from foreign threats to our liberty; hence, we must make our military so strong no adversary would even contemplate challenging us. This means that we will spend whatever is required to defend our liberty.

We must begin to restore our constitutional republic back to first principles. Following are some of the other main goals and policies we will pursue in the time ahead.

Free Trade: Prosperity is created by trade among people. The USA unilaterally will eliminate all tariffs and trade barriers – even if no other countries reciprocate.

Sound Money: The Federal Reserve will have only one mission: sound money. It will be audited regularly and will take a hard look at returning to a gold standard.

Taxation: As we scale government back to 15%, taxes can be reduced. All present taxes (income, payroll, etc.) will be repealed and replaced by a consumption tax.

War on Drugs: The war is over; drugs won. Drugs will be legal, taxed, regulated and discouraged. Taxes from drugs will be spent on rehabilitation, not incarceration.

Education: We will implement universal school choice and thereby solve the greatest civil rights issue of our time. Great God almighty – free at last!

Regulation: All regulations automatically sunset after 10 years. Any regulations promulgated by bureaucrats and having an economic impact of more than $25 million must be approved by a vote of Congress before they become effective.

 Climate Change: Open scientific debate is encouraged. All climate spending will be subject to strict cost/benefit analysis. More funds will be allocated to mitigation.

 Entitlements: Social Security will be voluntarily privatized. All entitlements will be placed on the budget. Medicare will be converted to a premium support system.

 War on Poverty: This war also is over; this time we won. Americans living in poverty (by their own account) are down to 2-3% and consist nearly entirely of those with very low mental acuity, untreated mental illness and drug addiction. We will not abandon these people but will structure solutions better tailored to their problems.

There is more – much more. But the policy initiatives outlined above should provide a good idea of the direction we are leading America. Thank you very much. Good night and may God bless you, your family and these United States of America.


Next up on February 28th: Real doctors versus witch doctors.
More Liberty Less Government – mllg@cfl.rr.com – www.mllg.us

The Global Population Collapse

If climate change is manmade, then the population bust resolves it and at no cost.

The Global Population Collapse

By: George Noga – February 14, 2021

Very few, if anyone, reading this will be alive when the population collapse hits in full force early in the next century. Although that is a long way off, there are significant impacts in the shorter term. The biggest is that the population bust presents a solution to climate change; see our related 1/31/21 posting on our website at: www.mllg.us.

Population 100 years from now will be less than today and collapsing rapidly. Humans have not experienced a population bust since the Black Death 700 years ago. I spent hours researching what happened after the plague to see what lessons I could glean for today. Other than the fact that labor (due to scarcity) became far more valuable, and hastened the end of serfdom, I found nothing that resonates today.

Back to climate change. If indeed there are fewer of us in the future, that means CO2 emissions also are less, assuming they remain constant per capita. But what happens if everyone is much better off and has the same CO2 footprint as people in advanced countries today? If everyone is well off, they also will reduce their energy footprint just as wealthy nations are doing today. Moreover, global population will plunge far below that of today. The lesson is clear: we should not waste trillions on ineffective feel-good measures when a solution to climate change is staring us in the face. If climate change is manmade, as its proponents assert, then a smaller population solves the problem.

Let’s look at some numbers. World population today is 7.8 billion. Per a University of Washington study published in the Lancet, population is projected to peak in 2064 at 9.7 billion and decrease to 8.8 billion by 2100. However, if current trends accelerate, as is happening, they forecast population as low as 6.3 billion by 2100. At low fertility rates, population halves every generation. Within a century or so, population could plunge from say 10 billion to 5 billion to 2.5 billion to 1.25 billion – a drop of 87.5%.

Even today, most wealthy countries have a fertility rate between 1.0 and 1.5 – far below the 2.1 required for a stable population. The USA is at 1.7 but population is stable due to immigration. By 2100 every country on Earth will be under 2.1. China’s population (fertility rate 1.0) is expected to drop 50%, by .75 billion people. In many countries population will fall over 50%, including Japan, South Korea, Italy, Portugal and Spain. It already has begun, as deaths today exceed births in Japan and South Korea.

Once fertility drops below 2.1, population recovery becomes impossible.

The population collapse is worse – far worse – than it appears. As population plunges, it also ages rapidly. Once population collapses, reversing it becomes nearly impossible; it is so difficult some demographers believe Earth’s population never again will increase. Increasing fertility with an elderly population is daunting for obvious reasons. No country in history has recovered its population once its fertility rate fell below 2.1.

Progressives still are flogging the politically correct narrative that overpopulation is the problem. They were wrong in Malthus’ time and they are wrong today. Prince Harry and Megan, who vowed not to have children, are comically wrong. Paul Erlich’s population bomb not only has failed to explode, it actually is imploding.

The implosion of the population bomb comes with serendipitous benefits such as described supra about climate change. Also, much of the planet’s surface will be rewilded and the environment will return to a pristine state. That’s the good news.

On the other side of the ledger are too few workers to provide health care for a huge cohort of elderly, only two workers to support each retiree and failure of many pension plans. When the elderly start cashing out their IRAs, who will be the ones buying? Who will buy all the cars, houses, refrigerators, or anything for that matter, in a depopulating world? From where will governments derive their funding?

At least population collapse will solve climate change. But don’t expect to see progressives jumping for joy. It is not about the climate; it never was.


Next up on February 21st: MLLG State of the Union Address

Click here to join our mailing list

More Liberty Less Government – mllg@cfl.rr.com – www.mllg.us

The State of the World is Better Than You Think

Human nature causes us to measure progress against utopia rather than against the past.

The State of the World is Better Than You Think

By: George Noga – January 17, 2021

This is our first post of 2021 and we are starting out on a positive note. Most people believe the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Recent polls show only 6% of Americans think the world is getting better. Many tacitly assume that for humanity to be better off, everything must be getting better for everyone everywhere. Reality never works that way; some unfavorable trends coexist with many more positive ones. Moreover, many people tend to measure progress against utopia rather than the past.

Humans are hard wired to be pessimistic as we evolved from risk-averse ancestors. When our Paleolithic forebears heard a noise in the bushes, it could be caused by either the wind or a predator. Those who assumed it was the wind did not live to be our ancestors. We therefore are descended from people who tended to worry a lot.

We worry about, inter alia, the Covid pandemic, climate change, politics, civil unrest, the environment, crime and terrorism. Following are some key megatrends showing that Homo sapiens, far from perdition, really is getting better and better all the time. Note: much of the data used herein are from a Cato Institute book: Ten Global Trends.

Eradication of extreme poverty: In the past 200 years the world economy grew 100 fold, while population grew only 18 fold. If the same growth rate is maintained, the economy will grow 10 fold by 2100, while population will be about the same as today.

Natural resources are plentiful and becoming more so: Over the last 40 years, out of 50 commodities studied, 45 of them are less expensive (adjusted for inflation) meaning they are more plentiful relative to demand for them. The average price for all 50 commodities fell 35%, while during that same period wages grew 80%. We have never run out, or are in any danger of running out, of any nonrenewable resource!

Population soon will peak and then decline: Several demographic studies agree that human population will peak soon after mid century and then begin to decline such that in 2100 population will be close to its present level and continue to decrease thereafter. This should go a very long way toward a solution for climate change.

Abundance of food with less land: The world food supply is now 3,000 calories per day per person, an increase of 36% in 60 years despite a burgeoning population. This level exceeds the USDA’s recommended daily caloric intake. Except in war zones, famines are ancient history. More and more land (1 million square miles) has been reclaimed for nature due to use of GMOs and more efficient farming practices.

End of wars between countries: In the past 50 years, wars between nations have been rare and those that did occur resulted in much fewer casualties; this is true even though we went from 50 countries in 1946 to about 200 today. This trend is attributable to increases in democracy, greater wealth and intertwined trading patterns.

All around better world: In recent years democracies increased from 31% to 49%, while autocracies fell from 39% to 11%. In the past 100 years the chances of someone dying from a natural disaster have declined by 99%. Virtually every metric extant evidences that we live in a far safer world and it is getting better all the time.

– – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

As this year progresses, MLLG will address many of the problems America and the world face. It is wise however to begin 2021 with some perspective, so that our problems do not cause us to lose sight of the big picture, i.e. the enormous progress humanity has made and continues to make – contrary to the beliefs of 94% of Americans. Whenever you hear a rustling in the bushes, it is not always a lion.


Our January 24th post deals with the integrity of elections in the USA.

More Liberty Less Government – mllg@cfl.rr.com – www.mllg.us

The Real Climate Science Deniers Are Not Who You Think

Climate change alarmists believe many things directly contradicted by science.

MLLG Continuing Analysis of Climate Change . . . .

The Real Climate Science Deniers Are Not Who You Think

By: George Noga – November 29, 2020

It is an immutable fact that progressives always do what they accuse their opponents of doing; this is especially true of climate change. Climate alarmists accuse so-called deniers of ignoring the science, but they are the true science deniers. See see our recent post of 10/18/20 “Covid and Climate Change”; it is on our website: www.mllg.us.

The most consequential lie climate alarmists promulgate is that there are actions the USA and the developed world can take that will meaningfully reduce temperature rise. This claim is contradicted by science. If the entire developed world stopped all emissions and fossil fuel use immediately, and continued doing so for the rest of the century, it would devastate the economy and impoverish billions. However, per the UN-IPCC, the impact on temperature in the year 2100 would be 1/2 of one degree Celsius. If just the USA stopped all emissions, the effect is 2/10ths of one degree.

There are no actions the USA and the developed world can take that will reduce temperature rise to any meaningful extent.

There are many other anti-science myths promoted by climate alarmists; the principal ones are described below; they are not listed in any particular order.

 Extreme weather: It is contrary to science to assert extreme weather has increased. From 1900-1958 Florida had 18 major hurricanes; from 1959 to today there were 11. Again per the UN, the same is true of cyclones, floods, tornadoes, storms and droughts throughout the entire world. Weather related insurance claims, adjusted for inflation, also have not increased. In fact, not only has there not been an increase in either the number or severity of extreme weather events, there has been a significant decrease!

  • Rising temperature kills: While true that increased heat results in added deaths, such an increase is dwarfed by the vastly fewer deaths resulting from less cold.

  • Fires in California and Australia: CA and AUS have a long, predictable history of cyclical droughts. This has been exacerbated by Byzantine environmental regulations and government mismanagement. Climate alarmists in AUS blame the conservative Morrison government, but AUS emits only 1.3% of the planet’s carbon. If Australia went to zero carbon emissions, it would not even budge the global thermostat.

  • Nuclear energy: Nuclearphobia is worse than a lie; it is a damned anti-science lie. Nuclear is, by far, the single best way for humanity to reduce carbon. It is a damned lie because it reveals climate alarmists really have other agendas. But instead of building more nuclear plants, we are tearing them down in a gross overreaction to Fukushima by nuclearphobes. One of my favorite mantras is: more people died at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island and Fukushima (from radiation) combined.

  • It is an existential crisis: This is another outright lie contradicted by the UN-IPCC. Nowhere does any reputable scientific body assert that the existence of humanity is threatened. To the contrary, many scientists believe adaptation is the best response; if it truly were an existential crisis, adaptation would not be a rational response.

  • Green pork: Climate alarmists tout electric vehicles, windmills, bio-fuels and solar panels. These all are ineffective, feel-good, symbolic and pork-laden projects that waste many trillions while beguiling people into believing they make a difference.

  • Paris Accord: The Paris Accord on Climate Change also is maskirovka, intended to hoodwink people into believing it matters. It is a hollow symbol signifying nothing.

  • Population growth: Greens scaremonger about population growth, but the science is that population decrease is the most positive factor to arrest temperature increase. Current trends are for global population to peak around 2065 and then to decrease close to today’s level by 2100 – and then continue to plummet after that. A smaller and declining population should stabilize carbon emissions close to today’s level.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

So, who are the true science deniers when it comes to climate change? This should not come as a surprise because progressives are truth challenged and anti-science about many other things including: when life begins, organic foods, school choice, guns and crime, GMOs and socialism. Most recently, they reject the science about Covid-19 and economic lockdowns and school openings. Progressivism itself is an anti-science lie.


Next on December 6th, we take on Black Lives Matter
More Liberty Less Government – mllg@cfl.rr.com – www.mllg.us

50th Anniversary of Earth Day – The Environmentalist Playbook

The ersatz existential environmental crisis that led to the original Earth Day

 

50th Anniversary of Earth Day

The Environmentalist Playbook

By: George Noga – April 19, 2020

        The incredible, but 100% true, story described in this post is about the advent of the environmental movement and how it led to the first Earth Day; moreover, it resulted in a playbook environmentalists have used over and over ever since that time. This is the fourth in our series on the 50th anniversary of Earth Day; the previous parts are on our website: www.mllg.us. The final part is next week.

 

        In the mid 1960s an existential environmental crisis threatened Earth; lakes, rivers and forests were dying. Scientists were certain they identified the cause and that it was man-made. Nascent environmentalists became alarmed and organized for action. Politicians quickly fell into line. International conferences, including at the United Nations, were convened and a war on coal (the putative cause) was declared.

       Public alarm was intense; in Sweden and Germany hysteria reached fever pitch. The media outdid themselves with hyperbole, sensationally asserting that the planet was dying. The National Academy of Sciences and the EPA said that the evidence of its cause was overwhelming. The President of the United States formed a blue-ribbon scientific working group to study the problem. International protocols were signed. When the next US president expressed skepticism, 3,000 scientists protested. Cap and trade legislation was pending in Congress. Then came a huge bombshell!

Every environmental scare since 1970 followed the same playbook.

       The blue-ribbon scientific working group (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program or NAPAP) found that the science was mostly wrong. The principal cause of the problem was changes in land use which resulted in calcium depletion in the soil which, in turn, vastly reduced the acidity of forest floors. The emissions from burning coal in power plants was not the principal cause. Based on the NAPAP report, the problem was rectified and the planet saved. To this day, the EPA never has admitted it was wrong and it still clings to the discredited zombie science of coal emissions.

       As you undoubtedly have discerned by now, the preceding story was about acid rain. Although coal emissions as a principal cause of acid rain has been debunked, it provided a dress rehearsal and a template that environmentalists would use over and over again. They used it for global cooling and the coming of the new ice age in the 1970s. This was followed by global warming in the 1980s which morphed into today’s climate change. But it all began with the environmentalists’ acid rain dry run.

The Environmentalist Playbook

        Every environmental scare since the 1960s has used the same playbook. First, an existential threat to the planet is conjured. Scientists, funded by government, study the problem and claim to be absolutely certain they identified the cause; anyone who disagrees is branded a denier or even a heretic. International organizations jump onto the bandwagon and issue politically motivated studies and protocols. The media then glom onto the crisis and sensationalize it with apocalyptic headlines.

     The public, especially impressionable school children, panics. Politicians, not wanting to allow any crisis go to waste, use it as a pretext to demand more power and money and to further their other not-so-hidden agendas. And, of course, so-called environmentalists never will admit of having doubt or entertain the notion that they might be wrong and if proven wrong they continue to deny the facts.

      There is one other common feature of the environmentalist playbook: they are proven wrong. They were wrong about the cause of acid rain. They were spectacularly wrong about global cooling and the coming of a new ice age. The final story is not yet written about climate change but, at a minimum, the environmentalists have grossly exaggerated the significance of the anthropogenic component.

        On this golden anniversary of the environmental movement, take a few moments to reflect on the playbook environmental alarmists first learned with acid rain and have used for the last 50 years. Now that you understand their game plan, you shouldn’t be vulnerable to manipulation by pseudo environmentalists peddling junk science.


Next on April 26th, we present our plan for the environment for the next 50 years.  
More Liberty Less Government  –  mllg@mllg.us  –  www.mllg.us

Climate of Confusion – Part VII It’s Not About Climate; It Never Was

Manmade warming is nothing but a phantasmagoria, i.e. a sequence of imagined horrors.
Climate of Confusion – Part VII
It’s Not About Climate; It Never Was
By: George Noga – November 10, 2019

         This is the seventh and final post in this series; all prior posts are available on our website: www.mllg.us. The following summarizes our beliefs about climate change.

        Climate always is changing; climate change is a tautological phrase intended by proponents of manmade warming to weaponize every weather event. Earth has been warming for nearly 200 years in fits and starts, with pauses and even intervals of cooling. We are in a 20-year pause, with no warming since 1998 other than El Nino years. This warming is a normal part of climate cycles caused by changes in solar irradiance, eccentricity of Earth’s orbit, obliquity (axial tilt) and position at perihelion. Humanity’s contribution, if any, to warming is minor and inconsequential.

        The highly touted 97% scientific consensus that mankind is responsible for most warming originated with John Cook, whose work has been discredited. All other sources, including NASA, alleging a scientific consensus are equally spurious. If, a arguendo, a consensus existed, it would be limited to man causing most warming and nothing more. Other scientific groups, including 31,487 physicists, have reached an opposite consensus. The 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics went to an economist whose work proved that mitigating warming causes humanity more harm than good.

        Data showing rising temperatures result from human adjustments to terrestrial data, nearly all of which lowered temperatures in earlier years to create a misleading impression of a warming trend. Satellite data, which have no human adjustments, show no significant recent warming pattern. Other credible data show no recent increase in record temperatures, extreme weather or net melting of icecaps. Even if all these things were happening, it would be evidence only of secular – and not manmade – warming.

       Other convincing arguments against man’s role include, inter alia, warming throughout the solar system, argument from authority, Occam’s Razor, history of junk science, failure of all climate scares to materialize, meltdown of computer models, refusal to debate, outright (hockey stick) frauds, politicization and political correctness of science and media, science is never settled, Singapore and changes in CO2 sensitivity. There also are powerful economic, political and religious arguments.

        A potent argument against government action to reduce emissions is its global scope. If the USA reduced carbon emissions to zero, it would cut greenhouse gasses by 29 ppm in 80 years with no effect on temperature. Unilateral climate actions wreck our economy, harm ordinary people and achieve no benefit. When developed nations seek to reduce greenhouse gasses, they export pollution to dirtier undeveloped nations.

        The Green New Deal doesn’t protect against an existential threat, it is one. Green energy is a dead end, a reality obvious to Warren Buffet and many western nations that are quietly expanding fossil fuel resources. Renewables are running into immutable physical limits of energy density and economic limits of cost. Wind and solar must be 100% backed by fossil fuels. Humanity should adapt to any future climate-caused dislocations instead of impoverishing ourselves in a futile attempt at mitigation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

        We tried hard to be objective and presented every known argument for manmade warming, but the facts and logic overwhelmingly are aligned on the opposite side. In the end, manmade warming is nothing more than a phantasmagoria, i.e. a sequence of imagined horrors. Future generations will judge climate change as an historic mass delusion, rivaling tulip mania, the South Sea Bubble and the Salem witch trials.

        All progressive movements consist of two groups. There are a few leaders, who either know or who are agnostic that manmade warming is a giant hoax. Then there is a large cohort of acolytes and media who guzzle the cool aid. To progressives, truth is irrelevant because the ends justify the means. They know that their ideas are so toxic they can’t ever get what they want at the ballot box. So they search for another way, i.e. manmade climate change. It is not about climate; it never was!


Next on November 17th – The  government is coming for your IRAs.
More Liberty Less Government  –  mllg@mllg.us  –  www.mllg.us

Climate of Confusion – Part VI Global Scope – Green New Deal – Green Energy – Adaptation

The Green New Deal doesn’t protect us against an existential threat; it is one!
Climate of Confusion – Part VI
Global Scope – Green New Deal – Green Energy – Adaptation
By: George Noga – November 6, 2019

        This is part six of seven parts; all prior parts are on our website: www.mllg.us.  The global nature of climate is of supreme importance and is where we begin.

Global Scope of Greenhouse Gas Emissions  

        Climate intrinsically is global. Unilateral actions by the USA, and even by the entire western world, are insignificant because the west already has taken stringent measures vis-a-vis the rest of the world. If the USA went totally carbonless, the effect would be 29 parts per million in emissions by 2100 and would result in no discernible difference in temperature. A billion people still are without electricity and population will grow 3.6 billion by 2100 – nearly all outside the west. This moots any climate actions that exclude China, India, Africa and the rest of the non-western world.

          A closely related issue is carbon dioxide leakage. When western nations impose unilateral measures to reduce CO2, it usually “leaks” or shifts to less developed nations resulting in no net reduction. Emissions often increase because less developed nations are energy inefficient. When economic activity shifts from the USA to say Bangladesh, our emissions go down but global emissions increase. Earth would be much better off if manufacturing remained in the USA, even if our own emissions stayed higher.

The Green New Deal (“GND”)

       The environmental movement took a sharp left turn after the fall of the USSR. Former commies, with nowhere to go, infiltrated the green movement becoming watermelon environmentalists, i.e. green on the outside and red on the inside. But their goals never changed; now they are trying to achieve them by hijacking climate change.

        Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, said: “The interesting thing about GND is that it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all . . . we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” The GND is like a progressive wish list; it includes: (1) family sustaining wage; (2) medical leave; (3) family leave; (4) paid vacations; (5) retirement security; (6) health care; (7) affordable housing; (8) anti-discrimination measures; and (9) pro union provisions. The GND opposes every reliable, affordable and abundant form of energy and costs up to $100 trillion. The Green New Deal doesn’t protect America against an existential threat; it is one!

Why Green Energy (Renewals) is Not the Future

        Green energy is not our future. No one says it out loud because they are too busy virtue signaling; but their actions speak. Across the world, nations (including Sweden, Germany and the USA) have concluded green energy can’t ever supply their needs and are busy adding massive amounts of fossil fuels to the grid. Warren Buffet just invested an additional $10 billion in oil and gas resources. Despite massive subsidies, green energy remains too expensive and nations cannot risk running out of electricity.

        It all comes down to the physics of energy. Technical innovations cannot solve the fundamental problems of green energy; they are inherent in nature. We can make more and bigger solar panels and wind turbines, but we can’t make the sun shine or the wind blow more often. Also, wind and solar must be 100% backed by fossil fuel capacity.

       The cost of wind and solar has deceased but there is little room for further savings. Battery technology has run up against immutable natural limits. Wind and solar are not energy dense, require lots of land and are not economically competitive even with huge subsidies. Fossil fuels are not an existential threat, they are an existential resource.

Adaptation is Preferable to Mitigation

       Mitigation means lowering temperature via human action and is wrongheaded because: (1) Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus demonstrated the best policy is to do nothing; (2) there is a significant chance mankind is not causing warming and mitigation would be wasted; (3) the world will be much richer  in many decades when potential warming problems may surface; (4) mankind always has been adapting to  climate; (5) spending a dollar today costs much more (present value) than spending a dollar in the distant future; and (6) adaptation can much more precisely target spending to specific identifiable problems instead of indiscriminate spending on mitigation.

         Adaptation is safer and more cost-effective. Mankind, as it has since time immemorial, will adapt to whatever curve balls climate may throw at us. Besides, market economies work incredibly well to solve any challenges facing humanity.


You won’t want to miss the final part of Climate of Confusion on November 10th.
More Liberty Less Government  –  mllg@mllg.us  –  www.mllg.us

Climate of Confusion – Part V Economic, Political, Religious Case Against Manmade Warming

Voters worldwide reject climate change alarmism, carbon taxes and regulations. 
Climate of Confusion – Part V
Economic, Political, Religious Case Against Manmade Warming
By: George Noga – November 3, 2019

        This is the fifth of seven parts; prior parts are on our website: www.mllg.us. This post outlines the economic, political and religious case against man-made warming.

Economic Considerations Related to Man-made Warming

          Even if man is causing most climate change, everything we are doing is wrong. We need honest cost-benefit analysis to prioritize spending to do the most good for the most people. It is lunacy to spend trillions today in the hope of achieving uncertain and infinitesimal benefits in the distant future. Stanford University estimated we will spend $100 trillion to (maybe) reduce temperature by .3 (three-tenths) degrees by 2100.

          We must maximize economic growth to better deal with the effects of warming, should they materialize and cause problems many decades from now. We should continue to fund research in an unbiased manner, including for renewables, battery technology and conservation. In a bold move, we could offer $100 million prizes to unleash creativity and to incentivize predetermined technological breakthroughs.

Nobel economist: “We should do nothing at all about climate change.”

        William Nordhaus won the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics for his pioneering work on the economics of climate change. He demonstrated that economic policies (including an optimal carbon tax) necessary to limit warming to 1.5 C would do far greater harm to humans in reduced output and it would be better for governments to do nothing at all about climate change. Soon after Nordhaus won the prize, the UN released a report advocating governments limit warming to 1.5 C. The media reported extensively about the UN report but (surprise) ignored Nordhaus.

Political Aspects of Anthropogenic Warming

         Voters planet wide  reject climate change alarmism, regulations, and carbon taxes; see our 1/27/19 post on our website for a comprehensive discussion. Polls show Americans rank climate change last out of 20 issues. Warmists respond by ramping up the rhetoric: climate change is now climate apocalypse; a denier is now a heretic.

         There is an established 5-stage life cycle for political movements like climate change; it is described in detail in our post of 7/15/18 and yes, it is on our website. Stage 1 (problem identified) began in 1988. In stage 2 politicians and media embrace the issue. In stage 3 the public becomes skeptical about costs, benefits and underlying facts; this began with the Kyoto Protocol in 2005. In stage 4 from 2012 to 2017, public interest wanes. We now are in stage 5, the final post-problem phase, when the issue is dead politically; it began with our 2017 withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

The Religious Dimensions of Climate Change

          Progressives and media have proclaimed a new, universal and omnipotent god who threatens to destroy our planet if we don’t obey its every diktat. This god demands total obeisance and commands that we expend all our planet’s resources, abandon all other priorities and slash our living standards to build obelisks – far grander in scale than even the great pyramids – in its honor. Those who resist are heretics. Following are but two examples of religion trumping science; there are many more.

        Nuclear power proves definitively climate change is a religion. Proponents of human causation screech that it will destroy life on earth, but they reject out of hand the single greatest solution. Nuclear has zero carbon emissions and offers reliable and cost-effective power. Moreover, it is safe; more people died at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island and Fukushima (from radiation) combined. Even the Chernobyl disaster resulted in few casualties despite incomprehensible commie screwups.

          Gas powered cars, along with nuclear power, are sinful objects in the progressive catechism. All cars in the western world could be banned and it would make little dent in carbon emissions. Nonetheless, warmists go to insane lengths to wring meaningless  CO2 reductions from cars. But electric vehicles rank high in the progressive pantheon even though, over the life cycle of an EV, there is no appreciable difference in carbon emissions versus gas cars; they just pretend EVs all are charged with wind and solar.


Stay tuned for Part VI of Climate of Confusion on November 6th.
More Liberty Less Government  –  mllg@mllg.us  –  www.mllg.us