In what is nearly a replay of the Climategate e-mail scandal of the University of East Anglia, independent climate blogger Brandon Shollenberger has been threatened with a lawsuit and arrest if he releases data that climate alarmists left online unencrypted showing their claim that 97.1 percent of climate scientists “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming” is false — and a huge fabrication.
Speaking with Secretary of State John Kerry at the State Department on May 13, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius asserted: “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”
In what critics said was a transparent bid to build some semblance of support for more usurpations of power and its economy-crushing executive decrees on “global warming,” the Obama administration released a massive new report on “climate change” packed with alarmism, pseudo-science, and bizarre fear-mongering. Top White House officials warned that the American people, acting through their elected representatives in Congress, have “zero chance” of stopping the looming abuses. Opponents of the climate hysteria and escalating federal lawlessness, however, are not so sure.
Claims are made continually by the self-styled “environmentalist” movement that to “protect” the environment and the air, bigger and more centralized government must continue to attack free markets and the productive sector of the economy. Now, however, a new study by the Fraser Institute, a non-partisan Canadian think-tank, revealed that the opposite is actually true.
A new scientific study published by the peer-reviewed Nature Climate Change reveals that some federally subsidized ethanol biofuels produce more carbon dioxide than burning gasoline, when the entire production process is taken into consideration.
The self-styled “civil rights” organization Southern Poverty Law Center, which despite mounting controversy maintains some links to government agencies, released a bizarre and factually challenged screed attacking critics and opponents of the deeply controversial United Nations plot known as Agenda 21. Apparently unfamiliar with the definition of basic words such as “conspiracy” and “theory,” or with the UN plan itself, the SPLC also lashed out at “activist groups,” “mainstream politicians,” voters, “extremists,” and others who question or oppose the UN agenda for what it calls “sustainable development” in the United States.