budbromley

Every move you make and every step you take! (3:49 video) Absolute must watch!!!  Here’s what Google captures from your cell phone.  https://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Google.mp4?_=1

Google employees protest

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/google-employees-protest-pentagon-partnership-to-ceo-sundar-pichai.html

On June 24, 2008, Associated Press (AP) and the channels that distribute AP reported that Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s chief climate modelling expert, told Congress, “We’re toast if we don’t get on a different path.”  And, “This is the last chance.” And, “The thing that I think is the most important is to block coal-fired power plants.”

“We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes,” Hansen told AP.  “The Arctic is the tipping point and it’s occurring exactly the way we said it would,” he said.

“Hansen, echoing work by other scientists,  said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of ice in summer.”

U.S. Senator Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts (a U.S. Representative in 2008) and head of the committee that heard Dr. Hansen’s testimony, added, “Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.”

As I write this, it is April 10, 2018.  In just over 2 months from today it will be 10 years since Dr. Hansen’s dire warnings.  So, let’s take a look at the ice in the Arctic North Pole and compare 2008 with 2018.

But first, here is the AP article from a newspaper.  The details are interesting.

Here’s the link to the newspaper:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=7mgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7qkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5563,4123490

And here is the Artic ice in January 2008 and January 2018

There has been an increase in Arctic sea ice thickness and volume over the past ten years.  Meanwhile, taxpayers and donors to the climate scheme have had billions of dollars re-destributed out of their wallets under color of authority.

U.S. Senators especially Democrats like Markey, Brian Schatz, Maizie Hirono and many others should reconsider their positions, their votes and spending the people’s money and time on such demonstrable nonsense as human-caused climate change, previously called global warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), as well as the United Nations and the myriad U.S. government bureaucracies, programs, policies, laws and NGOs that depend on this nonsense for funding.  Soon the people will begin questioning what they knew and when did they know it.

The stink of fraud is in the air.

“The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes. The greenhouse effect of the CO2 is very small compared to the water vapor because the absorbing effect is already realized with its historical values….”

P. Soares, “Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes,” International Journal of Geosciences, Vol. 1 No. 3, 2010, pp. 102-112.

doi: 10.4236/ijg.2010.13014.

Full pdf here:  http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJG20100300002_69193660.pdf

ABSTRACT

“The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.”

Twenty years ago, Richard Lindzen wrote a paper questioning whether CO2 could cause significant warming. In his conclusion, he stated::

“Indirect estimates, based on response to volcanos, suggest sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5°C for a doubling of CO2, which is well within the range of natural variability.”

Of course, the paper has been largely ignored by bureaucratic scientists who prefer to alarm the public rather than accurately discuss science.

Here the paper as pdf: http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/94/16/8335.full.pdf

Here’s the PNAS site:  http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8335

Who said, ‘just keep on keeping on,’?

A warm suggestion.  The globe has been in a long term warming trend since the low temperature point of the most recent ice age. Technically, we are still in an interglacial period of that ice age so long as there is year-round ice at the poles. The ice sheet on Antarctica is increasing. Measurements from satellites show a statistically significant albeit slight global warming trend, less than 1 degree, although the number of years of satellite data is very small for this purpose.

However, the temperature “hockey stick” increase does not exist in the real world, though it was very widely proclaimed and forecasted as dangerous by global warming alarmists. Further, we do not have a good correlation of the trend of atmospheric CO2 versus the trend of global temperature. In fact, those two trends are diverging. That divergence is very strong, exculpatory evidence that temperature is not being forced by CO2, which was the hypothesis of the global warming/climate alarmists. We all know that correlation does not prove cause.

We can clearly see the mistake in the attribution of cause by the divergence between the predicted temperature in all climate models when compared to observed temperatures.

We can clearly see the mistake in the attribution of cause in the scientific literature by the continuing decline in estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 .

But alarmists proposed that CO2 was the cause, the trigger, which was said by them to be forcing global warming. If CO2 were the cause, then there must be a strong correlation. But there is nothing of significance. If CO2 were forcing significant or dangerous warming, then temperature trend and CO2 trend must be converging or at least parallel, not diverging.  The data clearly show that the climate is not sensitive to CO2 concentration.

In fact, CO2 concentration is about as low as it has ever been in geological history. There are sound arguments that higher CO2 would be better.

Since the beginning, the alarmist CO2 hypothesis was a “plug” in their climate models, a hypothetical cause which was presumed, not measured, by eliminating or miscategorizing other climate variables. The primary example of that is the consensus definition of water vapor and clouds as a “feedback”, rather than as the known dominant greenhouse gas. Instead, if water vapor and clouds are defined as greenhouse gas in climate models, then the error in the measurement of temperature change due to water vapor and clouds is larger than the greenhouse warming effect caused by man-made CO2.  First, the greenhouse effect (or radiative forcing) of water vapor and clouds is 10 times larger than the effect of CO2.  Second, it should be obvious, measuring the greenhouse warming effect of water vapor and clouds in the natural environment is difficult due to their very high natural variability.

By miscategorizing water vapor and clouds as feedback instead of the dominant greenhouse gas, then,  CO2 is at the top of the list of greenhouse gases, instead of CO2 being trivial, statistically insignificant, less than noise in the measurement of water vapor and clouds.  Then it would be too obvious to the public that CO2 is not dangerous pollution, and there would be no rationale to eliminate fossil fuels, no rationale for taxpayers and NGOs to fund billions of dollars of “greenhouse gas” projects and research, no money flowing into crony pockets for “sustainable” solar and wind projects, no money into political campaign coffers. It’s an expensive fraud of global proportions. Eventually, some lawyers will be enriched by triple damages awarded by juries.

Technical reference:

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf

Revolution comes from the left and revelation from the right. This is not name-calling, it’s an observation of life.

Ideologies collapse under their own weight because they were created atomistically…they are theories created in isolation (which is normal) but then not reconnected and tested against the empirical realities of life before being put into practice.  In other words, they are impractical.  As the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”   Ideologies are subsets of reality that may be totally rational as a subset theory, but collapse when interconnected to the facts of reality.  The theoretician did not connect all the dots. Thus, Keynesian economics collapses. Socialism and communism collapse.  Atheism collapses.  Moral relativism collapses.

Fascists and tyrants almost always are overthrown in violence by the people or war.  When people spend their lives, energies, resources and hopes on ideologies and then their ideology collapses, these people become angry and hateful.  Rage and hate can come from any direction, but like today, it usually comes from the left because the left tends to cling to ideologies and disregards natural connections.  A successful model is to overthrow the tyrannies when their direction becomes clear and before they entrench their power in government.

Absolutes come from the right.  Those absolutes were always there as natural laws but we progressively become not aware of them as we go through life, or we ignore or forget them.  They come back as revelations.

Liberty is the absence of ideology.  The path which increases liberty provides the best chance to adapt to the natural changes in life.  But our intuition about change is not always correct.  We tend to overlook the many but reproducible fractals that occur in the natural absolutes.  In the real world, change over time is rarely if ever a straight rational line from point A to point B.  It is a curve-fitting, an adaptation.  Ideologies inhibit if not prohibit adaptation, denying liberty.

Contrary to the commonly accepted belief about Darwin’s theory of evolution, that it is the strongest who survive, Darwin did not say that.  It is not the strongest, but rather it is the most adaptable that survive.

140 million years ago birds were reptiles.  And almost all of that genetic code is still in your DNA today, in addition to the genetic code of bacteria and most other forms of life.    At the present rate of expanding knowledge, humans will be able to personally control and change their DNA code and other forms of biological code in 100 years or less.  However, there will be fractals of natural laws of which we are not yet aware because we are living among them and discovering them as we go.  For example, the first humans who decide to grow wings and fly may also discover that they cannot also regenerate their internal organs and thus cannot extend their lifespan.  Or those who decide to extend their lifespan indefinitely may also discover that they are unable to have children.  Fractals are the natural changes in absolute laws which occur at event horizons.  Today, we cannot predict what the outcome of these experimental events will be, but a natural law (Entropy always increases and is thermodynamically irreversible) says that these experiments in adaptation will occur.  Life is an expanding fractal.

Life will continue changing and expanding.  Adaptation is accepted theory, natural law, not an ideology which is a fixed rationale.  Resistance to adaption is futile and eventually self defeating.  This means that you should discriminate.  Discrimination is itself a natural law of survival.  Discrimination is hardwired into your genetics.  It is a natural survival mechanism.  But that does not mean you put on a brown shirt or pink pussy hat and hang someone.  It does mean you should discriminate against and be prepared to fight – to the death if necessary – those brown shirts and pink pussy hats when they attack.  And they will attack.  It is the nature of irrational ideologies.

The immune system is the origin of the entire nervous system including the brain. It is fundamentally a system of discrimination and self defense based on fractal differentiation, that is, a testing of fractal molecular variations until a successful form fits.  Denial of your natural ability to discriminate, to decide, to judge what is best for yourself and your family is a fundamental denial of nature itself, a denial of reality.  Reject political correctness.  Reject anti-discrimination laws.

Increasing government control by ANY mechanism contradicts the natural law of entropy.  When you join a community, you are giving up some control of your life.  You will have to fight to get back that control.  It is obviously moving in the wrong direction, which is moving in the direction of self-destruction.  It is a compromise that people make to live in civil society or families.

The objective of government or the bureaucracy is to maintain the status quo for those in power.  Growth of the bureaucracy is built into the technology of government management of the people.  That is what is known as “technocracy” or The Technological Society.  Government and management use techniques to manage you and your expectations.

In stark contrast, the genius objective embedded in the U.S. Constitution – including its first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights – is to protect the people from their government, that is to limit government to the activities specifically authorized by the states and the people.  Don’t believe me.  Read the papers of the founders and framers to discover their genius.

Anyone wishing to subvert and change the Constitution is your ideological enemy, a brown shirt in a pink pussy hat, and that demonstrably includes elected politicians and bureaucrats including the U.S. Supreme Court.  Their intent and actions are to defeat liberty by blurring the clear lines drawn of authority and compromise designed into the Constitution.  They want to make it a “living document.”  They create crises and then introduce confusion ultimately designed to persuade you to make changes which defy natural laws.  Do not tolerate it.  Reject it.

For example, redistribution of wealth by anything other than the freely shared gift by an individual giving is rejection of natural law.  Period.  Redistribution requires acceptance of unproven hypotheses of collective consciousness.  There is no collective consciousness for humans in this life, except in Hollywood movies and string theory.  This is true regardless if it is proposed by a church, a government or a non-governmental organization and for whatever reason it might be proposed.  That does not mean there is no empathy or sympathy.  Those are emotional responses.  They want you to compare collective consciousness to the Spirit, so that they can erase it.  This short essay is about rational thought.

The hypothesis of a collective consciousness, like ants or bees or The Borg working together sympathetically, which is currently hotly and in vogue in many Hollywood movies and books such as “Inception.”  It is derived from the ideology of “social justice.”  This is an ideology, as opposed to theory or a law, which has not been empirically tested or verified by facts in the real world. No doubt about it, a belief is a fact.  But first you must believe, before you can test it.  Anything else is a miracle of Grace.

Moral equivalence, or moral relativity, multi-culturalism and supposed “rights” (which are really choices, such as the supposed right to health care, or the right to not be discriminated against by one individual against another, well that is pure propaganda.  The U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent the government from discriminating for or against a group.  It was not designed and never intended to prevent YOUR natural rights of discrimination.  The U.S. Supreme Court, government in all its forms, and myriad so-called “progressive” organizations try vigorously and relentlessly to convince you that you must not discriminate.  That is a lie from ideologues who are blind to reality.  All we must do is wait for them to self-defeat.  Do not take a walk in the wild with them, unless you are armed for bear or wolf.  But that lie is the in-vogue means of persuasion for political conspirators to control you.  A free man will stand against it with all his being.

So-called “social justice” is the ideology derived from collectivism.  It is being used, has been used, since the 1950’s, to ‘close the American mind’ in the words of the late philosopher Allan Bloom.  Everything, for example the social cost of carbon, your housing, your transportation, your income, your family size, will be based on “social justice” if you do not resist.  Our Millennials and late generations understand this, though I have found very few who can explain it.  If you believe take up the so-called “progressive” mantra, pink pussy hats, occupy Wall Street, BLM, Antifada, OFA, et al, then you are a brown shirt signing up for Aryanism, Nihilism, more divisiveness and more of the everlasting war predicted in the dystopian book “1984” by George Orwell.

The closest thing I have seen in my lifetime to this ideological crisis which is upon America is when the people of Russia overthrew the government of the Soviet Union.

Original version:  Revolution comes from the left, revelation from the right.

Posted on January 8, 2013

March 28, 2012 at 8:13am (edited April 3, 2018)

We (some of us) still hold these truths.  Like the frog in a pot of slowly heating water, some of us like Madeleine Albright are unaware of their pending demise.  Here she is the pot calling the kettle black.

“William F. Buckley Jr. asked in an essay, “If you lived in a declining society, could you know it?” By the time the Roman Empire died in 476 AD, few noticed, few cared and few stood up to do anything about it. If you look at America today, we can find strikingly similar events that eventually collapsed the Romans. “ (1)

Gandhi and MLK were categorically different from Obama. Obama is an Alinsky-trained radical. He is a community organizer and a skilled trainer of trainers in Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals, the title of an Alinsky book. Obama is akin to Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and Hitler.  His end goals justify his means; lying and even violence (e.g. Bill Ayers, Black Panthers, Fast & Furious, killing Americans remotely with Predator drones, Homeland Security contracts to impersonate your friends to spy on you on social media, Benghazi, organizing violent disruption of your opponent’s campaign events, Organizing For Action to overthrow an elected U.S. President, violent regime change in multiple countries, etc) are permitted to achieve his end goals. Obama does not hold these self-evident truths which are the founding principles of this country; he finds these truths anachronistic and colonial, impediments to his version of progress and he insists on changing them even if his doing so is illegal and immoral, and he consistently, hypocritically apologizes for the America which elevated him to his position.

On the other hand, for Gandhi and MLK the ends did not justify the means; violence was unacceptable. Gandhi and MLK were of course martyred for their peaceful beliefs. It would be a shame if Obama was martyred for his disbelief of the self-evident truths upon which America was founded.

Madeleine Albright cast her lot with Obama, the Clintons and the dividers. If Obama’s executive orders like DACA, signature laws like Obamacare, and the $500 million Obama gave to the UN’s Green Climate Fund, and millions of dollars given to Iran, while knowing Congress disapproved, do not fit Albright’s understanding of fascism and tyranny then she is truly unaware.  Nationalization of healthcare was an early NAZI priority.  Hitler and the National Socialists held a very strong elitist, racist, eugenic ideology, which held that human events are guided by small numbers of exceptional individuals following a higher ideal.  Madeleine Albright is a member of one of those elite groups following a higher ideal, the board of directors of the David Rockefeller-hand-picked, unelected Council on Foreign Relations, which has interfered in every U.S. election and cabinet.  NAZI’s killed millions based on their ideology.  Albright’s Democrats have funded Planned Parenthood with $500 million per year, which is mostly used to abort babies, disproportionally black babies; Donald Trump and Republicans finally defunded that holocaust.

A study conducted at the University of Florida (2) finds that “political polarization in the U.S. has remained largely unchanged over the past four decades. The perception that the country is sharply divided into factions fighting hammer and sickle exists only among those with strong party affiliation. Most Americans see a far rosier and more benign picture.  To increase their political power, politicians, CFR members, Euro-social diplomats and global elitist corporations including mainstream media  throw red meat at the masses.  Citizens must throw it back at them if we wish to keep our values and way of life.

Our Alinsky-trained community organizer in chief and former President divided the community he swore to serve.  That was and still is the goal of his race card and identity politics.  Alinsky’s method, Obama’s method, Hillary’s method, George W. Bush’s method, Madeleine Albright’s method is to divide Americans against ourselves.  That is the source of their political power.

Better than thou CFR global elites like Albright, Brzezinski, Clinton, Obama and Bush agitate, demagogue, create, embellish and leverage crises with the result being a near continuous state of violence and war, for example the Ferguson riots, gun running in “Fast and Furious,” funding, training and arming radical mercenaries for regime change, in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. They pit one part of the community against another using organized resistance, for example Obama’s OFA, ACORN, SEIU, MoveOn dot org, BLM, Americans United for Change, and Democracy Partners.

Donald Trump’s method is equally populist, like Winston Churchill’s, but is intended to unite the American public against our mutual enemies, including fake news, parasitic foreign powers like North Korea and China, global technocrats in the UN and EU, Islamists, as well as ineffective and corrupt bureaucracies in America.

Thomas Sowell is correct in this video on Obama and Bush and the dangerous corrosion of values which is dismantling America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5SDLBqIubCs

This interview with Thomas Sowell is also relevant.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3prHhIoxCA

The decline and fall of America rests in the hands of everyday citizens, not elitists like Albright. There is only one way out and we are the ones that must lead us out and reverse the decline. We must eliminate political correctness from our lives and replace it with individual responsibility. We must not be afraid to speak out against everyday injustices, overregulation, attacks on and corruption of morals, values, principles, and rights as well as speaking out against international corruptions like regime change, climate change and Agenda 21. Unfortunately, the government will try with all their power to erode the values of the American public, to make our nation believe that government policies are the new norm. They are pushing an open borders, multi-cultural, new world order, designed and built for elites, an order wherein America becomes a rigid, class-based society like the feudal systems most Americans fled. We must defy their disdain for the good in America and reject their regressive attempts at transformation. As Sowell says so well, “If it’s not stopped now, it won’t be stopped.”

Lawsuits by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against oil companies “seeking billions of dollars to protect against rising sea levels they blamed on climate change” …”filed in state courts in San Francisco and Alameda Counties, alleged Chevron Corp, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp, BP Plc, and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, created a public nuisance and asked for funds to finance infrastructure to deal with rising sea levels.” (1) “The cities claim carbon dioxide (CO2)-caused global warming / climate change will cause harm in the future.”(2)

An amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief has been filed by three distinguished Professors of Physics – William Happer [Princeton], Steven Koonin [NYU] and Richard Lindzen [MIT], hereinafter “Three Profs.”  “The brief by the Three Profs accepted the data and evidence used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).  However, the Three Profs demonstrate the conclusions in the reports are not established, and, at best, premature. They assert:” (2)

“Our overview of climate science is framed through four statements:
“1. The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena
“2. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows
“3. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences
“4. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient climate variables and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain.”

“Another important assertion is that the procedures (methodology) used by the IPCC and the USGCRP do not yield a unique solution, but an infinite set of solutions. Despite ever more imaginative claims by alarmists declaring CO2 is causing harm, hard evidence is lacking. Claims without evidence by government entities is a common characteristic of what [Ken Haapala’s SEPP organization] terms bureaucratic science.”(2)

PR for the cities along with the global green alarmist lobby machine are attempting to frame the case as mirroring the 1980s-era lawsuits against tobacco companies.  That may be true, but the roles are reversed.  This time, the science supports the defense, the oil companies in this case, not the plaintiffs.

The famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 is a better analogy.  “William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney, spoke for Scopes…The case was thus seen as both a theological contest and a trial on whether “modern science” should be taught in schools.” (3) Scopes admitted he had been teaching the science of evolution in schools, which was against a law in Tennessee.

Where is the beef? is the point being made by the Three Profs, who are independent physics professors from top tier universities with no conflicts in the case.  There is no verifiable evidence under the rules of science that human-produced CO2 causes climate change and there are no significant damages which can be measured by science that attribute global warming/climate change to human-produced CO2.  In law, the absence of evidence is exculpatory evidence.  There is no murder weapon and there is no body, so there should be no trial.  And those who filed the complaint should pay for the damages to the taxpayers and the defendants.

I will add that there is no beef, no evidence, in spite of the U.S. federal government spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money specifically to find evidence of a human cause for climate change.  Other governments spent millions too.  In fact, it is the taxpayers who have been damaged by the fraud being perpetrated upon them by the global green climate machine, represented in this case by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland.  Also, donors to a long list of green climate NGO’s have been damaged.

If science had been taught in schools, the mayors of San Francisco and Oakland would be laughed out of town, thrown out of their jobs, and fined by the court for wasting the court’s time and money.  Science teacher Scopes lost his case, but he met his objective of bringing attention to the need of teaching science in schools.  So now schools are teaching the religion of climate change, instead of the religions of God.  And instead of science, they teach social justice, social democracy and the social cost of carbon.  As Ken Haapala points out,  the UN IPCC and the other alarmists offer an infinite set of solutions.  And the UN IPCC and the other alarmists will tell you the solutions cost trillions of dollars and will result in no significant change in global temperature in the lifetime of anyone alive and reading this.   UN executives say it is no longer about the environment.  They have said they are redistributing the world’s wealth.  They truly believe that is a good thing whether you like it or not.  In their mind, wealth should go from your pocket into their pockets and their croney’s pockets, exactly what feudal lords believed 1000 years ago.

It’s just short of 100 years since the Scopes Monkey Trial when the court decided against science and in favor of what was believed to be religion.  Since that 1925 case, which probably received as much press as will this 2018 case, speaking collectively, did we or the courts learn anything?  Apparently not enough of us.  Many people still believe “The sky is falling!” And they still believe it’s their fault and that they must pay their alms and tributes.  The voters in San Francisco and Oakland are not demanding the resignations of their frivolous mayors.  The leaders of more that 100 nations support the UN’s Paris treaty on climate change despite its onerous cost with no benefits, except benefits to crony special green interests.

Versions of “The sky is falling!” story go back more than 25 centuries.

Summary above by Ken Haapala, President,  Science and Environment Policy Project.  Edited for brevity. (2)

(1) https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-oil-climatesuits/california-cities-sue-big-oil-firms-over-climate-change-idUSKCN1BV2QM

(2) http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2018/TWTW%203-31-18.pdf

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny