DiCaprio Demands Denying Office to Any Climate Change Dissidents

During an event on the South Lawn of the White House, actor Leonardo DiCaprio asserted that no one should be able to hold public office unless they believe in climate change.


DiCaprio is not known for his academic prowess (as a high school drop out who later earned a GED) but to mouth lines which are fed to him. And the closest to nature sciences in his adult experience may be being the principle actor in The Revenant. Still, as a celebrity, his words have tremendous resonance so it is worth unpacking them.

While DiCaprio statement was not specific, he presumably was referring to anthropogenic (man-made) global warning, as that is the only thing that our actions can effectively control. Well, perhaps "Dr." DiCaprio can offer better proofs than Sierra Club President Alan Mair was able to do in 2015 Senate testimony on how there is global warming when there have been sixteen straight years of no rising global temperatures (known as "The Pause").

DiCaprio relies on scientific consensus.  The statistic is that 97% of scientists believe in climate change. Yet a 2014 Friends of Science report debunked this statistic after doing a review of the four main studies used to document this alleged consensus.  The reality is that only 1-3% of respondents explicitly stated that they agreed with the IPCC view and there was no agreement on the catastrophic view.

French Mathematicians evaluated whether the IPCC's conclusions of climate change would be acceptable for academic publication.  The Societe de Calcul Mathematique wrote:"The IPCC's report fails to respect the fundamental rules of scientific research and could not be published in any review with a reading panel."  But when Big Science becomes politicized, it is easy to usurp power from the people using ambphbologies.

Pro argumento, considering the climate change studies that are prevalent, there are some problems. An Australian  former climate change modeler noted that the IPCC model was skewed and overestimated CO2 levels by a factor of 10. And let's not forget how the scientists from East Anglia intentionally fudged the numbers to push their flawed Hockey Stick model ,

One must not discount the pecuniary interests in proclaiming climate change (modified from global warning and cries of a coming ice age in the 1970s) as catastrophic predictions tend to win more governmental funding for studies. And as Rahm Emmanuel's political philosophy asserts: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

If there is no disputing a scientific "fact", then there would be a test that is a proof.  What is that proof for climate change?  Of course, there is none, so it is a theory.  We may ascribe more credence to it based upon supporting data, but it is just a theory.  To proclaim it as an unassailable belief, then it is a secular religion. 

DiCaprio's dictat for fitness for public office is at odds with Federal Law, which specifically prohibits having a religious test for office.  But the rule of law does not stop liberalism. Thomas Sowell notes that: "Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face."

Still, celebutards cry out the claxon call for climate change.  Homer Simpson may have vocalized it best: "Is there anything that celebrities do not know?"  Well, yes. Ecce homo-- Leonardo DiCaprio.

Thomas Sowell on Global Warming

Ted Cruz Impeaches Climate Change

Tracking NASA's Climate Change Science to a Political Orbit

Once again, serious questions about the science associated with the theory of anthropogenic Climate Change as had been championed at NASA by James Hansen.  

Gunter Ederer, a German journalist researched Professor Friedrich Karl Ewert's research about NASA-GISS data over climate change.  Ewert indicates that NASA altered its own databases to show a clear global warming trend, even though it never existed.

Ewert goes further and claims that there is an anthropogenic climate change swindle.

But the religion of Climate Change demands adherence to orthodoxy established by consensus.

As the world prepares to meet in Paris for a Climate Change Summit in which western world leaders may commit its citizens to draconian measures (which coincidentally impose greater centralized power on individuals) for something which is a chimera. 

Sierra Club Testimony Seems to Burn Under Congressional Scrutiny

Sierra Club President Aaron Mair testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Mair did not seem prepared to answer hostile questions.

Senator Ted Cruz's used this time to drive home the point that satellite data over the last 18 years have not shown global warming. All Mair seemed prepared to say was that 97% of scientists surveyed claim that global warming is due to anthropogenic climate change.




 It was unfortunate for the Sierra Club to have their leader constantly consult with counsel over simple questions.  Mair seemed misinformed about "The Pause" as the Sierra Club chief claimed it was about a phenomenon in the 1940s.  Cruz noted that environmental activists have attributed the 18 year anomaly of no rising global temperatures as "The Pause".

What was telling was when Senator Cruz pressed Mair if he would issue a retraction on behalf of the Sierra Club if the scientific data showed that there was no increase in global temperatures as observed through satellite data over the last 18 years. In response, all the Sierra Club President could do is inanely repeat his talking point about how 97% of scientists surveyed claimed "the debate is over".

The intersection of Big Science and public policy is fraught with danger.  Pope Francis seemed to premise his papal encyclical Laudato Si on the consensus of climate change scientists and urged urgent action during the Paris Global Warming Gathering in December.  It is worrisome when those who want to rule with science ignore contervailing data because it goes against their orthodoxy and simply claim consensus rules.

A Bit on Pope Francis' Environmental Encyclical-- Praised Be, Popey-cock or a Hot Mess?

The laity have been anxiously awaiting the release of Pope Francis’ first solo encyclical Laudato Sii,(2015) which was presumably about Climate Change.  Community Organizers  polled attendees at a DC Green Festival if they were optimistic about the upcoming bull.  Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) was chary about Pope Francis commenting on Climate Change.   Former Senator and 2016 GOP Presidential candidate  Rick Santorum (R-PA) questioned if the Holy See should use the Church's moral authority on Climate Change as there are more pressing issues facing the world.



After  La Repubblica leaked an advance copy of the Vatican document, the mainstream media was quick to report that the New World’s Holy Father unquestionably embraced man-made Climate Change and frowned upon fossil fuels. Some skeptics have quipped that Pope Francis’ pronouncement as Al Gore wearing white robe  and miter.  It also seemed to copy from Hillary Clinton’s speeches that humanity need to change to allow new beliefs, attitudes and lifestyles (para. 202).  Yet such secular caricatures ignores the several anti abortion allusions in the encyclical

Climate Change this was only a small part of Laudato Sii, encompassing only several paragraphs of the encyclical, including the unreferenced preamble. The main natural ecological section was paragraphs 165-175 which urged abandoning fossil fuels, imposing renewable energy and the urgent need to establish a true world political authority to stop pollution, manage Sustainable Development and eradicate poverty (para 175).  When reading a rough translation from the Italian of the leaked  187 page, 245 paragraph papal document, this writer took 23 pages of typed notes. The phrase "global warming" (riscaldamento globale) only appeared twice and variations of riscaldamento only appeared 10 times in the entire encyclical.




Pundits have been quick to presume that the faithful must accede to this encyclical.  However, Laudato  Sii was not a Thomistic scholastic pronouncement like the Baltimore Catechist but akin to a Vatican II document which is meant to convince and spur dialog. Moreover, if it is not centered on faith and morals, an encyclical is at best an advisory document.



A leitmotif of this encyclical is the linkage between perceived environmental crisis and poverty. Laudato Sii highlights the intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of planet.  Pope Francis postulates that there should be sustainable development in an ecological manner in tandem with a preferential option for the poor.

***

Pope Francis understands the lesson from the Genesis creation story is that humanity was created in God’s image and entrusted to grow and keep the garden of the Earth. This Jesuit Pontiff channeled his inner Franciscan through the title of Laudato Sii from the Canticle of St. Francis of Assisi which poetically alludes to  Sister Earth.

***

At times, it was a strain to discern the relation some subjects had to an encyclical supposedly about the environment. Pope Francis understands the environment holistically, so it is not just about pollution of the natural world but also social degradation. Thus the Holy Father included brief critiques of technology, labor, bioethics, economics, finance, ecology, GMOs,  anthropology, art, architecture, transportation, infrastructure, culture, trade, polity, animal testing, human trafficking, selling endangered species pelts and man’s raison d’etre as part of an integral examination of the environment. Such an collection of short treatments on diffuse issues did not read like a compendium but more like a hot mess of Popey-cock.

***

It seemed like more an encyclical on Social Justice than it did a treatment on the environment. Ironically, that may be the point. Pope Francis seemed intent on a North-South transfer of wealth as a part of environmental remediation (para. 51).  Furthermore, Pope Francis lamented that we did not use the 2008 Financial Crisis (para 189) as a time to reset the economy to a new ethical principle. Achieving progressive social justice through environmental issues.

***

While the curia certainly helped draw up this draft, the language seemed slanted to reflect Pope Francis’ animus against Capitalism with a prejudice against profit and privatization.  When listing misusing technology causing environmental degradation, leading the list was America's use of atomic bombs, followed by communism's exploits and then fascism (para. 104). Much to the chagrin on many Western Progressives, Pope Francis repeated condemns the culture of consumerism and technology which depletes precious resources.  So Climate Change enthusiasts should be willing to sacrifice their i-Phones (para. 47), their own cars (para. 153) as well as their A/C (para. 55).

Although there are several references to differences in opinion and approach to the environment, Pope Francis’ peroration refers to Christians committed to prayer who make a mockery of environmental concerns with the pretense of being realistic or pragmatic (para. 217),  This embodies progressive intolerance of dissent.  One wonders if mollifying mockery about man made climate change goes both ways, as Vice President Joe Biden just jibed that: “As hard as it is to believe, many of these same people continue to deny the reality of climate change. They also deny gravity."

 This prima facia critique of Laudoto Sii will not dwell in details about competing data disputing anthropogenic global warming, but the so called consensus is in dispute and scandal from the East Anglia hockey stick model show how data was manipulated for the profit of further investment in climate change studies.

***

 Pope Francis made clear, however,  that “The Church does not claim to define the issues scientific, nor to replace politics, but invitation an honest and transparent debate”. (para. 188).   So Catholics need not bow down to the beliefs in Laudato Sii but prayerfully consider the message and participate in the debate.  The manifold political prescriptions which the pontiff proffered were interesting and from the heart but not within his proper sphere of influence.  It is novel to stress a linkage between the poor and environmental degradation, but some of Pope Francis’ solutions of relying on renewable power will cause energy prices to skyrocket, directly hurting the poor.

While Pope Francis’ asceticism is admirable, his proscription of “Less is more” (para. 222)  is questionable for the masses, especially as a response to an asserted ecological crisis. It also leads to the prickly particular of who decides how much is enough. In Laudato Sii, Pope Francis encouraged people to do little things, like use covers instead of turning up the heat, not because it will solve problems but for a conversion of heart (para. 212).  There may be a special place in heaven for such symbolic sacrifice, but it runs counter to policy condemnation of fossil fuels and excoriating buying green credits.

This philippic against pollution, environmental and social, is certainly well intended.  The unfocused nature of the encyclical makes it challenging to catachetize among the faithful, much less the world at large. It would seem that Laudato Sii fuses Sustainable Development with Social Justice. By progressively engaging in political subjects outside of the Holy See’s spiritual authority, Pope Francis may have alienated good will among non-progressive faithful. Furthermore, the policy prescriptions in Laudato Sii seem founded on third way intellectualism, which has few real world successes and is rife for polemic exploitation. What was proposed as an invitation for honest and transparent dialog on the environment is also presented as a rush to consensus due to exigency, which stifles the discernment of unpopular opinions to “Do something now”.

There have been other Catholic teaching documents which have broached on public policy pronouncements...

***

Considering that much of Laudato Sii sounds like the Holy Father is singing from the Progressives’ hymnal, this encyclical may be used to enviro-shame opponents of radical green solutions, as the left conveniently forgets about the condemnation of consumerist culture and not valuing unborn life.

It is regrettable that Laudato Sii was not more tersely cogent to challenge the faithful on natural problems.  It was awkward to have a religious document from a spiritual leader proscribe public policy solutions (get rid of fossil fuels and opt for renewable energy) with a pastiche of spiritual anchors.

SEE MORE at DCBarroco.com

Governor Moonbeam and the Green Global Leadership Test

As Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was barnstorming the mainstream media before the presumed Republican presidential candidate makes his intentions official, he spoke about Climate Change on Late Night with Seth Myers.




The Lamestream Media would love to paint Senator Cruz as one who sets the world on fire, not just from misunderstood political metaphors but also due to partisan politics on the environment.

Ardent environmentalist Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) used his appearance on Meet the Press as a forum to besmirch Senator Cruz as being unfit for office due to a green global leadership test.

Although this is Jerry Brown's fourth term as Governor of California, long time political observers can recall how Governor Moonbeam hesitated in taking prevailing scientific wisdom in eradicating the Mediterranean fruit fly in 1981, which compounded problems.   Lest anyone believe that Jerry Brown was virtuously standing up for green health concerns, when he ran for governor in 2010, Brown quipped: "If I see a Medfly, I'm going to spray that sucker. I'm not waiting this time."

Notwithstanding Governor Moonbeam's scientific shilly shallying on the Medfly, Brown backs his bluster against a Tea Party bete noir with the 90% scientific consensus statistic.  Well, at least Brown did not use the Al Gore settled science canard.  Wonder if how much of this consensus was based on the falsified East Anglia hockey stick model.  Then there is the temptation for climate scientists can  to claim "the sky is falling" for more money to study the issue.

Senator Cruz noted that satellite data over the last 17 years has not shown any increase in temperatures.

What have leading climate scientists had to say about this mercurial anomaly?

Governor Moonbeam's Green Global test seems little more than a progressive popularity contest and paint your political opponents as ignorant knuckle draggers.  As Governor Brown admitted on Meet the Press, he would have run for President (again) if he were only 10 years younger. But he probably would have run as a watermelon candidate-- green on the outside and red on the inside. 

Examining Obama's Environmental Obsessions on Cow Farts

Once again, the Obama White House is seeking to clean up the environment by cutting down cow farts.  In June, the USDA, EPA, and DOE will release "Biogas Roadmap" in conjunction with the dairy industry to outline "voluntary strategies" to reduce agricultural methane output by 25% in 2020.  

While we will have to wait to learn the details of the road-map , it is reasonable to assume that there is not a  catalytic converter to be placed on each cow as has been done for scientific studies.

Cow flatulence tank used in 2008 Argentine study on Global Warming

 Thus, it is likely to mean that the agricultural industry will be pressured to reduce their livestock by what could be called a cow fart tax.  This would adversely affect small cattle ranchers as well as reduce the cows available to abattoirs and dairies.  

What does higher taxes, less product and constant demand mean?  Price increases for consumers with the potentiality of bail outs for any losses to big agricultural producers.  And Americans are nudged to comply with Global Warming and Agenda 21 goals, all without legislation or input from the people.  How convenient!

This crusade against cow farts is nothing new. In late 2008, the EPA sought to regulate agricultural methane emissions through a tax which would amounted on a $175 per head levy on cattle.    Even President Ronald Reagan rightly realized that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do".  

Although methane emissions have fallen by 11% since 1990, fact do not get in the way of agenda environmentalist.  Progressives want to control ordinary people's lives via the Nanny State to force their agenda without their consent.  This sort of nudge fits into Obama's pre-election vow of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

Yet it is unlikely that the elite will live by those same rules.  But as George Orwell observed in Animal Farm (1946):  "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".  Much like bovine flatulence-- it stinks.

Thowing Cold Water on Athletes' Alarmist Climate Change Sochi Manifesto

American Cross Country Skier Andrew Newell along with  104 other  Sochi Winter Olympians endorsed a statement decrying climate change.  The Protect Our Winters manifesto urged world leaders to take action on climate change and prepare to commit to a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to be held in Paris in 2015.  These environmental activist athletes came from  the U.S., Canada,  Switzerland, Norway,Sweden, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy and  Australia.

To bolster his support of the POW Manifesto, Newell pointed to a study from the University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) which worries about the future of Winter Olympics in a warmer world.  The Waterloo  researchers claim that six of the last nineteen Winter Olympics host cities will be cold enough to host the games as you can't ski safely or successfully in slush.

This Protect Our Winters message seems to resonate through the warm weather conditions in Sochi, Russia for the XXII Olympiad to reinforce the message about global warming (although this snow job is somewhat diminished when digging out of the snowy Nor'easter on the Eastern Seaboard).   Low information voters who only pay rapt attention when it is a Presidential election, or during the Olympics when Curling and the Luge dominate the airwaves, may unquestioningly buy this progressive propaganda.

Global warming has now been rebranded climate change, since there was not global warming for 16 years (between 1997 and 2012).  Progressive apologists hotly dispute this challenge purporting that climate change "deniers" do not look to the right sources and are all funded by fossel fuel think tanks.  Ironic, isn't it that the unproven theory which has driven much of the global warming debate originated from the East Anglia University hockey stick model, in which data was intentionally manipulated and there was a cover up lest their research funding be imperiled. 

There is some question as to whether the climate change is anthropogenic (man made). The data that global warming was arrested for 16 years, without significant attainment of the ambitious Kyoto Protocol goals, gives cause for pause.  But even if , for the sake of argument, there is a question as to what difference would it make.  Danish Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist (1998), points out that even if European Union implemented Carbon Tax to achieve the 20-20 goal, it would cost $7 trillion over the course of the century achieving a miniscule 0.05^oC reduction in temperature and lower the sea   levels by a trivial nine millimeters.    This does not account for third world nations (including Russia, India and China) which were exempt in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and would not seriously implement costly environmental curtailment, especially if it sacrificed national economic growth.  Then there is the inconvenient truth that implementing environmental abatement in the wrong way can be counterproductive. 

It is worth recognizing linkage of the warm Sochi weather with an environmentally endangered Winter Olympics as a false flag down the slippery slope of big science.   Ed Morrissey wrote in a Hot Air a piece which debunks warm Winter Olympic weather worriers.  Morrissey points out that Sochi is on the Southern-most part of the Russian Federation and was a controversial choice by the IOC in 2007

Arguably, Sarajavo (1984) and Innsbruck (1964, 1976) are not that much further North than Sochi.  But Innsbruck is located in the Austrian Alps and has an elevation of 1886' and Sarajevo is in the Dinaric Alps with an elevation of 1699'.  The problem is that Sochi is at sea level  and temperate weather can impact the Caucus mountain sites. Typically, Sochi has an February average of 42.8 degrees, with a high of 49 degrees and a low of 37.   That's a rather poor choice for a Winter Olympic locale.  But it probably was a political move at the behest of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.  

Between the questionable science on man-made climate change and the poor choice of Olympic host cities, it is sad that activists athletes are given a platform to pontificate such poppycock.  As   Robert Heinlein lamented: “The United States has become a place in which professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of significance.” 

 In this case, maybe Newell should shut up and ski.  Newell failed to medal in the three disciplines he skied at Sochi, at best coming in 4th in the Mens' Cross Country Sprint

h/t:  HotAir.com