What senator stood up to more than 90 countries, successfully defending U.S. sovereignty before the Supreme Court? Answer.

Please use the PayPal button above to donate to The US Report.

Subscribe with Kindle

Search the US Report. 

Please visit The US Report bookstore!

Need a speaker for your next event? Contact us.



 The US Report, an indie publisher, features stories about politics, public figures and government. Learn more about The US Report  and the credentials of our contributorsHelp us keep TUSR online; use the PayPal link in the right column.



Time for all to be heard in manmade warming controversy

Just as I was about to honor my husband’s wishes and restart our subscription to our area’s daily newspaper, the newspaper made the mistake of leaving a free promotional copy in the driveway.

I turned to the editorial page and read the top left header: “Man-made global warming is a reality, and it’s a serious problem.”

The editorial descended into the usual snarkisms—defining the terms for those who don’t buy into science by consensus on what drives the evolution of the planet.

The paper, following warmist talking points, even used the insulting term ‘denier,’ a term originally used for those who denied millions were dying at the hands of Nazis. How low can you stoop?

I would be classified as a skeptic since I don’t get paid for my views like all those experts (not all of whom are climate scientists—someone tell the paper) at the UN IPCC, the National Academies of Science and the NOAA. It'd be a good idea to take a hard look at statisticians and activists in that mix.

The paper also included the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, explaining it away as an “independent clearinghouse.”

PCGCC teams up with the EPA for some programs. The organization is chaired by a director of investment banking from Barclays Capital. Lawyers, university personnel and a director from the UN Environment Programme also serve on the board.

How much skin’s in the game is anyone’s guess. I couldn’t locate a list of the donors and charitable organizations funding Pew’s climate change group.

My tomato and pepper plants appreciate carbon.Before I go another inch with  this, I admit the planet will change. I don’t need billions of taxpayer dollars to prove it. I grew up in a home where we raised much of the food we ate. I experienced nature up close and personal, although that would correctly be phrased as normal changes in weather over a period of time.

One year we might have an abundant crop of pecans or corn. In the next we might not. It depended on the weather and we planted accordingly.

As I pulled weeds and helped pull potatoes and peanuts out of the ground, I saw no dinosaurs and I lived upstate where evidence of an ancient coastline could still be found if you were to dig deep enough. Ergo, climate change.

That all happened without cars, power plants and everything else that emits carbon.

What my daily newspaper should do—what any self-respecting, honorable media should do—is admit there are experts who disagree with the concept of manmade global warming not to be confused with climate change.

In the past couple years, the UNIPCC has suffered from the ClimateGate scandal, disclosure that a Greenpeace activist produced a report on renewable energy, disclosure that articles in the UN reports were in fact not peer reviewed or even published in those academic periodicals the global warming proponents control and even that the temperature dataset those same warmists tout reflected a trend of slight cooling since 1998.

For an explanation of the warmists’ temperature issues, Dr. Roy Spencer, a distinguished former NASA scientist, is an excellent resource.

Another site that picks research apart is Watts Up With That?. The site has a quirky Climate FAIL section. Top of the FAIL list: a UN prediction in 2008 that by 2010 there would be between 50 million and 200 million “environmental migrants.”

Collectively, it’s feasible that Mexico’s drug wars, President Obama’s bizarre war in Libya and ever-increasing food prices at the hands of corrupt governments might produce a few migrants. Wars aren't exactly environmentally friendly. Vast millions of migrants have not materialized.

So what did the UN do? They bumped it a decade into the future, a form of whitewashing. The UN and affected universities did the same thing with ClimateGate after realizing data had indeed been manipulated. That came after inaccuracies turned up in chief global warming financier Al Gore’s famous film. Whitewash.

Even Congress wised up. The expensive Cap and Trade bill progressive socialists pushed did not get passed in the US Senate. The Chicago Climate Exchange folded into another exchange based on a pure money bubble.

Meanwhile President Barack Obama is utilizing regulatory agencies to accomplish what Congress refused to do, even as he appears mystified over why businesses are not thriving in the U.S. For an example of what Obama policy has wreaked, check your next electric, food or gas bill. Regulations don't just cost corporations.

Frankly I was very disappointed that my daily paper and most others refuse to acknowledge there are distinguished scientists who disagree that global warming is manmade. Those who disagree have been de facto blacklisted.

However, when I saw the snarky name assigned to people like me who believe there is ample evidence science by consensus is not trustable, I simply could not take out my credit card to renew our subscription. Blind acceptance of government propaganda is one thing. Calling me names is another entirely.

*Hat Tip to Climate Depot for pointing me to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s website on the Greenpeace report. Dr. Pielke is professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/July 9, 2011)

Please help keep The US Report, an independent blog, online by using the PayPal link in the top right column to make a donation.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

« Does access to energy belong to everyone, or just to envirocrats? | Main | Illinois prepaid tuition plan lost $12 million on ‘risky’ investments »

Reader Comments (2)

There is no tolerance for two reasons:


If Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) existed, it would provide a cause for hysteria among the mob. This hysteria would empower those who wish to be our rulers (like Obama) to do ANYTHING to save humankind from this (nonexistent) global "catastrophe". It would empower them to complete the shredding of the Constitution and give then complete control over every aspect of our lives.

In short, they would get total power and control. Obama and his ilk have sought this in perpetuity and view AGW as the vehicle to sate their power-lust. You cannot underestimate their obsession with becoming our masters and ruling us. Obama's spokesperson made that clear prior to his inauguration when, in response to a question from a reporter she replied, "Obama's rule hasn't started yet."


The pseudo-scientists spewing the nonsensical papers (and 'documentaries') that purport to support AGW desperately need the money to keep flowing to them from our pocketbooks. The provision of their grants is desperately dependent upon the 'validity' of their opinions that they, in collusion with their colleagues, publish in AGW friendly journals as 'science'. When their work is justifiably called into question, you threaten their income stream and this they cannot tolerate.

"Green Industries" would suffer significant losses in revenue because no AGW means there would be no support for the government subsidies they currently enjoy. So, for example, all the companies which Soros, Algore and others have created (or in which they have heavily invested) would either fail or be forced to compete in a rational market. These jet-aircraft owning, multi-billionaires don't want to lose that money nor do they want to lose the income from the government subsidies.


The "Green" movement has become a religion. AGW is one of its fundamental tenets. As in the case of any religion (like Islam), if you challenge their basic beliefs, they react violently - not rationally. They don't seek the truth because the believe they know it and are empowered to FORCE it upon you.

The current war against Carbon, irrational as it is, is the Green's modern version of the Crusades.

If you want to really frustrate an AGW "believer", ask them how the Earth warmed after every Ice Age, especially the one that encased the Earth completely in ice - and no human civilization existed.

This is not a complete analysis, but is sufficient to show the basic reasons behind the extreme behavior of the AGW "believers".

Again, I direct you to Pat Michaels "Climate Coup" for a very thorough discussion of this topic.


About the Book

Global warming alarmism is invading nearly every aspect of our society. Despite convincing evidence that climate change does not portend an apocalyptic future, children are inundated with that idea in schools. Poor countries shake down rich ones in the name of climate "justice." Lawmakers try to impose tariffs and sanctions on nations that don't agree with their environmental views. The military uses climate change as a reason to enlarge its budget. And courts are compelling the government to restrict the amount of energy we use and the way we use it.

Climate Coup provides an antidote to this, gathering together myth-breaking insights and data from a team of experts on the pervasive influence global warming alarmism is having on health, education, law, national defense, international development, trade, and academic publishing.

"Global warming's reach has become ubiquitous," writes the editor, Patrick Michaels. "This book documents how far unelected bureaucracies have pushed this issue into our lives."

Each author details the width and depth of the impact global warming alarmism is having on his or her area of expertise. The coverage includes:
-How the Constitution's limited government restraints have been torn away, allowing global warming policy to be dictated by the president.
-The deliberate abdication of legislative authority by Congress to further concentrate regulatory power in the executive and judicial branches.
-How outrageous exaggerations of global warming fuel budget expansion within the Defense Department.
-How students are subjected to forms of climate change education that are akin to social engineering.
-How trade policies do nothing about climate change but erode market freedoms.
-Ending the myth that global warming reduces the quality of life in developing countries.
-An examination of the unrealistic and unsupported public health claims made about global warming.

Climate Coup confronts the exaggerations, opportunism, and myths about global warming that are all too pervasively altering the shape of our lives and provides the tools and insights necessary to push back against the takeover.
July 9, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJim Kress
Jim, thanks for your thoughtful response on this. I keep hoping a real debate will happen and inform the public about what is a very complicated issue. Only one side has a pulpit right now. best, KBD
July 10, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterKay B. Day
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.