Trump’s Great On Climate Change


If we’re to believe the alarmist rhetoric of various politicians, especially so-called Liberal politicians, Anthropogenic Climate Change is thee most, or at least one of the most, important issues we, as a species, need to address. In fact, it’s so important, the advocates of the Anthropogenic Climate Change theory are endeavoring to make it illegal, not just in America but globally, to deny or question the theory just as it’s illegal to, in certain European countries such as Germany, deny or question the Holocaust. Don’t believe me? Try this Science Blogs letter of appeal to Obama from various scientists on for size:

The following is the text of a letter written by a number of scientists asking for a federal investigation of climate science denial under the RICO statute.

Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

September 1, 2015

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.


Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
(continued on page 2)
Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

The Obama Administration and its lackey DOJ have taken this request seriously as the Akdart site, quoted below, indicates:

Skewed justice. Scientists don’t use the term “consensus,” despite the regular use of the term by politicians who promote government-mandated action to stop alleged human-caused climate change. The scientific method has little space for opinion, and no room at all for the democratic process. Yet it’s that “consensus” that has U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch investigating whether the Justice Department can and should sue scientists and others who question the human-caused climate change assumptions. Last week, Ms. Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she has discussed the potential for bringing civil action against those who question human-caused climate change science, who include esteemed scientists — Nobel laureates among them.

Barack Goes Ballistic. In Iran there are mullahs who safeguard Islam’s sacred law, in America there is a president who thinks he is a law unto himself. Iran wants to nuke Israel and the U.S., and Obama is nuking the Constitution. That’s why the news that Attorney General Loretta Lynch reviewed the possibility of pursuing civil action against climate change skeptics (“deniers”) was as disturbing as the report that Iran recently tested two ballistic missiles. […] Then again, the president has already admonished those who contradict his beliefs concerning climate change by warning them if they don’t agree with him “[They]’ll be pretty lonely.” What Obama didn’t expound upon was whether or not a climate change skeptic ends up lonely inside or outside a courtroom.

The Left Is Embracing Orwellian Policies to Go After ‘Climate Deniers’. Just when we thought liberalism can’t get any more authoritarian, the Obama administration reminds us that it can. Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently confirmed that she had “referred” the “matter” of whether climate change “deniers” should be brought to court on racketeering charges to the FBI. Yes, that’s right. If you happen to disagree with the administration’s views of global warming, you could face a civil suit accusing you of fraud and corruption. This represents a breathtaking corruption of the law. Laws designed to catch mafia figures on corruption charges could be twisted to punish Americans whose only crime is to contest the Obama administration’s view of climate change.

Attorney General Lynch Looks Into Prosecuting ‘Climate Change Deniers’. In news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday [3/9/2016] that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.” Lynch was responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who urged Lynch to prosecute those who “pretend that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled,” particularly those in the “fossil fuel industry” who supposedly have constructed a “climate denial apparatus.”

The Obama Administration’s Idea of a Crime. …is not, apparently, violating federal laws and regulations and State Department procedures in a manner that exposes thousands of classified documents to our enemies. No, that isn’t the sort of conduct that is likely to draw an indictment from Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice. Obama’s DOJ is more interested in trying to jail scientists who point out the rather obvious flaws in the government’s desperate effort to convince Americans that global warming is our greatest threat.

It should be clear from the above references that, at least according to most Liberals if not all of them, Anthropogenic Climate Change is no longer an unsubstantiated theory, but is now, in fact, a fact. And you do not questions facts. You accept them — presumably from epistemologists who maintain the sacred Anthropogenic Climate Change Scriptures (or Models if you prefer). Obnubilation, when it comes to Anthropogenic Climate Change, will not be tolerated. In fact, it’s important you not only don’t deny the theory that is now fact, but instead welcome it and support it with vociferous alacrity. Mediocrity related to this most important topic will not do. You must “stand up or be cast out.”


For purposes of argument, let’s say the High Priests and the brethren of the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change are correct, and human behavior is deleteriously affecting Earth’s climate. According to this theory that is now fact, the mechanism for the deleterious climate change is rapid global warming brought about by excess CO2 dumped in the atmosphere by human consumption. Human consumption, to date at least, requires the burning of fossil fuels and the burning of fossil fuels emits CO2.

Anyone who considers Anthropogenic Climate Change to be a serious and dire matter that requires the World’s immediate attention, people like Obama and Hillary and Bernie and The Pope to name a few, should have no problem understanding and accepting that the problem must be addressed at its root. In otherwords, who are, and what are, the worst offenders when it comes to emitting excess CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere? Well, it just so happens wealthy people the planet over are the worst offenders. Their consumption habits are off the charts. And as we know, consumption is responsible for the CO2 emissions. And as we know, or should know, economies, especially industrialized economies, predicate consumption rates. The chart below is telling and underscores the culprits.


I had to go back to 2005 to find a chart like this because they just don’t make them anymore, or in the least, Google doesn’t include them in the first ten pages of a search for such. Something to consider. America, more so than any Western country, is the worst offender per capita when it comes to consumption. For starters, America has the most wealthy people on the planet and its inhabitants possess an extremely consumptive lifestyle in comparison to the rest of the planet’s inhabitants. Throw-away Walmart lawnmowers, anyone? Meaning, you can and do purchase a cheap Made in China lawnmower at Walmart that has no replacement parts and breaks down after several seasons, so rather than having it fixed, you just replace it with another throw-away lawnmower. I’ve had my Honda push mower for 16 years, fyi. I have it serviced every two years and it still runs well and gets the job done — but I’m not like most Americans.

Let’s face it, even though China has basically caught up to America as far as CO2 emissions is concerned it accomplished this because of America’s outsourcing of its manufacturing base to China. The majority of China’s emissions is America’s emissions by proxy. It’s the result of America’s economy and America’s egregious standard of living. You don’t believe me about how greedy and wasteful Americans are compared to the rest of the planet? I’ll let Scientific American tell you since you don’t believe anything I say (since It’s All Lies) unless it comes from an established authority (maybe that’s part of your, and part of thee, problem).

Use It and Lose It: The Outsize Effect of U.S. Consumption on the Environment

It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world. “A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.

Tilford cites a litany of sobering statistics showing just how profligate Americans have been in using and abusing natural resources. For example, between 1900 and 1989 U.S. population tripled while its use of raw materials grew by a factor of 17. “With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,” he reports. “Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world.”

He adds that the U.S. ranks highest in most consumer categories by a considerable margin, even among industrial nations. To wit, American fossil fuel consumption is double that of the average resident of Great Britain and two and a half times that of the average Japanese. Meanwhile, Americans account for only five percent of the world’s population but create half of the globe’s solid waste.

Now that I’ve Set the Stage for The Spine of this blog post, let’s apply The Establishment‘s (to include both Democrats and Republicans) criticisms of Donald Trump and reveal how those criticisms make Trump the ideal candidate to mitigate Anthropogenic Climate Change.

Trump’s “Get Tough On Immigration” Rhetoric And Stance Is Racist And Heartless

Both the Democrat Establishment and the Republican Establishment, which Trump has now proven are one and the same by virtue of their reaction to him, are saying this about Trump’s immigration stance and rhetoric. Trump wants to build The Wall to greatly mitigate illegal immigration from Mexico and all of Latin America and South America and he wants to deport the ~ 11 million who are in America illegally.


Are these people, the hopelessly corrupt and soulless Establishment, serious about mitigating Anthropogenic Climate Change, or not? Because if they are as serious as they claim to be, they should not be criticizing Trump for his Get Tough On Immigration stance and rhetoric, and instead should be applauding him and following his example. America doesn’t need any more people. America doesn’t need any more consumers. Every new person America adds above the replacement rate becomes an egregious CO2 emitter. That’s the last thing you want to do if you believe Anthropogenic Climate Change is the most serious issue facing Man and the planet. The Worldwatch Institute article below emphatically states that no amount of efficiency gain can offset adding new people to the well-oiled and well-greased CO2-Emitting Machine that is the American economy and the consequential outrageous standard of living it elicits and affords.

Trump’s Get Tough On Immigration stance, aside from and despite the crude, insensitive & offensive rhetoric, is precisely what is needed if you’re serious about mitigating the most destructive effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change. If you don’t agree, then you’re just another fucking hypocrite like all the rest. Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you truly believe what you’re espousing about Anthropogenic Climate Change, then you necessarily must support an end to immigration to America, and Trump is the only candidate who’s addressing that very issue. The following is from the Worldwatch Institute concerning efficiency gains.

The State of Consumption Today

At least part of the rise in global consumption is the result of population growth. The U.N. projects that world population will increase 41 percent by 2050, to 8.9 billion people, with nearly all of this growth in developing countries.

This surge in human numbers threatens to offset any savings in resource use from improved efficiency, as well as any gains in reducing per-capita consumption. Even if the average American eats 20 percent less meat in 2050 than in 2000, total U.S. meat consumption will be 5 million tons greater in 2050 due to population growth.

“If the consumption aspirations of the wealthiest of nations cannot be satiated, the prospects for corralling consumption everywhere before it strips and degrades our planet beyond recognition would appear to be bleak.”

Despite rising consumption in the developing world, industrial countries remain responsible for the bulk of the world’s resource consumption—as well as the associated global environmental degradation. Yet there is little evidence that the consumption locomotive is braking, even in the United States, where most people are amply supplied with the goods and services needed to lead a dignified life.

1.) The United States, with less than 5 % of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources—burning up nearly 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world’s natural gas.

2.) As of 2003, the U.S. had more private cars than licensed drivers, and gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles were among the best-selling vehicles.

3.) New houses in the U.S. were 38 % bigger in 2002 than in 1975, despite having fewer people per household on average.

Trump’s “Get Tough On Trade” stance and rhetoric will ruin global trade.

If so, that’s a good thing as far as Anthropogenic Climate Change is concerned, right? Global trade, as it’s currently practiced, is an abomination. It’s a blasphemy to any True Environmentalist. It’s pure torture for Earth’s ecosystem. If you’re serious about mitigating the most deleterious consequences of Anthropogenic Climate Change, it’s mandatory you oppose not only NAFTA, the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) and the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), but any global trade in general. Global trade should be greatly curtailed, not enhanced and expanded. Let’s take Obama’s recent push to get the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) fast-tracked so that it’s implemented and in force before he leaves office. It’s terrible for CO2 emissions, especially as it relates to the extraction and burning of coal. Obama is seen as being tough on coal, but what he feigns to take away with one hand, he gives back with the other hand, and the other hand in this case is the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). I’ll let the Think Progress article below explain:


The TPP Could Have Disastrous Results For The Climate, Environmental Groups Warn

Politics make strange bedfellows. Earlier this week, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace released a television ad rebuking longtime environmental ally Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) for his vote in favor of fast-tracking the TPP. And the issue has split both parties. House and Senate leadership has mostly endorsed fast-tracking the deal, while Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have come down firmly against it.

“When you have Exxon, President Obama, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and John Boehner on one side,” Schreiber said, “that’s a signal that the president is in the wrong place.”

Ironically, the Obama administration has been one of the most active ever in combatting climate change. The proposed Clean Power Plan, for example, would limit emissions from power plants and is considered a key component of Obama’s final years in office.

“[The TPP] just contradicts the president’s climate policy,” Bill Waren, a trade analyst with Friends of the Earth, told ThinkProgress. “One hand takes away from the other.”

And the threat of corporate litigation is not the only climate-related concern the TPP — along with the other massive trade deal being proposed, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which would be between the U.S. and European Union — raises, Waren said.

As the United States cuts down on its coal use, coal producers are looking for new markets. The TPP would likely encourage more coal mining in the United States, and new coal ports on the west coast. There are currently export bans on both crude oil and gas from the United States, but with those bans lifted on exports to Asia and Europe, fracking would likely increase across the country.

The trade agreements would “provide huge market incentives for additional coal mining, oil drilling, mining of tar sands oil, and extraction of natural gas for LNG,” Waren said.

Waren also outlined a number of other environmental concerns the TPP and TTIP raise, such as limits on food labels, lessened restriction on chemical companies, restrictions on green procurement policies, and “bio-piracy.”

Already, opponents to the trade agreements say they have seen an impact from the proposed agreements. Some say the European Union changed its proposed fuel directive due to pressure from Canada and the United States. Canada reportedly has tried to convince the EU to treat oil from tar sands no differently than conventional oil, despite the differences in carbon emissions. And others claim the EU amended proposed biofuel regulations get rid of language that included land use considerations, largely because of pressure from the United States.

If Obama and his fan club, the Global Elite, are serious about mitigating the worst effects and consequences of Anthropogenic Climate Change, they sure have a funny way of showing it. They call Trump a liar, so by virtue of that, it necessarily follows, or at least it’s the implication, that “they” do not lie, and instead only The Truth, as if there is such a thing, emanates from their cold, dead lips. Since “they” are Truth Seekers and Truth Tellers, we must concede that “they” are correct in their emphatic assertion that a Trump presidency will negatively impact global trade. And if you’re serious about wanting to mitigate the worst consequences of Anthropogenic Climate Change, what you assert will happen under a Trump presidency is precisely what is needed. Once again, as we have seen with Trump’s Get Tough On Immigration stance and rhetoric, Trump’s Get Tough On Trade stance and rhetoric means Trump’s Great On Climate Change. How do we know? Because The Establishment has told us so by virtue of its criticism of Donald Trump.


Trump will destroy the American Healthcare System

Exactly! If you are a zealous advocate of Anthropogenic Climate Change, you have to be cheering for this. If the criticism is true, or it comes to fruition when and/or if Trump is elected POTUS, it means, necessarily, that people will be dying sooner — that life expectancy in America will decline precipitously. Since we know Americans are, by and far, the greatest CO2 emitters on the planet, a significant decrease in the life expectancy of Americans means a significant dent in America’s CO2 emissions. Once again, yet another criticism leveled at Trump by The Establishment proves Trump’s Great On Climate Change.

Urology - Dr Nutcracker.

Trump is a polarizing figure who will engender civil strife which will ultimately destroy the American Economy 

Once again, if you believe Man is responsible for destructive climate change and you want to mitigate the most deleterious consequences and avoid a worst-case scenario, what’s not to like about this criticism? This is something to be lauded and applauded. It’s not a negative, it’s a positive — if you believe Anthropogenic Climate Change is the most serious issue facing Man and the planet. The American Economy is the Machine that is responsible for a significant percentage of the excess CO2 emissions that has led to Anthropogenic Climate Change. Considering that, anything that diminishes the machine that is the American Economy and its effect on CO2 emissions is a good thing, as Martha is so fond of saying.

As well, if civil strife ultimately leads to another American Civil War, that’s also a good thing because war is a highly effective way to cull an egregiously over-consuming herd. Less Americans in a greatly diminished American Economy means Anthropogenic Climate Change relief. Once again, yet another criticism of Donald Trump by The Establishment proves why Trump’s Great On Climate Change.

In conclusion, if you’re serious about battling Anthropogenic Climate Change, it’s clear Donald Trump is your Man. This blog post has proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Trump’s Great On Climate Change. If you think Anthropogenic Climate Change is the greatest, and most serious, issue facing Man and the planet, then please vote for Donald Trump.

My name is Cold N. Holefield, and I approve this message.



24 thoughts on “Trump’s Great On Climate Change

  1. A topless woman interrupts Bernie Sanders’s rally. She was there to protest Donald Trump.

    On a day when Donald Trump protesters dominated political headlines again, there was a flash of disobedience on display here at a Bernie Sanders rally.

    Well into the speech of the Democratic hopeful, a woman in the crowd climbed atop a man’s shoulders and removed her top to display messages written in black ink on her bare back and nearly bare front.

    “STOP FACISM” her back said. “HATE SPEECH IS NOT FREE SPEECH” her front said. (She also sported two strategically placed “Free the Nipple” stickers.)

    It turns out the woman was not there to protest Sanders. Her ire was directed at the Republican front-runner.

    The woman, who identified herself as Anni Ma of Los Angeles, told reporters that she had tried unsuccessfully to get into Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills, Ariz. That rally was briefly delayed after dozens of protesters blocked a highway leading to the site.

    Sanders briefly paused upon seeing the topless woman. She was led to the back of the venue without incident and then swarmed by reporters. She stuck around awhile to tell her story.

    Sanders, meanwhile, continued talking about greed on Wall Street.

    Arizona holds its Democratic primary on Tuesday.

    I bet Bernie paused when he saw the woman. For the first time in many years, he felt a stirring in his loins.

    Since candidates are responsible for the decorum and behavior at their rallies, Bernie has to own this. Is this “presidential” behavior? Of course it is, because Bernie’s not a “Fascist.”

    Don’t get me wrong, I love the message, and that message is thee answer to Trump’s Fascism. That answer is, Show Us Your Tits!.

    I fully expect to see a topless Hillary presidency if she becomes the next POTUS. Clothes, and especially bras, are for Fascists. If you’re not a Fascist, ladies, bare your breasts now and make me a very happy man.

  2. I don’t know, Donald, I think the concept was created to draw even more blood from the rock that is the World’s poor & destitute. The Global Elite are Vampire Squids — if there’s one drop left, they’ll find it and take it and you’re one of them, you Fucking Scumbag.

    • Hehe, I can see that bald, gh3y guy in my *blinks*!!! Vamp squid pretty much sums it up. The ghey obsession really makes me laugh – how about focusing on something even more innocuous (blood funnel hehe Matt)…

  3. I do not doubt that climate change is occurring. I do not doubt that climate change is primarily due to man-made pollution. What concerns me is the idea that we (U.S. citizens) should pay higher prices for electricity and fuel due to “carbon taxes” when the hypothetical corresponding decrease in fossil fuel consumption will make precious little, if any, difference in terms of impacting the overall long-term warming trend worldwide. The developing world is building coal-fired power plants and increasingly relies on moped-like cars without emissions for transportation. As a general matter, birth rates are much higher in the developing world. Call me selfish, but I am not big into burdening my wallet for the sake of “leading by example” when common sense says so doing will not make a bit of difference.

    • Good point, and that’s exactly what “they” want you to do if “they” have their way. They want YOU, US, The Working Poor, to pay for the sin of CO2 via a regressive carbon tax. When Al Gore was confronted about his lifestyle — his jet travel and his 15,000 square foot (or is it feet?) mansion, he didn’t offer to curtail any of that, but instead said he would buy carbon credits. The Global Elite can buy and legislate their way out of it. The Working Poor are left holding their Blood Bag as the last drops are drawn from their nearly depleted veins.

      I don’t deny or confirm Anthropogenic Climate Change. I’m agnostic about it. I have researched it extensively, and ferreting out The Truth, if there even is any, is near impossible because everyone involved in the debate has a political agenda.

      What I don’t deny is that Man is despoiling the planet via industrialization. In that sense, Anthropogenic Climate Change is a Red Herring or a Canard. Man is destroying the environment in so many more tangible, and less controversial and debatable, ways than CO2 emissions leading to possible Anthropogenic Climate Change.

      As an example, if industrialization is only seen as deleterious to the environment because of excess CO2 emissions resulting in Anthropogenic Climate Change, anything that emits less CO2 is seen as a good thing. Enter Ethanol which has been treated as a Green alternative. Sure, the burning of Ethanol results in less CO2 emissions, but the ozone the burning of Ethanol creates is many times more pernicious than that created by the burning of gasoline. But no one talks about that — or at least very few do, because the feigned concern over CO2 metaphorically sucks all the oxygen out of the environmental destruction room.

      Stanford researchers: Ethanol results in higher ozone concentrations than gasoline

      Vehicles running on ethanol will generate higher concentrations of ozone than those using gasoline, especially in the winter, Stanford researchers have found. That could create new health concerns in areas where ozone hasn’t been a significant problem before.

      • It’s a bit tangential, but I cannot help but rant a little anytime someone brings up ethanol.

        Specifically, ethanol is hell on small engines. I probably spend around $100/year on two additives which I religiously run in all of my outdoor power equipment in order to avoid more annoying problems like, say, a carburetor rebuild. Come to think of it, if I was in the business of selling low-end outdoor power equipment to the uninformed, I would be ethanol’s biggest supporter. Interesting.

      • Yep, I had to have the carburetor in my Honda push mower replaced last week and I’m sure it was the ethanol.

        Speaking of ozone, another kind of course, few people realize the Freon Phase Out was a scam.

        Phasing Out Freon or Phasing Out Facts?

        There is an unwelcome chilling aspect to the ban on the CFC substance which produces welcome chilling effects as a refrigerant: there is no scientific reason for the current policy.

        On legal advice, Sallie Baliunas’ mechanic cannot recharge her car. He is afraid he will be accused of improperly servicing the air-conditioner, which is punishable by large fines.

        Sallie does not blame him.

        Had her mechanic in Massachusetts heard of the auto air-conditioning repairman in St. Louis who allegedly let Freon into the atmosphere? The federal government jailed him as its first ozone victim and fined him $250,000.

        Regardless, Sallie is better qualified than most of us to have recently concluded that “there is no observed change in global ozone concentrations that is outside the bounds of natural variability. There is no scientific merit to the claim of an ozone crisis or UV catastrophe. Building on a case without scientific justification, policymakers have put in place restrictions on CFCs that are bound to be extremely costly in lives and dollars.”

        You see, Sallie Baliunas is Staff Astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Institute.

        Is Dr. Baliunas a lone ‘contrarian’?

        Hardly. Any list of ozone depletion theory ‘contrarians’ is today likely to number hundreds of scientists world-wide with substantial credentials and credibility.

      • Simple lil’ thangs, ‘liek’ (heh) how much gasohol U consume. Just liek that! I’ve driven 10 miles since about Valentino day (a month earlier) – 21.6 a week? You guzzlerz!!! Golden way out – triumphalism…

      • Speaking of@!@!#%&)( heh

        Don’t sweat the *plantations* – they only last 3-7 years… We begin at the very first *spring*?!? Heh.

  4. Car repair shops, especially car dealership repair shops, do not want you to know that most of the older Freon A/C systems can be converted to use R-134a using a simple, low-cost kit. They would rather you just buy a new (or new to you) car with functional A/C on the false premise that it is not worth the allegedly high cost to repair the old system.

    Of course, as you point out, there really never was a problem with Freon to begin with.

  5. “Trump’s Get Tough On Immigration stance … is precisely what is needed if you’re serious about mitigating the most destructive effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

    It is not his stance, or anyone’s stance, but rather actual action as regards immigration, that could reduce immigration and thus ultimately the population of the U.S. (and thus the consumption profile that fosters great CO2 releases and, presumably as a result, AGW).

    Trump’s “stance” is a reactionary, whimsical, poorly-thought-out (or UN-thought-out) “wall” idea that will never actually happen. You say that “trump is the only candidate who is addressing this issue”, but the problem is that he is NOT really addressing it, if we take “addressing it” to mean rational, adult, frontal-cortex-intensive attention. He is just bloviating about it, straight from his reactionary reptile brain. If you don’t agree, then you’re just another fucking moron like all the rest. Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. 😉

  6. What’s Romney’s point besides being petty, vindictive PITA in general? He endorses Kasich for purposes of the Ohio primary only and appears on stage with him at a rally. Then endorses Cruz in Utah and records robocalls directed at Utah voters which say that every vote for Kasich is, substantively, a vote for Trump, and that they should therefore vote for Cruz .

    As discussed in this article, ( It’s obvious he just wants Trump to lose in as many of the remaining primaries/caucuses as possible with the aim of weakening Trump’s standing at a contested convention.

    That might, or might not, be a workable strategy. Regardless, it’s the type of strategy only an asshole would undertake.

    • I agree. The guy’s a more devilish liar & hypocrite and a bigger prick than Trump. This whole 2016 Presidential Election Cycle has been the epitome of The Pot calling The Kettle, Black.

  7. “The Right gets perpetually flogged in the mainstream press, but The Left is equally pernicious and just as heinous”

    What the hell are you talking about?! The left does not even exist, in the U.S. There is no left, except for the recent appearance (on the national stage) of Bernie Sanders — a very promising sign. Apart from him and a couple others (e.g. Liz Warren, Dennis Kucinich), virtually 100% of politicians of both parties are right-wing.

    As Vidal quipped decades ago: “We have one political party with two right wings”. So true, so true.

    The right almost NEVER gets “flogged in the mainstream press” — because the mainstream press and the right-wing politicians are all on the same side.

    • You make a good point — one I agree with, by the way. There is no Left or Right in America — only the feigned semblance of such. My statement concerning it is the more honest and complete perspective. Your objectivity is compromised if you’re a Leftist in spirit, since there is no Left in America, yet claim there is a Right. There is only the illusion and delusion of both.

  8. (OK didn’t see last image)

    OMG! I swear, if Hitlery’s *crew* rigs this and Bernie’s out, I’m thinking ‘The Don’ instead of Jill Stein.

    But yeah, all the clearcutting and species extinction is pretty much the final nail (cut?)…

Comments are closed.