Heartlanders Tell Harris: It’s Not Us, It’s You

The VP has a high hurdle to jump if she expects flyover votes. 

By Sarah Cowgill | Jul 28, 2024 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Columns, Opinion, Politics

Editor’s Note: From the Back Forty is Liberty Nation’s longest running and most popular weekly column. 

After being largely hidden from view for the past three years, Vice President Kamala Harris had to make a public comeback as campaigning for her boss became the top priority. That is until the darn debate sent the Democratic Party into crisis mode, eventually leading to Joe Biden backing out of the election. Now, there’s actually a chance Harris could be propelled into the highest office in the land.

But she must win the hearts and minds of heartlanders if she has any kind of shot. Good luck, Madam Vice President; the bar is high. Liberty Nation News asked a handful of flyover folks to assess Harris as VP and what it would take to get their vote.

Let’s Talk Border Czar

President Joe Biden tasked his winsome and often very giggly number two to get that pesky border under control. Harris went to Guatemala, demanded people stay home, and planted apple trees. The administration claimed she was getting to the root of the problem, so it took three years of media badgering for her to step foot in a city near the border. Not Del Rio or Eagle Pass, but El Paso, where she did not come into contact with the crisis she and her president created.

That has stuck in the craw of George “Gus” Reid in Bloomfield, NM. “Kamala, as far as I can tell has failed miserably at every responsibility given her as VP,” he said. “The border crisis is her crowning underachievement, and when asked, a year or two into her term, why she hadn’t ever been to the border, her defense was that she hadn’t ever been to Europe either.” Gus continued: “I can’t be alone in my confusion of what the hell does that even mean?” It doesn’t seem Harris can count on Gus come election day.

“Her largest failure as VP is the border crisis, and now the democratic left machine is reporting that she was not the Border Czar,” says Michele Harrison in Mobridge, SD. “If said enough, people will believe it.”

Talking Points: [Insert Harris Here]

Just when so many believed that Joe Biden would save the soul of a nation by bankrupting its middle class, a new statement seems to have been issued to Democrats and the media alike on Harris’ talking points. There are titles like “First Black Woman President.” Ooh and Ah. Or this doozy: “She was never the border czar.” Aaron Senesac of Warren County, IN, wrote: “I fear that the whole ‘first female president’ card will catapult her to the big seat to make history, but us as a nation further down the tubes under her specific form of leadership. This has already been seen throughout the well-documented troubles within her own cabinet while she was VP.”

Heartlanders feel there is a coup afoot – which is why #Coup-amala is making waves on social media. Dan Poer in Alabama sensed there was some tomfoolery happening this past week. “Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign was an absolute dud, self-imploding well before the first primary votes were cast,” he said. “And as recently as a month or two ago, Democratic elites were openly discussing whether she could still be dropped as Biden’s 2024 running mate. Funny how quickly one can go from weakest link to great savior of ‘Our Democracy.'”

“The gaslighting from the media on Kamala is going supernova,” observed Tom Fink of Claremore, OK.

It Was the Biden-Harris Administration

The nation didn’t get dragged through the mud just by Biden; Vice President Kamala Harris has been there the whole time. Steve Campbell made the case for new blood, arguing that the current administration has achieved the following successes: “Highest inflation in 40 years. Interest rates in just 3 1/2 years have nearly doubled. Highest Illegal Border crossings in at least 14 years. Highest death rate ever from Fentanyl. Two wars started and continue—the highest fuel prices since at least 2010. Thirteen service members were killed in Afghanistan. A prior President of the USA was nearly assassinated as a result of incompetence. President Biden’s mental decline was hidden and lied about for several years.”

Dave Metcalf in the battleground state of Arizona agreed with Campbell’s assessment: “Kamala is the least accomplished individual ever to be a major party nominee in American history. Considering she is replacing a dementia-ridden Joe Biden, she is only lowering the bar even lower.”

Aaron Senesac also went directly to Harris’ faulty record of accomplishments:  “She has repeatedly embarrassed us as a nation and herself and cabinet anytime she tries to complete an intellectual sentence.”

Harris: The Big Picture

One would be hard-pressed to find even a hardcore Biden voter in the heartland ready to put Kamala Harris in the White House. Democrats are a bit salty over being told the Big Guy was perfectly fine to run in the election and carry on the soul-saving of America, only to have him step down with no time to find a qualified replacement. Eugene Pikul, Sr. of Chicago writes: “Democrats don’t care about what the people want. They don’t care about the voters of America – you do what you’re told to do. You have no right to vote for the people you want.”

Yet another Hoosier, Kathryn Hutchins, pegged the radical left: “Overthrowing democracy, despite the fearmongering toward the right, seems to be the raison d’etre of the left.”

Mike McGee in Cedar Hills, UT, is also probably not a Harris voter. He said:

“Kamala is unable to interact on a world stage with other world leaders and look like anything other than a box of rocks! Kamala cannot adequately represent the United States of America and maintain our position in the world. Kamala has risen through the political ranks based strictly on other than her ability to lead or direct in any decisive fashion. Her skills lie in other areas of a less than a gentle fashion.”

Gus still doesn’t understand Harris: “She hates Israel but is married to a Jewish man. How does that work? The woman is low on intellect, devoid of morals, and totally controlled by the puppeteers of the deep state. I doubt you can salvage anything resembling a quote out of this ramble, but thanks for the microphone.” Thank you, Gus, for the thought-provoking rant.

But Liberty Nation News gives the last and somewhat more profound word on Biden bailing, and the Harris reveal, to Travis Simonton of West Lebanon, IN, who shook his head and stated: “I think maybe we should be single awhile and find ourselves.”

 

Read More From Sarah Cowgill

Climate Change Weekly #277:

Carbon Tax Cabal, Part Two:
Economic Punishment

 

In the previous issue of Climate Change Weekly, I discussed the economic harm a carbon tax would create. In this issue I provide evidence such a tax will be ineffective in preventing climate change and will hurt the poor. Neither federal nor state carbon tax schemes will do anything to prevent the climate from changing. Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made this point when he admitted in a December 2015 speech to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, “If we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what—that still wouldn’t bend enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.” A state-based carbon tax would have even less impact on global temperature. Carbon taxes won’t prevent any measurable amount of sea level rise, either, or reduce the likelihood of hurricanes forming or wildfires from occurring. The only reason to discourage the use of fossil fuels is to prevent dangerous climate change, yet the best evidence—as opposed to dubious computer model predictions—suggests humans aren’t causing dangerous climate change. Almost every testable projection made by computer models concerning the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet has been proven wrong. Hurricanes aren’t getting worse; sea levels are not rising at an unusual rate; Antarctica is adding ice, not losing it; scientists can show no species to have been lost due to climate change; droughts continue to wax and wane as they always have; and crop production continues to set records.  Actual measured temperatures are much lower than the computer model predictions, indicating global temperature is most likely less sensitive to greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere than computer models suggest. If humans aren’t causing apocalyptic global warming, there’s no good reason for governments to tax fossil fuel use. Discouraging fossil fuels is an especially bad idea because expanding the use of these fuels is the quickest, surest way to decrease poverty and increase economic progress in the United States and abroad. In addition, higher carbon dioxide levels are demonstrably beneficial for plants, increasing agricultural yields, improving plants’ water use efficiency, and greening Earth by shrinking deserts and expanding forest cover. More than one billion people don’t have access to regular supplies of electricity today, with millions dying from preventable cardiopulmonary diseases each year from indoor air pollution caused by their use of wood, charcoal, dung, and other materials they use to cook with and heat their homes. Millions more die prematurely from a lack of access to safe drinking water, modern transportation, and hospitals with continuously working electric lights, medical equipment, and refrigeration. In the West, we take these necessities for granted, but they were all brought about on a large scale by the use of fossil fuels. Where coal, natural gas, and oil are in regular use, people are wealthy, and where their use is absent, poverty, disease, and hunger are rife. —H. Sterling Burnett SOURCES: Climatewire; OregonLive; Washington Governor Jay Inslee; The Heartland Institute

IN THIS ISSUE: Cataloguing climate model errors Green policies, nature behind California wildfires Warming godfather Hansen admits nature’s climate role Trump cuts climate program budgets

CATALOGUING CLIMATE MODEL ERRORS In a recent paper, economist Alan Carlin, Ph.D., former Director of the Implementation Research Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, writes the theory human greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous climate change is nothing more than an expensive, failed modeling exercise based on flawed assumptions about the relations between greenhouse gases and temperature, and the use of manipulated data. Citing Mike Jonas from Watts Up With That, Carlin describes how General Circulation Models (climate models) are constructed. First, all known or at least well-understood factors, such as the general rules of physics, are built into the climate models, with estimates included for unknown factors, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls parameterizations, such as feedback mechanisms and the effects of cloud cover and solar activity. Second, model results are then compared with actual observations. Since GCMs reproduced only about a third of the observed warming in the 20th century, the modelers then adjusted or fiddled with the unknown factors until they fairly closely reproduced past climate conditions and current temperatures. What this means, however, is two-thirds of the models’ predicted future warming comes from factors that are not well understood. Adding error on top of error, a recent report found because models still grossly overestimate the amount and rate of warming the earth has experienced in recent years, scientists have taken to adjusting surface temperature data in order to force it to coincide with GCM projections, ignoring satellite temperature records and temperature data from weather balloons which show much less warming than the adjusted ground level data and GCM projections. The authors of this study write, “The magnitude of their historical data adjustments … [is] totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published global average surface temperature data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever—despite current claims of record setting warming.” Even IPCC admits GCMs cannot predict climate change well.  When IPCC Working Group 1 assessed the physical-scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change in 2007, it said “we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” After calculating governments have spent approximately $1.5 trillion annually in recent years to study and combat climate change, Carlin concludes, “This is undoubtedly the worst scam-based science on a major public policy issue in the history of the world.” SOURCES: Carlin Economics; Wallace et al.

GREEN POLICIES, NATURE BEHIND CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES California’s 2017 wildfires destroyed a record number of homes, with the fires and subsequent mudslides killing more than 60 people and leaving many others injured. In a recent paper, meteorologist Robert W. Endlich, who served as a weather officer in the U.S. Air Force for 21 years before working at the White Sands Missile Range, says entirely “explainable weather conditions” combined with the California’s “hands off” forest management policy “set the stage for 2017’s intense, highly destructive wildfires in California.” Contrary to California Gov. Jerry Brown’s claims, human-caused climate change was not to blame for the fires. Data shows California has experienced a slight increase in rainfall and snowfall over the past 125 years, including record rainfall during the 2016-2017 winter season. On the meteorological front, the winter’s record rainfall produced lush vegetation and brush in the spring. Then, as a “subtropical ridge” shifted northward in California, rainfall dried up during the summer and the vegetation dried out. In addition, the Santa Ana winds (as they are called in southern California) or Diablo winds (as they are referred to in northern California) arrived in force and lingered throughout the fall—another periodic and hardly unusual event. That’s nature’s part of the story. As Endlich points out, the state and federal governments also played a critical role in fueling the wildfires. Endlich quotes an op-ed as stating, “Decades of aggressive firefighting left too much fuel on the ground” and “another man-made initiative: building more and more homes in hilly communities adjacent to brush and woodlands” over the long term set the stage for the 2017 conflagrations. In addition, as  environmental activists took control over forest management policy, logging on national and state forests came virtually to an end, resulting in forest growth of unnatural density. Endlich writes, “Government agencies [refused] to permit the removal of dead, diseased and desiccated trees and brush from these woodlands—especially in the broad vicinity of these communities. Together, these factors all but ensure recurrent conflagrations and tragic losses of property and lives.” The Mercury News reports Brown worsened the problem by vetoing a unanimously passed 2016 bill to fund power line safety measures which would have included trimming trees and brush near power lines. During the northern California fires which began on October 8, high winds knocked utility power poles down onto adjacent dry trees. SOURCE: The Master Resource

WARMING GODFATHER HANSEN ADMITS NATURE’S CLIMATE ROLE Even while misstating the facts concerning 2017’s temperature, James Hansen et al. make a surprising admission: the sun has a strong influence on temperature that may overwhelm rising greenhouse gas emissions and lead to decade-long hiatus in temperature rise. Hansen and his colleagues say 2017 was the second or third warmest year since widespread surface instrumental records were kept. They attribute this warming to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, stressing it was not helped along by any boost from a tropical El Niño as was arguably the case in 2015 and 2016. Their claim is false. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an 11 week springtime El Niño anomaly occurred from April through July of 2017. Because it didn’t last five months, NOAA did not classify it as an El Niño event, but El Niño conditions persisted for three months, affecting both ocean and land temperatures, the latter of which take longer to recover from. El Niño conditions thus affected temperatures well into 2017. More interesting than their temperature claim was the Hansen team’s admission solar variability has a powerful influence on temperatures. In the past, Hansen and others on his team have dismissed solar activity as not having any significant long-term impact on global temperatures, but in this paper Hansen et al. write: The record 2016 temperature was abetted by the effects of both a strong El Niño and maximum warming from the solar irradiance cycle. Because of the ocean thermal inertia and decadal irradiance change, the peak warming and cooling effects of solar maximum and minimum are delayed about two years after irradiance extrema. [S]olar variability is not negligible in comparison with the energy imbalance that drives global temperature change. Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible … the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus.’” In one paragraph, Hansen acknowledges solar variability and oceanic oscillations could overwhelm any effect greenhouse gas concentrations could have on temperatures. And by the way, the result would not be just an “impression of” a global warming hiatus. It would be a real hiatus. SOURCES: Columbia; Global Warming Policy Foundation

TRUMP CUTS CLIMATE PROGRAM BUDGETS As part of President Donald Trump’s continuing effort to shift focus from the inane quest to fight climate change toward establishing American energy dominance, the Trump administration cut funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate and Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, reducing the number of fellowships by half, from eight to four. Since its inception in 1992, the program has funded 218 fellowships. The program’s eight fellows cost the nation’s taxpayers approximately $2 million each year. EOS reports the Trump administration has also defunded or put on hold at least two other climate-related postdoctoral fellowship programs at other agencies. Journalist James Delingpole writes another measure indicating the Trump administration’s “draining of the climate swamp” has begun to have an impact is the fact the words “climate change” appeared in 40 percent fewer university research grant applications in 2017, according to the National Science Foundation. “To be absolutely clear, … NOAA’s ‘prestigious’ Climate and Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship Program is a waste of money,” writes Delingpole. “The four places on the program which have been scrapped so far are a very good start. Let’s hope the other four places … are nixed soon.” I couldn’t agree more. SOURCES: Breitbart; EOS

RECOMMENDED SITES AND NEWSLETTERS   1000Frolley Bishop Hill Climate Audit CO2 Coalition Climate Etc. Dr. Roy Spencer No Tricks Zone Climate Exam Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow CO2 Science Real Science WiseEnergy International Conferences on Climate Change C3 Headlines Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Global Science Report Gelbspan Files Climate in Review, by C. Jeffery Small Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, The Heartland Institute Climate Policy, The Heritage Foundation Global Warming, Cato Institute JoNova, hosted by Joanne Nova Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute GlobalWarming.org Cooler Heads Digest Power for USA Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Master Resource The Climate Bet International Climate Science Coalition Climate Scientists' Register Science and Public Policy Institute Climate Depot by Marc Morano World Climate Report by Dr. Patrick Michaels Biweekly Updates from the Cooler Heads Coalition Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts ICECAP by Joseph D'Aleo Junk Science by Steve Milloy

February Environment & Climate News:

Trump Moves to Open U.S. Offshore Waters for Oil and Gas Drilling

The February issue of Environment & Climate News reports Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced plans to make more than 90 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) acreage available for oil and gas exploration and development. The area is estimated to contain 98 percent of the federal offshore area's undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources. "While we're not likely to see the fruits of this important decision for a number of years, this is just one more example of the commitment of the Trump administration to maintain U.S. energy dominance,” Heartland Institute Policy Analyst Tim Benson said.

Also in this issue:

• A resolution calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reopen and review its finding that carbon dioxide poses a danger to human health and the environment was presented to an American Legislative Exchange Council Task Force at the organization's States and Nation Policy Summit in Nashville, Tennessee and was withdrawn amid controversy.

• Unable to see an end to court battles and local objections, Energy Management Inc. announced it was cancelling Cape Wind during the final week of November 2017, ending its battle to erect what it intended to be the nation's first offshore wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts.

• A Pima County, Arizona Superior Court judge ordered the University of Arizona to release emails related to the "Climategate" scandal.

• Former Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus warns the world will suffer an extreme economic decline unless world leaders embrace climate realism and reject policies that would end fossil fuel use.

---

The full text of the issue is available online in Adobe Acrobat's PDF format: February 2018 Environment & Climate News. 

All issues of Environment & Climate News are archived here: Environment & Climate News Issue Archive. 

 

December Budget & Tax News:Congress Considers Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

The December issue of Budget & Tax News reports on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a bill proposing to reduce the number of personal income tax brackets from seven to four, cut taxes by approximately $1.51 trillion over the next ten years, exempt more estates from the death tax and then repeal it altogether, and make other changes to the federal tax code. Dan Pilla, one of the country's premier tax experts and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, said the proposed cut in the corporate tax rate would make the United States an attractive place for businesses to come, build, produce, and establish infrastructure.

That would be a good thing, no doubt about that.

Also in this issue:

• After an earlier ballot campaign to repeal a big gas tax hike in California stalled, another group of taxpayers is about to begin collecting signatures for a similar ballot question.
• Despite ample evidence of Internal Revenue Service harassment of nonprofit political organizations, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to charge Lois Lerner with federal crimes.
• Kentucky state government workers are fighting proposed reforms intended to keep their public pension plans' promises.
• A new law in Pennsylvania will give some patients a chance to use drugs awaiting final FDA approval.
• Fayetteville, North Carolina taxpayers will soon be on the hook for a new baseball stadium and lawmakers say it's a good investment, though economists say they never pay off.
• A new book examines the legacy of Alexander Hamilton, characterizing one of the nation's beloved Founding Fathers as an originator of big government.

Heartland Institute Experts Comment on Latest Senate GOP Obamacare ‘Fix’

By Peter Ferrara, Justin Haskins, Michael Hamilton, Dave Racer, Jane M. Orient, M.D., Devon Herrick, Chad Savage, Scott Ehrlich, Brian R. Forrest, M.D., Roger Beauchamp

The Republican Caucus in the U.S. Senate released today yet another bill aimed at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), often called Obamacare. The bill, called the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), would allow the sale of less-generous insurance plans currently outlawed by Obamacare, offer Medicaid block grants to the states, retain many of Obamacare’s tax hikes, and provide subsidies for Americans to purchase health insurance.

The following statements from health care policy experts at The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Media Specialist Billy Aouste at media@heartland.org and 312/377-4000 or (cell) 847/445-7554............. Read More.....

August Environment & Climate News:

Senate Reconsiders Bills  to Reclaim Regulatory Authority

The August issue of Environment & Climate News reports the U.S. Senate is taking new steps to reassert its constitutional responsibility for federal rulemaking. Earlier this year, the Senate
successfully deployed the Congressional Review Act to reverse 14 Obama administration regulations.

It is very important Congress reassert its authority and say, "The executive branch cannot go at it alone," said Jeff Stier, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Also in this issue:

• Stymied by a state legislature that rejects his climate change agenda and other policy goals, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has claimed executive authority to impose regulations he wants.

• In a victory for grassroots property rights advocates, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad signed a law barring the use of eminent domain to build high-voltage transmission lines that would carry wind energy into Illinois.

• U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton introduced the Water Rights Protection Act. The bill would prohibit federal agencies from requiring the transfer of privately held water rights to the federal government in exchange for granting or renewing a permit for the use of federal land.

• Gov. Chris Sununu announced New Hampshire will not join the U.S. Climate Alliance, a group of 12 states and Puerto Rico that have pledged to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels.

---

The full text of the issue is available online in Adobe Acrobat’s PDF format: August 2017 Environment & Climate News.

All issues of Environment & Climate News are archived here: Environment & Climate News Issue Archive.
If you were sent this email by a friend or colleague, subscribe to be sure you don't miss an issue!

Dear Ivanka, Please Consider This

May 12, 2017 By H. Sterling Burnett, Joseph Bast Climate Change Weekly #249

 

If you don’t already subscribe to Climate Change Weekly or other Heartland e-newsletters, you can quickly do so here.

---

NOTE: This week’s lead essay is excerpted from an open letter Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast sent to Ivanka Trump, daughter of and top advisor to President Donald Trump. The essay, published in The American Spectator, explains why the United States should not stay in the Paris climate agreement.

---

Dear Ms. Trump,

Recent news stories report your interest in the climate change issue. I share your deep concern over the future of our planet – it’s an unbelievably beautiful and precious thing, something we must cherish and protect for all of Earth’s creatures and for future generations.

I am writing to urge you to proceed carefully as you explore this subject, because those who claim climate change requires “immediate action” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or even “transforming the world’s economic system,” have often misrepresented the science and economics of this issue. The truth is climate change does not require that we reduce energy consumption or replace fossil fuels with alternative energies.

Your father is right when he questions whether global warming is a genuine “crisis” or a product of hype and exaggeration by various interest groups. He is also right to suggest the issue is being used to extort money from the United States, handicap American businesses, and undermine our economic growth and prosperity. …

Once you look at the underlying science – the same sort of number-crunching you would perform for a complicated business transaction – you will discover there is no scientific case for reducing our use of fossil fuels.

– Joseph Bast
READ MORE: The American Spectator

---

IN THIS ISSUE …
Higher carbon dioxide reduces soil toxins … Arctic sea ice levels not unusual … Proof of pause growing … Poll: Weather forecasters increasingly buck climate consensus

---

HIGHER CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCES SOIL TOXINS

A paper in Chemosphere finds a little-discussed benefit of the effect of increased carbon dioxide on plant growth: At higher levels of carbon dioxide, plants remove greater amounts of toxins from the soil and at a faster pace. Soil contamination by heavy metals, including cadmium and lead, is a serious problem in many parts of the world. In China, it is estimated more than 20 million hectares of land are contaminated.

In controlled tests, the Chinese researchers involved in the study sowed black locust seeds in pots in open-top chambers maintained under ambient carbon dioxide levels of 385 parts per million (ppm) or elevated levels of 700 ppm. At 30-day intervals, 30, 60, and 90 days after the locust seeds sprouted, the researchers collected samples from each treatment. They found black locust grown under higher carbon dioxide levels were “associated with greater removal of heavy metals from … soils relative to ambient CO2 … [with] improvements in the microenvironment suggest[ing] that elevated carbon dioxide could benefit soil fertility … under heavy metal stress.”

That is: The plants studied remove from the soil greater amounts of toxins under conditions of elevated carbon dioxide levels, thus improving the soil’s fertility – its ability to grow crops and other useful plants suppressed under conditions of high heavy metal contamination.

SOURCE: CO2 Science

---

ARCTIC SEA ICE LEVELS NOT UNUSUAL

Satellite monitoring has shown a dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice extent since at least the 1970s, especially in the late summer months. The timing of the start of the satellite measurements has proven unfortunate because it coincided with the end of several decades during which Arctic sea ice extent was generally increasing – so satellite recordings of sea ice began when ice was at high levels, making the subsequent measured decline seem both particularly sharp and unusual. However, long-term sea ice trends show this decline is not unusual and, at least over the past century, has tracked temperature trends in the Arctic.

A new paper in Hydrological Sciences Journal, using a new dataset describing seasonal and annual Arctic sea ice extents for the period 1901 through 2015 from North American, Nordic, and Siberian regions, shows the recent period of Arctic sea ice retreat since the 1970s followed a period of sea ice growth since the mid-1940s, which followed a period of sea ice retreat from the 1910s until expansion began in the 1940s.

SOURCE: Hydrological Sciences Journal

---

PROOF OF PAUSE GROWING

A study in Scientific Reports adds to the growing body of peer-reviewed literature confirming the Earth experienced a hiatus in rising temperatures from at least 1998 through 2012 and links the temperature pause to natural factors, primarily a shift in ocean cycles coupled with changes in cloud distribution. Although NOAA researchers claim there never was a pause in global warming, this study confirms the pause, finds it comparable to a pause in temperatures measured from 1950 through the early 1970s, and says it is clearly recorded in global satellite data sets.

The researchers write: “Compared with the warming trend of the past several decades, the rate of increase of annual average global mean surface temperature (GMST) has experienced a reduction between 1998-2013, known as the hiatus. However, climate models designed to represent the physics and dynamics of the climate system project that GMST continued to rise in the early 2000s.”
The researchers posit the cause of the pause is a large shift in ocean circulation patterns coupled with changes in cloud distribution. The pause in surface warming is also evident in the troposphere and is due to a “transition of internal climate variability…, including interactions between large-scale circulation and cloud distribution.”

SOURCES: Scientific Reports, Geophysical Research Letters (behind paywall), and No Tricks Zone

---

POLL: WEATHER FORECASTERS INCREASINGLY BUCK CLIMATE CONSENSUS

In 2016 the U.K.’s Guardian reported on a survey led by researchers at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication concerning the views of broadcast meteorologists on climate change and humanity’s role in it. The lead author of the survey was Edward Maibach, one of 20 academics who signed on to a letter to U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse arguing climate skeptics should be prosecuted for racketeering.

Nearly all weathercasters who responded to the 2016 survey said they believe climate change is happening, although just 67 percent said they thought humans were responsible for most climate change.

A new survey shows that percentage to be falling. Between 2016 and 2017, the number of broadcast meteorologists who responded to the survey and said they believe humans have caused most or all of the present climate changes fell from 67 percent to less than half, only 49 percent. In 2017, only 15 percent of the meteorologists responding to the survey thought climate change was largely or entirely man-made, falling from 29 percent in 2016. Twenty-one percent of respondents think climate change is more or less equally caused by human activity and natural events, while another 21 percent think climate change has been primarily or entirely due to natural events.

Among broadcast meteorologists, there never was a 97 percent consensus humans are causing dangerous climate change, and evidently even that tide is turning. Today, not even a majority of them support that view. If the views of broadcast meteorologists are any indication, the forces of climate realism are rising.

SOURCES: Jo Nova Blog, 2017 Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists, and The Guardian

Heartland Institute on Global Warming

Four Reasons Trump Should Withdraw From Paris Climate Agreement
H. Sterling Burnett, American Spectator
There’s a tug-of-war going on in the White House over the Paris Climate Agreement. One side wants President Donald Trump to keep the United States in the treaty and negotiate a better deal. The other side insists the president must keep his promise to withdraw entirely. Each side is arguing its position is the best way to help “Make America Great Again,” but the “stay in Paris” side is 100 percent wrong. Here are four strong reasons why...........

Union of Concerned Scientists Hates the Truth About Global Warming
William M. Briggs,
The Stream Nobody, save the odd lunatic, denies Earth’s climate has changed. And all scientists agree that mankind affects the climate. So the term climate change denier has to be one of the dumbest, most inapt, and most foolish phrases of our times. Anybody who uses it proves she is clueless of the science of climatology ... or that she has something other than the practice of science on her mind. Like, say, politics. Which brings me to Ann Reid of the Union of Nervous — oops, make that Concerned — Scientists, who is panicked about The Heartland Institute’s mailing of Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming to every science teacher in America.........

President Trump Should Run, Not Walk, Away From the Paris Climate Treaty
Joseph Bast, The Federalist
If President Trump does not withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Treaty and, even better, from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), then the leaders of other countries will use the treaties as a huge stick with which to beat U.S. consumers and producers. American independence and prosperity – and greatness – will be impossible. The American people, and the middle class in particular, will once again have been betrayed by the political class in Washington DC................

Lord Monckton's Presentation at the Heartland's 12th International Conference on Climate Change

Heartland Institute: Resetting Climate Policy

Friends,

As I head to Washington, DC, I thought you might appreciate a quick update about the 12th International Conference on Climate Change, starting Thursday morning at 8:00 a.m. ET.

• William Happer, Ph.D., has joined the program as a keynoter during the final plenary session, a lunch on Friday. He'll be joined by Sen. John Barrasso, who will receive an award from The Heritage Foundation's Becky Norton Dunlop.

• Jay Lehr, Ph.D., is giving the opening keynote address, breakfast on Thursday, using a PowerPoint presentation we created at the request of the White House. Jay is the most popular speaker expressing climate change realism in the country today, delivering one or two addresses a week all across the country. We hope he will share the stage with a TBD representative from the Trump administration, but we are awaiting confirmation (so to speak!).

I will kick things off with opening remarks at 8:00 a.m. ET on Thursday, and then introduce Dr. Lehr.
Every presentation made at ICCC-12 will be livestreamed. You can view the proceedings by going to www.heartland.org. The schedule is available here.

This is no amateur production! Speakers and their PowerPoints are expertly displayed, lighting and sound are top-notch. So tune in and enjoy. Better yet, urge your friends to do the same.
You can make a tax-deductible contribution to help us offset the expenses by going to our online donor page or go to our crowdsourcing site on Indiegogo.

I'll see some of you in Washington DC!

Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
3939 North Wilke Road
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Phone 312/377-4000
Email jbast@heartland.org
Web site http://www.heartland.org

Heartland Institute

Heartland Institute Leading Contingent of Climate Realists to Paris for UN’s COP 21  - The Heartland Institute is partnering with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Heritage Foundation and other allied organizations to bring some of the world’s most esteemed climate scientists and policy experts to present the inconvenient, data-based truth to the United Nations’ COP 21 summit in Paris. Heartland will ensure sound science is heard at COP-21 – what the global press is calling the last chance to convince the world’s governments to “solve” the global warming crisis......

Stop the UN Climate Treaty! Help Support Heartland’s Trip to COP-21 - One of the most important battles in the history of the global warming debate will be fought this December at a United Nations climate conference in Paris called COP-21. The Heartland Institute is working with other leading think tanks and advocacy groups to make sure our voice – the voice of sound science and economics, of energy consumers and taxpayers in America – is heard. Donate at Heartland’s Indiegogo crowd-funding site today to help support this vital mission......

Bill Nye, the Anti-Science Guy, Demeans Science – Hopes to Silence Climate ‘Deniers’, H. Sterling Burnett, CNS News

Bill Nye the “science guy” is trying to bring an end to the global warming debate, not by introducing new data or responding to objections. Instead, during a recent interview, Nye said he seeks to end the debate by convincing people to ignore opposing voices and refuse all discussion of the matter. According to Nye, If you doubt any aspect of the theory that the use of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic environmental impacts, you are not worth listening to….

Wildlife Is Thriving in Chernobyl Nuclear Zone, Tiffany Taylor, The Heartland

Good and surprising news: Many species in the Chernobyl nuclear exclusion zone have higher population numbers than before the nuclear accident, according to a new study published in Current Biology.  “Researchers have not found any mammal species adversely affected by nuclear radiation,” said Dan Simmons, vice president for policy at the Institute of Energy Research.

Left Exposed Profile of the Week: Greenpeace

Greenpeace is a goliath in environmental circles. This often-controversial organization has more than three million members and offices in 40 countries. From nuclear energy to fishing regulations, Greenpeace fights on multiple fronts. Heartland’s Emily Zanotti and Ron Arnold document the organization’s history, funding, and controversies with a new profile posted at LeftExposed.org.

Featured Podcast: Kyle Maichle: The Push for an Article V Convention

Kyle Maicle, project manager for the Center for Constitutional Reform, joins Host Donald Kendal to discuss the progress of the various movements pushing for a constitutional convention to create a balanced budget amendment. Maichle describes the timeline of a potential convention and the obstacles that stand in the way. He also addresses the threat of a runaway convention that many critics tend to bring up.