Trump Appoints Conservative Ex-Navy Flier to Run NASA; Liberal Heads Explode

Jim Bridenstine
AP/Sue Ogrock

The next head of NASA is likely to be an ex-Navy fighter pilot turned Republican congressman who believes strongly in space exploration but is skeptical about man-made climate change.

What’s not to like about about Trump’s nomination of Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Oklahoma) for the job of NASA’s administrator?

Everything, if you’re a liberal.

According to New York Daily News columnist Linda Stasi, Trump just blew the perfect chance to change his “presidency from the chaotic mess of threats, bitterness and bilious paranoia to one of rationality and reasonableness.”

Apparently, the job should have gone to a fully-fledged climate alarmist.

There is no denying that our weather is getting more severe, that the oceans are rising, the Arctic ice is melting and hurricanes are wreaking ever-more havoc each time one pummels another part of the country.

Harvey has officially brought the most destructive rainfall in our nation’s history — more than 51 inches in some areas of Houston. As many as 42,399 humans are in shelters.

Yet in the face of all this, you, Mr. President, have chosen to nominate a climate change-denying partisan politician, Republican Rep. Jim Bridenstine, to head NASA. How can you even think of such a man.

As this planet heats up, we have to look to space. That won’t be done if the man heading NASA denies the science and looks down on the truth of what’s happening in our atmosphere.

It would be nice to dismiss this as the merely the deranged frothings of a rent-an-opinion, left-wing columnist who has bizarrely chosen to borrow her surname from that of the secret police in former Communist East Germany. Unfortunately, she’s by no means the exception. Most liberals think as she does.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Trump Lops Off Another of the Green Blob’s Tentacles

protesters
LLUIS GENE/AFP/Getty

President Trump has disbanded something called the Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment(ACSNCA).

Good.

That shrieking you can hear is the sound of the Green Blob, mourning the loss of another of its tentacles.

If you believe the liberal media, the ACSNCA – as probably no one ever called it – was a vital organization established by President Obama in 2015 as part of his career-defining mission to combat climate change:

The 15-member Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment included academics, corporate representatives, and local officials who were tasked with helping public and private-sector officials understand the findings of the National Climate Assessment so that the information could factor into their long-term planning.

Put more simply, the panel, which was founded in 2015, existed to make sure government data was able to help both the public and private sectors prepare for the inevitability and disruptiveness of climate change.

Yeah, whatever. In reality, it was just more expensive, entrenched bureaucracy; more jobs for the usual suspects from the green gravy train; more intrusive environmental policy inserted by these faceless apparatchiks at every level of government.

To get an idea of the people we’re dealing with – and of why the U.S. taxpayer has reason to thank Trump for nipping this operation in the bud – consider the committee’s chair Richard H. Moss.

The way New York magazine describes him below, you’d think he was some kind of scientific expert:

Read the rest on Breitbart.

‘But Climate Change…’ Wails EPA Official in Resignation Letter

A top EPA official has resigned, supposedly in protest at the direction the Agency has taken under President Trump.

Or — as we climate realists prefer to put it — #winning.

Elizabeth “Betsy” Southerland had worked at the EPA for thirty years. But on Tuesday she resigned from her post as director of science and technology in the Office of Water, claiming “the environmental field is suffering from the temporary triumph of myth over truth.”

Just what incredibly good news Southerland’s departure is can be best be appreciated by reading her farewell letter.

It’s supposed to be her Parthian shot — a damning indictment of the decline of a once-great institution under the wicked Donald Trump and his sinister henchman, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

But, actually, it tells you rather more about the weird, reality-denying mindset which prevails among the inhabitants of the swamp which Trump is busily trying to drain.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Is the Best Thing Ever (*)

us forces troops
Justin Sullivan/Getty

(*) Apart from all the other best things ever he has done so far…
Just like The Simpsons in the days when it was good, Trump’s ban on transgenderism in the military is great because it works on so many levels.

It’s great because it trolls like a boss.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Manchurian Candidate Macron Is France’s Obama

Macron
Georges Gobet/Jeff Pachoud/AFP/Getty

If you want to know the likely result of next month’s French presidential election run off, just look at how the markets responded. The euro and the French markets both jumped dramatically.
And this has nothing to do with the underlying strength of the sclerotic, unionised, statist, overtaxed, unproductive French economy or, indeed, with the future of the doomed euro.

It was simply a case of the status quo breathing a sigh of relief that it was going to be business as usual, after all: Emmanuel Macron, the de facto Establishment candidate is now pretty much a shoo-in for the French presidency; his rival, Marine Le Pen doesn’t stand a prayer – of that the Establishment will make sure.

But Brexit. But Donald Trump…

Nope: I’m afraid those arguments just don’t wash in this case. Yes, it’s true the world is in the throes of a revolution in which the globalist elite is gradually being overthrown by populist, nationalist rebels. But it won’t happen yet in France – a country whose political system has more in common with Putin’s Russia or Erdoğan’s Turkey or some African hellhole with a president-for-life than it does with liberal democracies.

That is, Emmanuel Macron is going to win this presidency because it was decided long ago by France’s Establishment that he was the least-worst option of the candidates available.

The fact that he is a hollow man – a slippery, snake-oil-salesman with a winning smile and nice suits – who will do almost nothing seriously to address France’s massive social and economic problems is a help, not a hindrance.

Emmanuel Macron is the left-leaning French Establishment’s Manchurian Candidate.

He attended one of France’s most elite schools where he was trained in Civil Service, graduating in 2004. His biography states that in 2007, he served as deputy rapporteur for the Commission to improve French growth headed by Jacques Attali, Macron was 29. But the Commission wasn’t formed until 2008.  Obviously he is a bit ‘math challenged’.  The  Commission report was heavily criticized for its proposal to ‘relaunch immigration’ and ‘open borders’… Attali was ridiculed and called a ‘globalist’.

Sound like anyone we know?

Macron left the Commission, which was shelved September 2010, to work for Rothschilds & Cie Banque where he became an overnight millionaire while working the Nestle acquisition of Pfizer’s nutritional outlet, which closed in 2012.   Nestle is a client of Rothschilds.  Macron had no experience in acquisitions and mergers whatsoever…

What does one do when one makes millions overnight?  Apparently one quits.  

He then left Rothschilds to work for Hollande as deputy secretary general of Elysee, and eventually Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Data in 2014 where he served 18 months before running for Presidency. I’d call that a pretty fast paced runup with little to no political experience or business savvy.

Indeed.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Climate Realists Urge President Trump to Pull out of Suicidal, Expensive and Pointless Paris Agreement

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has released a video urging President Trump to keep his campaign promise and withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

It features a speech President Trump gave in May 2016 explaining exactly why he wanted to pull out:

“This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over our energy and how much we use right here in America. No way!”

He adds:

“We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of the United States’ tax dollars to UN global warming programs”.

The video concludes:

Mr President. Don’t listen to the Swamp. Keep your promise. Withdraw from the Paris climate treaty. Send it to the Senate.

Now, however, he appears to be having second thoughts. His administration is reportedly divided on the issue, with White House insiders including Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arguing for the U.S. to remain inside the UN Paris agreement, supposedly in order to keep a “seat at the table.”

That would make it more expensive than a solid gold, diamond-encrusted seat at the table of King Croesus then. In fact, it would make it – at $65 trillion – the most expensive seat at the table in the history of the world.

And the $65 trillion, by the way, is a conservative estimate. This – according to calculations by Bjorn Lomborg – is the lower end estimate of how much it would cost the world if all the signatories of the Paris climate agreement stuck to their CO2 reduction commitments.

First, Bjorn Lomborg, accepting climate-change advocates’ assumptions about how much warming comes from carbon dioxide, showed in a peer-reviewed study that implementing all provisions of all signers to Paris would prevent only 0.306 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming by 2100.

What would it cost? Unofficial estimates by the United States, European Union, Mexico and China amount to $739-$757 billion per year.

Those parties account for about 80 percent of signatories’ emissions reduction pledges. Other pledges would have similar costs per unit, implying something in the range of $185-$189 billion.

All told, $924-$946 billion. Per year. Every year from 2030 to the end of the century. “And that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double,” Mr. Lomborg said.

So, for $65-$132 trillion, we might — if the alarmists are right — reduce global average temperature by a third of one degree by 2100. That’s $212-$431 billion per thousandth of a degree of cooling.

But if you think things just couldn’t any more stupid, wait till you hear what the effect of pouring all that money down the drain on futile carbon-dioxide reductions schemes will have on the state of the Earth’s climate.

Here is what a peer-reviewed study by Bjorn Lomborg says.

It will, by 2030, reduce “global warming” by the almost immeasurable 0.048 degrees C.

And by the end of the century, it will reduce “global warming” by 0.17 degrees C.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Trump at NASA: Hasta la Vista Climate Fraud and Muslim Outreach…

NASA’s top climate scientist Gavin Schmidt has warned President-Elect Donald Trump that the planet just won’t stand for having a fully-fledged climate denier in the White House.

Good luck with that one, Gavin. Or “Toast” as we’ll shortly be calling you…

Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), told the Independent:

“The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this.”

Unfortunately, Schmidt doesn’t feel so strongly on the issue that he is prepared to offer his resignation:

Asked if he would resign if the Trump administration adopted the most extreme form of climate change denial, Dr Schmidt said this was “an interesting question”. It would not cause him to quit “in and of itself”, he said.

“Government science and things generally go on regardless of the political views of the people at the top,” Dr Schmidt said. “The issue would be if you were being asked to skew your results in any way or asked not to talk about your results. Those would be much more serious issues.”

Schmidt’s principled position on skewing results is somewhat ironic given that skewing results is what he does best.

Last year a German professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert – a retired geologist and data computation expert – accused NASA GISS of having tampered with the raw data so extensively that it had effectively “invented” global warming.

As I reported at Breitbart:

He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

Ewert listed some of the trickery employed by Schmidt and his egregious predecessor James “Death Trains” Hansen to exaggerate the appearance of “global warming”.

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

This chart, comparing the satellite temperature records with Schmidt’s adjusted version, gives you an idea of the scale of the climate fraud being committed by NASA GISS.

Screen-Shot-2016-11-16-at-10.17.48-PM-768x577

Among Schmidt’s many outrageous adjustments are the ones he made to Iceland’s temperature data sets.

You can see – courtesy of Paul Homewood – what he did to the one at Reykjavik:

station-6

So long and slippery are Gavin’s tentacles that, it would appear, he has somehow persuaded the Iceland Met Office to accept these adjustments, where previously it had rebutted them. You can read the full story at Real Climate Science.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

It’s OK: Baths Are More Dangerous Than Terrorism, The Economist Reassures Us

At least I think that’s the subtext of the latest infographic from The Economist – house journal to Davos man, Euro technocrats and the rest of the globalist elite.

20160910_WOC962

Terrorism is here to stay, get used to it, the Ecommunist advises:

TERRORIST attacks are fiendishly hard to prevent. Anyone can rent or steal a lorry and drive it at a crowd. Especially in America, it is all too easy to buy high-powered semi-automatic weapons that can kill scores of people in moments. Neither great planning nor great intelligence is required to carry out such attacks. Thus it seems likely that much of Europe and America will have to get used to acts of Islamist-inspired terrorism becoming, if not routine, at least fairly regular occurrences.

It goes on:

Barack Obama was correct when he said earlier this year that the danger of drowning in a bathtub is greater than that of being killed by terrorists. Baths are a one-in-a-million risk. Even if the terrorism deaths in San Bernardino and Orlando were doubled to give an annual death toll, the risk would still be about one in 2.5m.

Well yes. But so what? A bath is a soothing, relaxing experience whose charms not even that scene in A Nightmare On Elm Street has quite managed to ruin. You can read magazines; you can wallow in every variety of bubbles and scented, therapeutic oils; you can improve the dextrousness of your toes by turning the hot tap on and off with your feet; you can listen to the radio; you can think deep thoughts.

Also, baths – in the unlikely event that they are going to kill you – do not alert you to your imminent demise with a bloodcurdling scream of “Allahu Akbar”; nor do they torture you beforehand like happened to some of the victims at the Bataclan massacre in Paris; nor are they undiscriminating. If you die in the bath, chances are you’re going to be elderly or infirm and probably on your way out anyway.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Obama Might As Well Have Declared: ‘Britain Lost the War Of Independence Because You Have Small D**ks’

The tactics went like this:

The Provocation

Barack Obama came to Britain and, in the guise of lofty, statesman-like disinterested amity made a statement so outrageously provocative that he might just as well have said: “My historians tell me the reason you guys lost the War of Independence is because your penises were incredibly small.”

No really – his presumption in telling us which way to vote in the European Union debate was that arrogant and rude. The only people in Britain who welcomed Obama’s intervention were the ones already on board with the European Union project. For anyone else, it was a calculated insult from a meddling hypocrite interloper.

The Inevitable Reaction

That’s why, naturally enough, those on the opposing side of the argument – the ones advocating exit from the European Union – responded in kind. If Obama was going to behave like a bumptious prick, well, he deserved to be treated like a bumptious prick.

Hence the perfectly proportionate response by Boris Johnson (Mayor of London; leading light of the Brexit faction) making gentle reference to the President’s Kenyan, anti-British heritage, to Obama’s pointed return of the Winston Churchill bust, and to the meddling, anti-democratic, and thoroughly un-American nature of his suggestion that Britain should remain shackled to the kind of socialist superstate that no American would personally tolerate.

The Manufacture of the Outrage

If you understand how the modern left – especially its Praetorian Guard, the Social Justice Warriors (SJW) – operates, what you’ll realise is this: that the sole tactical purpose of the President’s visit was to generate a kind of “beneficial crisis” which could then be exploited for political ends.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Obama’s State of the Union Climate Nonsense, Debunked

Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it.  You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.

If you put enough swill in the trough, Mr. President, the piggies will come running.

Our military

The military are on board because the government pays them to be (see also Muslim outreach; women in the military; etc) and because the Commander in Chief orders them to be.

America’s business leaders

The corporations are in it to “greenwash” their image and because they welcome the extra regulatory costs which are effective at closing down smaller competitors. Also, if they’re called Solyndra or Bright Source, or they’re part of the subsidised wind industry, they’re in it because you’re bribing them with taxpayers’ money.

The majority of the American people

In a Pew Survey in November last year, 45 percent of Americans considered climate change a “serious problem”, 41 percent believed it was “harming people now” and 30 percent were “very concerned it will harm me personally.” Not a majority then.

Almost the entire scientific community

The scientific community — like the military — is largely dependent on public funding, which is currently heavily geared towards the “global warming” scam. Still, we know that since 1998 more than 31,000 scientists — 9,000 with PhDs — have signed a petition disputing man-made global warming theory. We also know that the ’97 percent consensus’ figure often cited by Obama (but not this time: his spin doctors are getting cannier) has been roundly debunked as a complete fabrication.

Read the rest at Breitbart.