Base Policies on Reality, Not Deceit

A tribute to Dr. Bob Carter

 

Dr. Bob Carter understood that climate frequently changes, and we must prepare to adapt.

By Paul Driessen

Dangerous manmade global cooling, global warming, climate change and extreme weather claims continue to justify what has become a $1.5-trillion-per-year industry: tens of billions spent annually on one-sided research and hundreds of billions sent to crony corporatists to subsidize replacing dependable, affordable carbon-based fuels with unreliable, expensive “renewable” energy.

Some 50 million acres of US crop and habitat land (equal to Wyoming) have been turned into corn-for-ethanol farms, biofuel plantations, and wind and solar installations. American forests are being converted to fuel for British power plants. Towering turbines butcher birds and bats, while Big Wind is exempted from endangered species rules that would cost fossil fuel companies billions in fines and send their execs to jail for such carnage. (But if you're saving the planet, what’s a few million birds and bats a year?)

Climate chaos is likewise the foundation for endless, punitive government policies and regulations intended to keep oil, gas and coal “in the ground.” Crony politicians pass laws and unelected bureaucrats impose rules that transfer taxpayer and consumer wealth, decide which companies, industries and workers win or lose, and control people’s lives, livelihoods, liberties and living standards.

Research and ruling classes benefit, while poor, minority and blue-collar families suffer – and Africans are told they must be content with wind and solar energy because, as President Obama put it, “if everybody has got a car” and air conditioning and a big house, “the planet will boil over.”

Climate Crisis, Inc. jealously guards this power and money train. The IPCC, EPA and NOAA spend billions in tax dollars to publish horror stories about runaway temperatures and looming disasters. Mike Mann sues anyone who disparages him or his work. Sheldon Whitehouse and Jagedish Shukla demand that anyone who disputes manmade disaster claims be prosecuted for “climate denial.”

Now a new Paris climate treaty says the “ultimate goal” is to stabilize atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that will “prevent dangerous [human] interference with the climate system” – under the assumption that CO2 now drives climate change and weather events.

The Paris accord stipulates that developed nations must reduce their emissions, regardless of impacts on economies, employment or families. This means they must de-carbonize, de-industrialize and de-develop – while they give trillions of dollars in cash and free technology to developing countries like Brazil, China, India and Indonesia, for climate “reparation” and “mitigation.”

Developing countries need try to reach their voluntary goals only if now-wealthy nations make those wealth transfers – and if reducing their emissions will not interfere with their “first and overriding priorities” of eradicating poverty, malnutrition and disease, and improving living standards and life spans.

This means fossil fuel use and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb – and US, EU, Canadian and Australian sacrifices will have no effect on stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels, much less controlling Earth’s ever-changing climate or weather, again assuming CO2 does determine climate.

But what if this dynasty is built on a foundation of errors, miscalculations and exaggerations – or worse: on manipulation, fabrication and fraud? The house of cards would tumble down, the catechism of climate cataclysm would go the way of other vanished religions, and the power and money train would derail.

Before his untimely death January 19, Dr. Robert M. Carter, former director of James Cook University’s Marine Geophysical Laboratory and expert on historic and prehistoric climate change, offered succinct analyses of climate forces, fears and realities, underscoring how fragile the climate chaos claims are.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, he always emphasized. It is a plant-fertilizing trace gas (400 ppm or 0.04% of the atmosphere), essential for photosynthesis and life on Earth. Rising CO2 levels are increasing crop, forest and grassland growth, improving ecosystems and wildlife, and feeding more people. In fact, the 50 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1981 and 2010 fertilized an 11% boost in plant cover worldwide. Moreover, current carbon dioxide levels are quite low relative to their levels across geological time, meaning terrestrial, fresh water and oceanic plant life is currently starved for CO2 by comparison.

The real scientific debate, Professor Carter noted in his book Climate: the Counter Consensus and other works, is about the direction and magnitude of global human effects, and their likely significance in the context of natural climate change – which has been occurring ever since Earth developed its oceans, atmosphere and climate. Indeed, modern temperatures are not unusually warm, compared to many previous periods in the historic and geologic record. My friend’s other insights are equally important.

* The primary temperature records relied on by the IPCC and EPA are far too short to be a useful tool for policy making and are inadequately corrected for the urban heat island effect and other errors. One analysis of these records found errors of 1-5 degrees C (1.8-9.0 F) for 1969 data in certain regions, when the claimed warming for the entire twentieth century was only 0.7 deg C (1.3 F); errors for records in the early century are likely even greater. Reliance on these records is thus misplaced

* Recent warming trends in Greenland and the Arctic are not alarming in rate or magnitude compared to other similar and totally natural warming periods over the past 250 to 10,000 years, as recorded in explorers’ log books and geological evidence.

* When we consider those climate records, the positive feedback effects of rising carbon dioxide levels (such as enhanced water vapor in the atmosphere), negative feedback effects (more low level heat-reflecting clouds, for instance), significant natural sources of more atmospheric CO2, and the declining “greenhouse” effect of each additional CO2 molecule, it is unlikely that conceivable human carbon dioxide emissions will cause “dangerous” warming or other climate changes in the future.

* The rate and magnitude of the reported 1979-2000 warming are not outside normal natural variability, nor are they unusual compared to earlier periods in Earth and human history. There is likewise no unambiguous evidence that humans have caused adverse changes such as melting ice, rising sea levels, rainfall or droughts, or “extreme weather” over the past 50 years.

* Moderate warming will reduce human mortality, whereas colder weather will increase suffering and deaths, especially if energy and climate policies make heating homes less affordable. 

* IPCC computer climate models have thus far not been able to predict warming or other climate changes accurately for even short 10-year periods. It is therefore highly unlikely that they can do so for 100 years in the future. Therefore, they should not be used as the basis for energy and economic policies.

* The IPCC does not even study climate change in its entirety, or all the complex, interrelated forces that cause periodic warming, cooling and other changes. It analyzes only variations allegedly caused by humans, and assumes that all recent and future changes are human-caused and dangerous. Its analyses, conclusions and recommendations therefore do not form a credible basis for public policies.

Carter’s ultimate policy recommendation was that climate hazards are overwhelmingly natural problems, and should be dealt with by preparing for them in advance, and adapting to them when they occur.

Whether the threats are short-term (hurricanes, floods and blizzards), intermediate (droughts) or long-term (warm or cool eras), preparation must be specific and regional in scale, for the perils vary widely by geographic location and a nation’s state of technological advancement. If governments prepare properly for natural hazards, their countries and communities will also be ready for human-caused climate disruptions, should they ever occur.

Professor Carter’s jovial Aussie persona will be sorely missed, but his insights and legacy will live on.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death. © January 2016

 

Hammonds were imprisoned for a crime they did not commit.

 

Senator Jerry Moran
361 Russell Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

 

Dear Senator Moran,                                                                              January 19, 2016

 

It was a pleasure meeting you at the National Western Stock Show this past Saturday. Hope you enjoyed the rodeo!

To follow up on my comment, “The reason the Hammonds are in prison is because of two uninformed people. One being the Hammonds attorney, and the other – a former attorney now judge who sentenced them.”

Here’s the statute that wholly exempts the Hammonds:

“Whoever, willfully and without authority, sets on fire any timber, underbrush, or grass or other inflammable material upon the public domain or upon any lands owned or leased by or under the partial, concurrent, or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or under contract for purchase or for the acquisition of which condemnation proceedings have been instituted, or upon any Indian reservation or lands belonging to or occupied by any tribe or group of Indians under authority of the United States, or upon any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the Government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section shall not apply in the case of a fire set by an allottee in the reasonable exercise of his proprietary rights in the allotment.”

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 788; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6254(j), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4368.)

The Hammonds were imprisoned for a crime they did not commit. I strongly urge you to lead your colleagues to a full Congressional investigation of Dwight and Steven Hammond’s unjust conviction.

Thank you,

 

Charles W. Sylvester

Retired General Manager National Western Livestock Show and Rodeo

 Cc: Senator’s Bennet, Barrasso, Enzi, Gardner, Merkley and Wyden

 Enclosed: Equal Standing Bill

________________________________________________________________

Equal Standing Bill

Equal Protection from Personal Attack (Malicious Deprivation of Constitutional Rights) Act by Federal Employee

Please Note: This can be modified to incorporate any existing constitutional rights protection law; and re-adapted to any and all domestic resource production.  

Whereas the Legislature finds that the Livestock Sector of the Agriculture Industry of the State is a critical and significant portion of the Agriculture Industry of the State and necessary for the continued health, prosperity and well-being of the people of the State, and,

Whereas a significant number of Livestock within the State spend a significant part of their lives on Federal Range lands, and,

Whereas the US Supreme Court has held that Stockwater Rights, Range Rights, Right-of-Ways, and Improvements, appurtenant to or associated with Range Allotments are Property Rights protected under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, and,

Whereas Federal Employees are required by the Fifth Amendment and Executive Order 12630 to consider the Takings Implications of their decisions and actions on the Property Rights of Ranch or Range Allotment Owners before taking those actions,

Therefore, be it resolved that whenever any Federal Employee acting under Color of Law, takes any action harmful to any Ranch or Range Allotment Owner in the State that deprives that Owner of any property rights without first giving due consideration to those rights by:

1) accessing property with permission,

2) conducting a thorough Takings Implication Assessment,

3) giving the Owner due process, and

4) paying just compensation as required by law,

that Federal Employee shall be deemed to be in violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Ranch or Allotment Owner and acting outside the scope of any federally delegated authority, and therefore, outside the protection of any federal immunity from prosecution and therefore guilty of the crime of Malicious Deprivation of Constitutional Rights and shall be subject to both civil and criminal punishment under the Laws of the State.  The violation of this Law shall be punishable as a Felony carrying a fine of up to $500,000 dollars and 5 years in prison for each separate offense. 

FBI, Quit Posing! - by Ramona Morrison

FBI, Quit Posing!
By Ramona Morrison

The FBI should quit posing as militia in Burns, OR, 30 miles from the refuge, apparently to facilitate the BLM narrative of imminent danger to the public and to selectively investigate private citizens. If the FBI doesn't smell a rat in the BLM's conduct and the facts surrounding the Hammond case, maybe they should look into a new career.
The FBI instead should focus its resources to investigate the widely reported suspicious activities surrounding the BLM manager who is m...arried to the USFWS Wildlife Refuge manager, and their push to resentence the Hammonds. They need to investigate allegations of the BLM/USFWS engaging in a decades long conspiracy to force the Hammonds to sell their ranch. They need to investigate allegations of multiple fires being started by the BLM and USFS which have burned private property and federal lands. Including in the Hammond case. They need to investigate allegations of collusion and conspiracy between federal bureaucrats and environmental NGO's. And based on the reported very strange conduct of the Harney Co. Sheriff and Judge, perhaps the FBI should investigate them too.

The FBI should recognize that the civil disobedience occurring at the refuge is a symptom of a long standing and worsening problem of abuse of power by federal bureaucrats in the West.
I fully agree that ranchers and protestors need to follow the law. But so do federal bureaucrats and county officials. Those charged with upholding the law have an even greater moral obligation to be above reproach. Unfortunately for the last many years in the West they have more often than not been lawless tyrants.
Currently, the only lawful relief the private citizen has from federal abuse of power is to attempt to seek redress in the courts. The bureaucrats count on the fact that most ranchers will lose. For my family who has won a number of important rulings recognizing our property rights on federally administered lands, the government has attempted to destroy us with punitive administrative decisions and by suing us civilly and criminally in federal court attempting to derail our positive court rulings. Nearly 40 years later we are still standing by the hand of God. But to most westerners watching, our saga does not seem like justice. The government is banking on the fact few want to follow our path in the courts.
If tyranny is the objective of our federal government employees, they are succeeding. The western rancher just happens to be on the front line in the war of the West, since the USFS has successfully destroyed the western logger.
Apparently federal land management policy is not to harvest timber or utilize God's lawn mowers to graze the range. Instead, they chose to let the West burn, sometimes with the assistance of Molotov cocktails.
Ramona Hage Morrison

Instruments of Violent Death in America

This article is also available on our website at:

http://www.narlo.org/idarchives/011016.html

 

Instruments of Violent Death In America

By Ron Arnold

Every time a gun is used in an accidental shooting, a crime, a murder, or terrorist attack in the United States, whether it be a handgun, rifle, AK-47, M-15, or machine pistol, the Democrats and especially President Obama, immediately call for more gun control, magazine limits, or outright confiscation of guns from lawful Americans, in spite of an all-powerful constitutional amendment and U. S. Supreme Court decisions that give authority to all legal citizens to own firearms. Each single event becomes a news story that runs for days, if not weeks or months. The liberal news media gleefully promotes and champions the Democrat’s plea. It makes no difference to the Democrats that most of the crimes, lone wolf, or terrorist attacks would not have been stopped by more gun control.

 

Humans, by their very nature, tend to be violent in certain circumstances. So let’s put gun violence in perspective with other forms of human violence.

 

Just recently, a homeless black woman in her twenties, with an infant in the back seat of her car, took to the sidewalk in Las Vegas and killed one person and seriously injured over 30 other people. Apparently, she did it on purpose. So she used her car as a weapon to kill.

 

Not too long before the Las Vegas incident, there was another similar case at a University of Oklahoma Homecoming parade where a woman purposely drove her car into the crowds of people watching the parade. Four people were killed, including an infant and at least 33 people were injured, some quite seriously.

 

Then there is the case of the drunk teenager who wiped out, no killed, four people and the corrupt court came up with a new legal term "affluenza" to get rich people off from heinous crimes. How many people are killed by cars operated by drunk drivers? According to the CDC, 10,076 people were killed in 2014 by alcohol-impaired drivers. Alcohol related deaths with cars account for almost one third of all traffic deaths. God knows how many are killed by the now legalized marijuana in four states.

 

These are just recent cases that rapidly disappeared from the news cycle. There are many more we could relate where a car is accidently or purposely used to kill people.

 

Terrorists have not only used airplanes to kill people in America and other parts of the world, but they have also used cars, knives and explosives. Just ask an Israeli.

 

In the United States cars are heavily regulated in their manufacture and operation and people require licenses to drive them. Road signage and traffic controls are everywhere. Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that cars are deadly weapons and kill people. From the Democrat’s rationale, there should be more car control and maybe even there should be a new law to confiscate cars from dangerous people, or maybe cars should be taken away from everyone because they are so deadly. But alas, the Democrats are and have been silent on the issue of deaths by car. Only deaths by guns activate their adrenalin.

 

According to the FBI for homicides in 2011, 8,583 people died by firearms. In 2013 32,719 people died from car crashes and over 2,000,000 were injured. In that same year of 2013, 1,694 people died by knife stab wounds and 496 people died by blunt objects like baseball bats and hammers. 728 people died by the use of hands and feet. If deaths or injuries were the rationale to pass laws, it is obvious that government should pass laws outlawing guns, cars, baseball bats, knives, hands, feet and even swimming pools.

 

But there is a much larger issue here that transcends outlawing knives, guns and cars. From the observations of this author and many others who use their intellect instead of their emotions, it is clear that Democrats are the party of excessive controls, regulation and "TAKE AWAYS." Democrats want to take away our guns. They want to take away our money for welfare, social justice, environmental protection, legal and illegal immigration and climate change to control us, regulate us and buy votes. But they don’t want to spend any money on maintaining a strong military. There are so few votes in the military industrial complex.

 

Democrats now control or excessively regulate our land, our food, our water, our money, our energy, our cars, our guns, our businesses, our schools, our health care and every other aspect of our lives. Except for a few instances in the last 100 years, Democrats have unilaterally controlled the American political process, along with the help of the unions, public schools, academia and the news media. Democrats have taken over America like the Communist Party tried to take over the movie industry in the mid 1940’s. But the Democrats managed to take over the movie industry instead. One man’s Democrat is another man’s Communist or Socialist. The movie industry is a powerful tool for propaganda, mind control and political money for Democrats and have been used extensively for such Democrat purposes.

 

Apparently, Democrats don’t think that Americans are smart enough to take care of themselves and yet the Democrats have shown us that they aren’t even capable of managing anything they touch, including domestic and foreign policy. Under Democrat control, states and cities have, or are going broke. Under Democrats, the national debt has risen exponentially to the point that it may be virtually impossible to ever pay back. Under Democrats, the economy is barely functioning, with tepid growth at best due to Democrat-sponsored massive regulations.

 

Under this Democrat President, the national debt has almost doubled since he took office seven years ago. Think about it. Obama, a Democrat, has doubled the national debt in seven years that it took over 200 years to build. Under Democrats and especially this Obama Democrat President, our position in the world has dropped precipitously. Our enemies don’t fear us and our friends don’t trust us.

 

Of course, the only reason that people would vote for a Democrat is because Democrats TAKE AWAY money from everyone else, money Democrats have no right to, and unconstitutionally hand it over to those who vote for Democrats. Those voters are now in the majority and by keeping the Democrats in power, they allow Democrats to control us, regulate us and TAKE AWAY our money and other things from us, you know, like our freedom. The hard truth is, Democrats want you to pay for their compassion so that Democrats can buy votes to stay in power.

 

The Democrats have been so successful over the last 100 years they even have the Republicans joining them so that Republicans can remain a viable political party but devoid of principle and honor. The current Republican House and Senate leaders are no different than the Democrats and in fact are aiding and abetting the Democrats and this President.

 

The single answer to this Democrat-Republican control dilemma can only come from the people themselves and the people show no signs of wanting to change anything. Except for a few million of us, most of the people like it just the way it is with their hands deep in the public till. One day they will be forced to pay a horrendous price and that price might very well come in the form of mass starvation, slavery, or may be even conquered by a foreign power. The Biblical phrase that says the meek shall inherit the earth is a myth. The meek are nothing but collateral, slaves and conscripts for the powerful and always have been. Only the courageous and the strong, in mind, spirit and body, will prevail in the long run. The strong always carry the weak on their backs, either out of compassion, or out of necessity.

 

Outlawing knives, baseball bats and cars, as we suggested in the title of this article, will not change anything, whether the Democrats do it, or the Republicans do it. Nor will more gun controls change anything. Americans will still be heavily regulated and controlled by an Absolute Democrat Monarchy and American sovereignty and freedom are, have been and will continue to be the losers.

 

Tell us what you think about this article at: comment@narlo.org.

 

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State.  He can be reached for comment at: info@narlo.org.

 

---

NOTE:  Feel free to forward this e-mail to others you know, if you deem it appropriate.   If you would like to be added to our e-mail list, simply insert ADD in the subject line and return the e-mail to us.  Be sure to include your full name, county and state you live in at the top of the e-mail.   We do not send our column to blind e-mail addresses. 

 

If you have received this message for the first time, or you have decided you no longer want to receive our "In Defense of Rural America" column, insert REMOVE in the subject line and return the e-mail to us.  Or UNSUBSCRIBE here.  Your e-mail address will be removed immediately. 

 

To Publishers:  You have our permission to re-print this article (or excerpts therefrom), provided we are given credit as the author and our website (www.narlo.org) appears with the article, or the excerpt.  It is not necessary to include the banner with the article.

Navigable versus Non-navigable Water

Navigable versus Non-navigable Water

 

Respective of the term navigable - and WOTUS (Waters of the U.S.), please know that under statute, the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers does not have authority over water/waterways instates west of the 100^th meridian.

Army Corps builds structures (dams, bridges etc.), but does not have regulatory authority over water.

When researching *removal of the debris/sediment on the S. Platte River in Colorado, we learned that there are "no open waters of the U.S." in the states west of the 100th meridian.
Federal jurisdiction applies only - to navigable waters of the United States.

So if, for one example, the South Platte is non-navigable, then there is no federal jurisdiction in the first place.

Even if the South Platte was navigable, then Title 33 USCA Chapter 26 Section 1370 says: "Except as expressly provided in this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall...  (2) be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States." 

What else is exempt from EPA or Army Corps authority?  (1) all navigable waters of the United States, as defined in judicial decisions prior to the passage of the 1972 Amendments.

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR § 423.11(m)  - - which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. This exclusion applies only to manmade bodies of water which neither were originally created in waters of the United States (such as disposal area in wetlands) nor resulted from the impoundment of waters of the United States. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.

*The term navigable waters of the United States is defined in section 502(7) of the FWPCA, and includes: (1) all navigable waters of the United States, as defined in judicial decisions prior to the passage of the 1972 Amendments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (FWPCA) (Pub. L. 92-500) also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), and tributaries of such waters as; (2) interstate waters; (3) intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which are utilized by interstate travelers for recreational or other purposes; and (4) intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams from which fish or shellfish are taken and sold in interstate commerce -

*removal -  Statutory permit exemptions make it clear that even if there were navigable waters in any state, Congress intended to exclude agricultural activities and emergency repairs such as the bridge debris clearing.

Volkswagen v. Government

The heat is on!

Why should Volkswagen be investigated for emission deception, but not government agencies?

by Paul Driessen                                                                                     January 9, 2016

The heat is on! Not the unusual winter warmth in much of the United States – but the unrelenting heat generated by propaganda and pressure campaigns that the White House, EPA, Big Green and news media are unleashing in the wake of the Paris climate agreement … and as a prelude to the 2016 elections.

A recent Washington Post editorial laid out the strategy. The long-term warming trend is “concerning.” Maybe we can’t blame this year’s strong El Niño “squarely on climate change,” but “one paper” says the number of strong El Niño years could double. Obama’s “landmark” carbon dioxide regulations “played a key role” in securing an “unprecedented” international climate deal that could eventually compel all nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, to “avoid serious risks” of climate catastrophes.

Above all, we must “build on 2015’s climate progress.” There must be no backpedalling on the Paris accord, EPA regulations, or replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. Above all, no “fishing expeditions designed to personally discredit scientists and undermine peer-reviewed research” that supports the elimination of carbon-based fuels. Republican claims are mere “bluster” and “buffoonery.”

Never mind that White House and EPA events, the Paris climate conference, the Vatican climate summit and even Science magazine have offered virtually no forum for numerous scientists who contest claims that humans are causing “dangerous manmade climate change” to present their case or debate alarmist witnesses and officials. Never mind that climate chaos claims look increasingly flimsy.

A fundamental principle is at stake here: policies and rules that affect our lives, livelihoods and living standards must be based on honesty, accountability and verifiable scientific evidence.

The Justice Department has sued Volkswagen on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency. They want up to $18 billion dollars in penalties, because VW installed special software that caused its diesel cars to emit fewer pollutants during tests used to ensure compliance with emission regulations. The falsified tests allegedly duped American consumers into purchasing 580,000 diesel-powered vehicles.

Federal prosecutors are also conducting criminal probes of Volkswagen and its executives. Countless other civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions have companies and citizens in their crosshairs. Such actions are often warranted, even if the draconian incarceration and monetary penalties are not.

No one should be victimized by fraud or other criminal activities, by private companies – or by government agencies and bureaucrats, or third parties they hire and use to validate their policies.

Equally important, no one forces us to buy a VW or any other car. But when it comes to laws and regulations, we have no choice. Submit, or else. If those rules are based on dishonesty – on emission deception at massive, unprecedented levels in the case of climate – we pay a huge, unacceptable price:

Our taxes support science that may be manipulated and fabricated. More taxes fund regulatory behemoths that target energy producers and energy-dependent industries, while giving billions in subsidies to crony-corporatist allies. Still more tax money is transferred to alarmists like Michael Mann and Jagedish Shukla, who launch vicious attacks on skeptics. And the resulting regulations inflict soaring energy costs that kill jobs and hammer families, companies, hospitals, schools and communities, for few or no benefits.

Congress has every right to investigate this. Indeed, legislators are duty-bound to ferret out fraud and abuse. These are not “fishing expeditions.” They seek to determine the reliability and integrity of data and studies presented to support enormously expensive policies, and ascertain the veracity of government officials and tax-supported scientists who want more power and too often refuse to answer questions.

EPA and Justice Department investigators demand full disclosure and tolerate no obstruction, obfuscation or misleading information. This is fitting and proper. But why should we and our elected representatives have to tolerate such actions by heavy-handed regulators who want to control every aspect of our lives, but routinely hide their data and methodologies, and refuse to be held accountable?

There are good reasons to doubt their climate chaos assertions, and even their integrity. What little warming our planet has experienced in the past 19 years is measured in hundredths of a degree, especially when adjusted for the El Niño effect that transfers warm surface Pacific Ocean temperatures to the atmosphere. The warming that has the Post, Mr. Obama and EPA in a tizzy began around 1850, as Earth emerged from a 500-year-long Little Ice Age – which by happy coincidence for climate alarmists also marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that they blame for most warming in recent decades.

Hurricanes and tornadoes, storms, droughts, polar ice and sea levels are all within the realm of historic experience. There is nothing “unprecedented” about them, and certainly nothing to justify shutting down our carbon-based energy system, restructuring our economy, or redistributing our hard-earned wealth to countries that are not bound by any energy and emission reductions agreed to in Paris.

The fracking revolution proves we are not running out of oil or natural gas. That means we have a century or more to develop affordable, reliable replacement energy technologies. It means environmental radicals now have only climate cataclysm hysteria to justify demands that we abandon hydrocarbons. It explains why they’ve concocted the fairytale that CO2 is “acidifying” oceans that are and will remain firmly alkaline, and why they have been in regulatory hyperdrive during Obama’s final years in office.

However, as Secretary of State John Kerry admitted in Paris, even if all the industrialized nations’ CO2 emissions declined to zero, “it wouldn’t be enough [to prevent alleged climate disaster], not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.” Even assuming that carbon dioxide does drive climate change, all the costly, job-killing regulations that EPA is imposing would prevent an undetectable 0.018 degrees Celsius (0.032 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century.

Earth’s climate fluctuates regularly. What actual evidence do climate alarmists have that recent changes are dangerous, unprecedented, and due to fossil fuel use? That any warming above 1.5 degrees C (2.7 F) would be catastrophic? (A cooler planet would be much worse for wildlife, people and agriculture.) 

What actual evidence do they have that government can control climate and weather by limiting the amount of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide that humans emit into the atmosphere? That justifies letting anti-energy activists and bureaucrats “fundamentally transform” our entire energy and economic system?

Why do they refuse to present their asserted evidence for all to see – amid robust debate and cross-examination – and try to defend their “97% consensus” science? Why do some of them think “climate deniers” are mentally ill for questioning the manmade climate Armageddon mantra?

President Obama insists that climate change is the biggest problem facing America. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders seem to agree. They all think Bigger Government is the answer.

The citizenry fundamentally disagrees. One recent Gallup poll found that Americans view our already huge government, the economy, jobs and terrorism as the biggest threats facing our nation. Pollution came in at #23; global warming didn’t even register among 48 listed issues. Another Gallup study found that 69% of all Americans (88% of Republicans) say Big Government is the most serious threat we face.

That is what this year’s elections are all about.

How much bigger (or smaller) will our government become? Who gets to rule your lives: We the People, or another dictatorial president and her army of faceless, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats? What will the future hold for our lives, liberties, livelihoods and living standards?

Get informed. Get involved. Get to the polls. Better yet, take a page out of the Democrats’ playbook: get to the polls early, vote often, and make sure your dead friends and relatives vote too.  

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.