Swamp draining will expose corrupt climate crocodiles

Trump's EPA nominee Scott Pruitt has led the fight against the Clean Power Plan

al-gore1Massively wealthy climate fear prophet and green government subsidy profiteer Al Gore finally has something real to be alarmed about. And yes, it’s quite the opposite of rising sea levels. Responding to President-elect Trump’s pledge to drain the Washington, DC, swamp of corruption, their December 5 meeting must have tracked lots of muddy footprints onto plush Trump Tower carpets.

The discussion reportedly delved into murky science waters of manmade disaster concerning an inconvenient croc.

Just in case of any unlikely doubt, this is the very same former Senator Al Gore who convened the famous 1988 Senate Committee on Science, Technology, and Space hearings that produced a manmade global warming crisis media frenzy . . . an event which occurred about a dozen years after three decades of global cooling when many prominent scientists were predicting an arrival of the next ice age.

As his colleague Sen. Timothy Wirth, who helped organize the wirthlessmeetings, later stated in a PBS interview:

“We called the weather bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer . . . so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it . . . we went in the night before and opened all the windows so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room.”

This same “Goracle” has repeatedly warned that increasing CO2 emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that will flood coastal areas and cause more extreme weather unless we immediately ditch fossil fuels which supply about 85% of America’s energy in favor of windmills and sunbeams which now intermittently provide about 4%.

Yet other than two naturally occurring 1998 and 2014 to 2016 El Niño periods, satellites show that global temperatures have remained flat for nearly two decades despite those “record high” atmospheric CO2 emission levels.

Regarding that extreme weather, even the alarmist UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that there has been no overall increasing trend in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, or droughts in the U.S. or globally. In fact, no Category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since Wilma in 2005, the longest such lapse in more than a century.

Nevertheless, climate crusader Gore soon pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars from companies which were “going green.” He was also poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets through his stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange if and when Congress passed cap-and-trade legislation he promoted.

algore2Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it. . . There will be unchained investment.”

Perhaps — but not to the benefit of energy consumers. Billionaire environmental investor Bill Gates has made himself non grata among many staunch green energy believers by stating that “renewable” energy sources “aren’t a viable solution for reducing CO2 levels,” and that costs for continuing the current fad in subsidizing wind and sun energy sources “would be beyond astronomical.”

Even a former presidential candidate who ran on a renewable energy platform later admitted at a 2010 green energy business conference in Athens that, “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol.”

As Al Gore explained to Reuters, “One of the reasons I made that algore3mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa [the first in the nation caucuses state] because I was about to run for President.”

Of course there’s still lots of green to be scored by practitioners of climate calamity and “free” renewable energy cash-ins, including —

  • activist environmental groups that rely upon crisis-premised donations to support lobbying and media programs;
  • the many billions of dollars that fund the growth of government regulatory agencies that depend upon public fear;
  • university departments that bend objectivity to secure research grants;
  • anti-fossil energy lobbies seeking taxpayer and ratepayer handouts;
  • and a host of politicians and cronies who apply “save the world” hype to fill campaign coffers and personal bank accounts.

So finally, just how influential was Gore in convincing the new President-Elect about a fossil-fueled climate menace?

To be very generous, not so much.

pruOnly two days later, Trump picked Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a carbon-caused Armageddon skeptic and fierce EPA regulatory overreach critic, to head the agency. For example, he led a legal suit by attorneys general of 28 states which produced a Supreme Court stay of the Obama Administration’s war on coal (aka, “Clean Power Plan”).

Fittingly, Pruitt can also be counted on to drain EPA’s swamp of wetland regulations, including its claimed authority over farm ponds as navigable waterways.

More about this welcome EPA climate change in next week’s column.  . . .


About the Author: Larry Bell

Larry Bell

CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax."

  1. Diogenes60025

    Climate change is a false premise for regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.

    Others have shown the likely causes of climate change, and they DO NOT include human use of fossil fuels. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely and well-documented causes include sunspot cycles, earth/sun orbital
    changes, cosmic ray effects on clouds and tectonic plate activity. I make a further point here.

    Here’s why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological
    paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

    99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter
    (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.

    Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030–$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity’s cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.

    A modern coal power plant emits few air effluents except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy, along with natural gas. Coal has always competed effectively with natural gas. Illinois Basin coal now costs less than 1/3 the equivalent cost of natural gas at their respective sources. Coal is more competitive with gas today than it was in 1995.

    • Dano2

      Random internet commenter jus’ refutin’ ~2 centuries of physics and chemistry, ever’buddy! Impressive display!



        • Dano2

          I admitted that standard cut-paste from that bot done overturnin ~2 centuries of physics and chemistry, what more do you require?



          • Immortal600

            “2 centuries of physics and chemistry,”

            That have yet to show how CO2 drives climate. You have no clue as usual.

                • Dano2

                  and never have tried to

                  Sure I have. Many, many times. Just because that one addled, inept commenter kept typing that I haven’t because it is too thick to comprehend the explanation doesn’t mean it is true.



                  • Immortal600

                    No you haven’t. You have posted a bibliography that has shown nothing. That is all you have. It is obvious to everyone you don’t have a clue about climate dynamics. Your ‘tell’ is citing 200 years of Physics and Chemistry. None of it shows CO2 as a driver of climate change. You have your head stuck up you know where.

                    • Dano2

                      You have posted a bibliography that has shown nothing.


                      None of it shows CO2 as a driver of climate change.

                      Educated people know it is the basic scholarship behind the ‘CO2 driver’ assertion.

                      No word on why you are questioning the basic scholarship, taught across the entire planet, for decades.



                    • Immortal600

                      “Educated people know it is the basic scholarship behind the ‘CO2 driver’ assertion.”

                      Do they? That is pure BS and you know it !!! There are plenty of Physicists, and other scientists that challenge the theory. You know THAT too !!! Al you have is smoke and mirrors, clown.

                    • Immortal600

                      Poor Dano the kook. You simply have nothing but garbage to offer. It is obvious you have no clue when it comes to climate dynamics. NOW! For your next sophomoric statement……………………………………………………..

                    • Dano2

                      Let us know when you get to 12th grade.

                      Why should you let us know when you get to 12th grade?

                      You should let us know when you get to 12th grade because then we can look for your corrections to these erroneous assertions.



                    • Immortal600

                      The way you write you didn’t make it past 6th grade. You are such an immature child. You aren’t very bright either. Why? Your lame responses speak of a shallow mind. Let us know when you have gotten a clue, Dano the kook.

                    • Immortal600

                      blah, blah, blah. That is all you have? Sophomoric comments. You have no clue about climate dynamics and everyone here knows it. Poor Dano the kook.

                    • Dano2

                      That’s not hiding your erroneous assertions either.

                      Step up your game if you want to hide your erroneous assertions.



                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Err not true, C02 is rea[ised by heat and it puzzles some of us how you claim it can next is a driving force of heating. The mechanism might help.

      • Diogenes60025

        Thanks for the interesting link, which completely ignores conversion of CO2 to calcite in the oceans through biological paths.

      • RealOldOne2

        Your source is biased with the popular groupthink, “Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the previous 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis ) so it can be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.”
        That’s a totally false conclusion, based on the false assumption that natural CO2 levels are constant. The empirical evidence of the history our planet says that is not true. Science (Henry’s Law) says that is not true. Science says that a natural warming will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 as CO2 outgasses from the oceans and as the warming increases the greening of the Earth creating more biomass that decays.

    • Mnestheus

      Holy teleology, Bullwinkle– If it’s “A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.”

      How come CO2 in the air and carbonate ions in the oceans have both been going up nonstop since the Industrial Revolution?

      • Dano2

        Your job is to type manbearpig or serial and whine about his jet and self-righteously tut-tut about his house on the beach.




        • Immortal600

          “Your job is to” troll this site spouting inane garbage that only shows YOU as a fool and TOOL for the AGW climate kooks (well, that is redundant because you are a kook too…..hahahahahahahahahaha)

  2. Apr 21, 2016 Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy

    To make earth cleaner, greener and safer, which energy sources should humanity rely on? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains how modern societies have cleaned up our water, air and streets using the very energy sources you may not have expected–oil, coal and natural gas.


0 Pings & Trackbacks