I am taking some heat from people on my side because of my advocacy of a cheap way of getting co2 emissions down to 0. Its Chapter 14 of my book (De-Weaponizing the Real Battlefield) and I wrote about this here on CFACT, if you wish to re-read it:


And now its becoming apparent people seeing things my way are on to something. Why do I think this? Well, look what just came out of MIT.


Bingo, front row. Who has the most to lose if the combination of US agriculture, Nuclear power and an efficient point of generation carbon capture is put together?

1)An entire political agenda that advocates for the ending of the foundational values that made this nation great. ( Chapter 13 of my book: Political Weaponization)

2)Large technological and corporate interest who have invested in the kind of money that is involved in solving the “climate change” problem, but not in an inexpensive way.

3) Research based organizations that have invested time, money and reputation in this issue so that having it cheaply eliminated would not be in the best interest of them. (Chapter 9: The Weaponization of Academia)

And it all circles back to Eisenhower’s warning, which I made sure I had in my book.

.. [In] the technological revolution during recent decades … research has become central … complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government … the solitary inventor … has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields …

… the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. … we must … be alert to the … danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite [ii].

Ike’s Forecast is spot on right. You have to understand, when you are weaponizing weather and climate, you can not have any solution but your own, used. It’s a rigged game. And they know darn well the outcome of a cheap efficient way of making the US the leader in zero co2 emissions blows the whole agenda out of the water. My interest? 1) I am confident that it will show co2 has precious little to do with weather and climate, especially America’s co2 contribution. So it will show I am right ( along with my co-horts some of which who are not happy with me that I am somehow “giving in”. I am not giving in, I am calling their bluff and using their own weapon against them). 2) It would derail what I and many believe is plainly a leg of an agenda meant to destroy American exceptionalism, and the benefits that it affords to people on an individual level. To borrow from Mark Levin’s Great Book title, ( great book too) the Green New deal is cut from American Marxism.

My Americanism is individualism and exceptionalism. The Green New Deal is designed to destroy those.

Looks like the cheap way to solve the problem is getting over the target. So the flack is starting. At least this article seems to indicate that.


  • Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore. His new book The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate war can be found here. phonyclimatewar.com