STEPHEN MOORE:

“…What is it with the modern left and the mainstream media that makes them so enamored with predictions of the coming apocalypse? Perhaps it is thanks to the old rule of journalism that bad news sells newspapers.

The media has broadcast far and wide the latest primal scream by the federal government and hundreds of scientists that all life on earth by the end of the century could be severely threatened due to climate change. Chicago could turn into Phoenix and its desert conditions. Economic losses will eventually total trillions of dollars. Early death, food shortages, and pestilence will become the norm without “radical” changes in the way we live and use energy. The alarmist report warns that climate change is already destroying the planet, as evidenced by the strange occurrence of natural disasters that have almost never happened in history, like forest fires in California, hurricanes in Florida, and floods in other nations.

How could a government report prepared by hundreds of scientists and with the official imprimatur of the federal government be wrong? The obvious answer is that they have been consistently wrong for decades in predictions of environmental devastation. Anyone over the age of 50 knows that we have heard these sensational, false malthusian forecasts from the federal government, and that reality has contradicted them in almost every instance. Look at history and consider the track record.

In the 1960s, the world became captivated by the likes of media darling and Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, who warned of a population bomb as humans propagated like field mice. He said people will live elbow to elbow, leading to mass starvation, and there was a 50/50 bet that Britain would survive as a nation. India, we were told, was beyond saving. These false worries became the basis for some terrible population control strategies, like the gruesome one child policy of China.

In the 1970s, the infamous Club of Rome report on “limits to growth” in the world, which was sponsored and funded by the federal government, saw the planet not surviving much past the year 2000 due to poverty, pollution, starvation, overcrowding, climate change, and natural resource depletion. It was all so horrifying that people across the country started wearing lapel pins that said, “Stop the planet, I want to get off.”

In the 1980s, the Carter administration spent millions of dollars on the most comprehensive environmental report ever undertaken by the federal government, employing hundreds of top scientists from more than two dozen agencies. (Sound familiar?) The end product dismally concluded, “If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. Serious stresses involving population, resources, and environment are clearly visible ahead. Despite greater output, people will be poorer in many ways than they are today.”

When skeptics raised the red flag on these forecasts, they were accused of questioning the “settled” science of the day. Only a few courageous “deniers” such as my mentor, the great economist Julian Simon, had the courage to call out the report as fallacious from the start. Simon was right, and the federal government and the hundreds of scientists were dead wrong. The next two decades delivered the best period of global prosperity, pollution reduction, lower poverty rates, rising living standards, more food production, and falling energy prices in history…

and

Scientists should have the wisdom and the modesty to admit that we have no idea what will happen to our planet as climate change continues over the next century. There are too many variables to hazard a decent guess. But the one indomitable lesson of history is that giving the government more power is the most dangerous threat to the future of our planet….”

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/418441-another-government-report-is-dead-wrong-on-fragile-state-of-our

“…A new White House report, issued just last Friday, makes alarming projections about future global warming. Not only will it cost billions and billions in lost economic output, that report says, but thousands of lives as well. Time for mass panic? Nope. Just more fake science.02:2602:26

The new National Climate Assessment (NCA) report, the fourth since 2000, seems to suggest a coming climate disaster, to paraphrase the film comedy “Ghost Busters,” of “epic, even biblical proportions.” But its forecasts and models border on the absurd. At some point, the scientific malpractice in these global warming scare reports has to end.

Some of the projections sound like something kicked around in a Hollywood brainstorming session for a science fiction thriller, and not like the results of sober scientific reasoning and balanced statistical modeling techniques. We shouldn’t be surprised, however. The three reports that preceded this one were equally bad.

By the way, that’s not us speaking,  but actual climate scientists. They say the latest government climate change report does a disservice to Americans by once again politicizing science and ignoring both real data and history.

The report’s conclusions are so extreme as to be laughable. For one, it predicts that use of coal and other fossil fuels will destroy 10% of U.S. GDP by the end of the century. Those are nice projections, since none of those who made them will be alive to see them proven totally false…”

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-fake-science-agenda/

Abe Greenwald:

“…Global-warming activists predicted that Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement on climate change would claim innocent lives. Trump pulled out over a year ago, and the death toll from the American snub stands at zero. In France, however, violent protests against President Emmanuel Macron’s efforts to mitigate climate change have killed one person and injured 227.

On Saturday, French mobs were protesting a tax hike on fuel. And they, not Macron, are directly to blame for the death and destruction. But the fact that these massive demonstrations happened at all—that they involved some 283,000 protestors—shows how little anyone really worries about climate change.

Macron is trying to get France off of fossil fuels. The French government recently raised diesel taxes by seven euro cents and had planned to raise the gasoline tax by four euro cents. But it turns out that people—not just Americans—care deeply about melting ice caps and rising sea levels only under specific circumstances. Namely, when they can be blamed on the greed and stupidity of their political enemies. They find that they suddenly care a lot less when addressing climate change means shelling out a few extra euro cents. So the French came out in droves, lit bonfires, tore up some buildings, blocked streets, and chanted slogans.

Last year, Trump fought back against critics of the Paris withdrawal by saying, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” But he might have represented the citizens of Paris, too. “We no longer know what kind of car to buy, petrol, diesel, electric, who knows?” said one protester interviewed by the Guardian. “I have a little diesel van, and I don’t have the money to buy a new one, especially as I’m about to retire. We have the feeling those from the countryside are forgotten.”

Another protestor said that “the fuel tax was just the final straw.” He went on: “All we can do is show that people are angry, that they are not alone and that they can do something about it. I hope there is no violence, but people are angry. I can understand why, for years they have voted for things and nothing has changed for them.” The protestors, known as gilets jaunes, for their signature yellow vests, enjoy 79-percent support among the French working class, according to IFOP.

Meanwhile, as Parisians turn against the core ideas of the Paris agreement, Americans are worked up over the Trump administration’s seeming indifference to a new U.S. government report on climate change. The Fourth National Climate Assessment was prepared by “300 leading scientists,” according to CNN. And like all sober scientific documents, it’s packed to the gills with apocalyptic predictions for the coming century.

The U.S. economy could lose 10 percent of its GDP; crops will shrink, much ocean life will die off, and more people will have less food. Illness will spread, pollution will get worse, floods and wildfires will increase, and, naturally, many people will die. Now, imagine the public response in our own low-trust, grievance-obsessed nation if the Trump administration actually instituted a policy that required every American to pay up to keep that theoretical future at bay.

There’s a curious contradiction in climate activism. On the one hand, we’re told that the effects of climate change are already happening all around us—that we no longer have to wait for signs of devastation. On the other hand, huge resources swing into action to lay out disaster-movie scenarios of a dystopian future. If the effects of climate change are already so evident, why go to all the trouble of scaring us about what’s going to happen? Maybe because even sympathetic people don’t really believe—in their marrow—that anything alarming is currently happening. If they did, perhaps they’d give up their cars and shrink their lifestyles on the spot. But as it stands, they scream for government intervention and then protest when called to share in the cost…”

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/the-paris-climate-discord/

Border agents routinely used tear gas during Obama administration, DHS data shows

Just in case you still think the media reports fairly and in an unbiased way.

“…Federal agents used tear gas on the U.S.-Mexico border dozens of times during the Obama administration, data from the Department of Homeland Security shows, despite growing outrage at the Trump administration from Democrats for using the substance against migrant caravan members over the weekend.

According to DHS data obtained by Fox News, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has used 2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile, commonly known as tear gas, 126 times since 2010.

During the Obama administration, tear gas was used on the border 26 times in 2012, 27 times in 2013, 15 times in 2014, eight times in 2015, and three times in 2016. That compares to 18 times in 2017 and 29 times in 2018 during the Trump administration…”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/

From Buck Sexton:

1) mostly women and children
2) mostly valid asylum seekers
3) no known criminals
4) wont make it to the border
5) no external organizers
6) troop deployment not helpful
7) no threat to US personnel

Why has the caravan of migrants been unable to enter the U.S.? Because of a defended wall.

Victor Davis Hanson explains how Trump’s success and loss of support in the midterms mirrors western lore.

“…But as the centrists of the suburbs showed in the recent midterm elections, those who saw Trump as necessary in 2016 may now see him as optional in 2018 — and probably because of his successes rather than his failures. In other words, good times allow well-off voters to forget bad times. Success breeds options. They are freed to turn their attention to the controversial means that had achieved for them their desired ends…”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/outsiders-trump-shane-save-the-day-but-are-ostracized/

And what they tell us about journalism. Journalism is a joke.

Trump Loves Kids So Much He’s Tear-Gassing Them Dana Milbank, Washington Post

Tear Gas Used Once a Month at Border Under Obama Stephan Dinan, Wash Times

Where was the media outrage and moral preening when the Obama Administration was forced to use tear gas in similar circumstances? This tells you all you need to know about media and journalism in the U.S.

A defense of Brett Kavanaugh’s nominated replacement on the D.C. Circuit.

“…Writing in The Volokh Conspiracy in 2011, Rao discussed the predicament of a man named Mr. Wackenheim. By her description, Wackenheim was a dwarf living in France who allowed others to throw him for sport. This was his source of income. After several French cities banned the practice, he “challenged the orders on the grounds that they interfered with his economic liberty and right to earn a living.” Higher courts eventually upheld the bans, ruling that the practice of dwarf tossing offended human dignity.

As Rao explained, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy used similar justifications to support the country’s ban on burqas. The former president, she noted, said that the religious wear “runs counter to women’s dignity.” But as Rao rightly responded, “the debate focuses little on what Muslim women think about the full veil or why some of them wear it in public. Instead of associating dignity with religious choice, those who would ban the veil treat dignity as a different social ideal—one that measures up to majority standards of individual self-expression.”

“Respect for intrinsic human dignity, however, would favor individual choice,” the now-D.C. Circuit nominee added. “As with other similar theories, it is a short step from having substantive ideals of dignity to coercion of individuals in the name of these ideals.”

Rao’s argument is a serious one. Her point is that one can disagree with another’s choices, but dignity is about the right to make those choices instead of having the government make them for us.

If you only read about Rao’s work in Mother Jones, however, you might
you might have thought that Rao simply has a niche affinity for dwarf tossing…”

https://reason.com/archives/2018/11/26/

I like John James. I’m not sure if he is a good pick for this post.

“…As Nikki Haley’s days as US ambassador to the United Nations come to an end, President Trump is actively looking for a replacement. Among those reportedly being considered is John James, the businessman, Iraq War veteran, and former Michigan Senate candidate who ran against Sen. Debbie Stabenow in the midterm elections.

According to the Bloomberg report, “James was at the White House last week talking about an administration post with Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence, two people said.”…”

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis

From Steven Hayward:

David French:

“…Our social-media companies face a series of fateful choices. If they choose to be primarily platforms for human expression, they’ll empower many millions of voices that they despise. They’ll facilitate outcomes they may loathe. If, by contrast, they choose to prioritize progressive ideology and progressive outcomes, they’ll limit their reach, their influence, and their wealth. They’ll open themselves up to aggressive competition.

What’s the lesson here? When you empower people, you find that they have their own will. When you seek to control that will, you find that they’ll rebel. The idealism of tech is dead. Human nature killed it. Nobody can have it all…”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/social-media-idealism-collides-with-human-nature/

A quick refresher course to remind us of previous global warming/cooling scares.

DESPITE A RACIAL-SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN, Andrew Gillum did worse with black voters than Bill Nelson. Maybe naked racial appeals don’t play as well? Or maybe they were offset by DeSantis’ school-choice support.

IT’S AS IF ALL THE GREEN PANACEAS ARE FAILURES: Driving electric cars won’t make a dent in global carbon emissions, and may even increase pollution levels.

You know what works? Nuclear power and fracking.

FLASHBACK: Border Agents Pepper Spray Rock-Throwing Migrant Crowd — Under Obama. Nobody was shrieking in outrage then, because Lightworker.

This is trouble. Russia is acting up because it can close to home. 

“…Russia fired on and then seized three Ukrainian navy ships in the Black Sea close to Crimea on Sunday, injuring six crew members, according to Ukraine, marking a sharp spike in tensions between the two countries and raising fears of escalation.

In a statement posted on its Facebook page, Ukraine’s navy said that ships belonging to Russia’s FSB border service had opened fire on two small armored artillery boats and a tug accompanying them. It said the Russian fire had immobilized the two artillery boats and that Russian special forces had then boarded and seized them, injuring six Ukrainian sailors…”

https://abcnews.go.com/International/

We should shut down all the border points of entry until Mexico can get these folks under control. Take a look at the video below to get some idea of what happened. Remember, the open borders media first told us there was no caravan, then we heard Trump made it up as election fodder, and now we have video of a mob of hooligans trying to breach our border. The mob through rocks at US Border Patrol Agents.