Image 01 Image 03

A Case Study in the Brutal Treatment of Climate Change Skeptics

A Case Study in the Brutal Treatment of Climate Change Skeptics

Eco-Activists’ #WarOnWomen target Kathleen Hartnett White, nominee for lead of White House Council on Environmental Quality.

This year, the American press has suppressed news related to the near assassination of the Republican congressional baseball team by a Bernie Sanders supporter and the apparently brutal beating of Senator Rand Paul by a neighbor whose Facebook pages are filled with anti-Trump messages.

In this environment, it is no wonder that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has rolled back many toxic climate change regulations, feels the need to direct his agency’s dollars to his own security.

There are so many threats against the head of the Environmental Protection Agency that his security detail is being expanded from 18 to 30, it was reported Monday.

Officials said the extraordinary measures are necessary because Scott Pruitt is getting far more death threats than anyone who has ever led the agency.

“We have at least four times — four to five times the number of threats against Mr. Pruitt than we had against Ms. McCarthy,” Assistant Inspector General Patrick Sullivan told CNN, referring to Gina McCarthy, EPA chief during the Obama administration.

A case study to demonstrate the toxic environment and savagery of today’s progressives is the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White, an experienced Texan politician with over 6 years of high-level administrative experience, as the lead of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Last year, she and Stephen Moore wrote the book Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy.

Her grilling during the Senate confirmation process is a verbal burning-at-the-stake for environmental heresy. This video from the always pompous Sheldon Whitehouse will give you a sense of what White endured.

Czech theoretical physicist Lubos Motl, who has studied the numbers and the dynamics related to climate change issues and is a skeptic himself, had a full analysis of the exchange. He concludes the questions were entirely irrelevant to energy policy and not based on credible science:

…The questions by Whitehouse are a typical political trial designed to hurt the image of Ms White. Most climate alarmists wouldn’t know the answer to that question, either, and even most of those who would know because they just memorized a number from an article wouldn’t really know what it means, whether it means anything, and how such numbers may be estimated.

On the other hand, White served for six years on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality as chairman. There she oversaw 3,000, engineers, scientists, attorneys, and other technical and administrative employees. White also issued 1,000 administrative enforcement orders, handled million dollar budgets responsibly, and successfully issued thousands of permits so that businesses could operate.

I would assert that she is well qualified to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality, as she has the practical experience to do so. You can get a sense of White’s professionalism by reading this piece on “Cleaning the Air on Climate Change.

Policies to replace fossil fuel-based electric generation with wind and solar generation necessitate massive land modification and habitat destruction. Renewable installations can require hundreds to thousands more acres of land than a coal, natural gas or nuclear power plant to produce the same power. In contrast to pre-industrial eras when forests were a primary source of energy, the density and efficiency of fossil fuels have been kind to trees -shrinking mankind’s physical footprint on the surface of the earth.

The organized attack by environmental justice warriors also included viscious social media attacks. Perhaps my favorite is this one, because I think it’s her best selling point:

However, most went something like this:

Clearly, the progressive #WarOnWomen continues, as does the war on #ClimateChangeHeretics.

Legal Insurrection readers have a chance to help, if so inclined. Please contact your Senators and voice your support for President Trump’s and Pruitt’s more sensible and realistic approach to protecting our environment without crippling our economy and destroying what’s left of our middle classes.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The reason – and the ONLY reason – the left gets away with this is because of the likes of ryan, mcconnell, boehner, mccain and the rest of the GOPe rats complicit with them.

Paul In Sweden | November 11, 2017 at 8:49 pm

The myth of the missing heat is a joke to anyone that follows this CAGW hoax and has read through the climategate emails. The celebrity global warming enthusiasts lament the fact that they cannot find the ‘missing heat’ that they insist must have been created but seems to only exist in their computer models. In a sense global warming exists but only on computer models not on earth in reality. Just like my wife has a farm with all kinds of animals but only in her Sims game.

In the climategate emails it was also noted that scientists conspired on both sides of the Atlantic to adjust historic ocean temperatures to make them appear more like their flawed climate models.

Since climategate the cult of global warming has had another couple of goes at adjusting ocean data. I can’t take these people seriously.

CO2 is a colorless, odorless essential gas for life. Last time I checked CO2 was at 400 parts per million, commercial greenhouses install CO2 generators to boost CO2 to 1200+ppm and back in Jurassic times when little ferns that we see today grew to 25 feet tall CO2 was as high as 8000ppm in the atmosphere. When you exhale your breath contains about 44,000ppm CO2. CO2 is not pollution. We are only at 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and all that CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere is now fossil fuels and limestone. This is something important to understand because at 400ppm CO2 we are closer to 150ppm CO2 where plants begin to starve to death than 8000ppm CO2 when plants grow to gargantuan size.

The absurd notion with CO2 being a theoretic control knob does not have any basis in the real world as the geologic record shows no correlation of CO2 levels to major changes in climate. There are too many parameters that are known and too many that are yet not understood. In fact what global warming enthusiasts admit is that clouds are responsible for 90-95 percent of the changes in climate. Guess which parameter is not included in climate models? Yup, clouds are not included in climate models. So all the climastrologists model our world hundreds of years in the future with faulty data that comprises less than 10 percent of the factors that they believe goes into Climate Change.

Color me a skeptic.

Kathleen Hartnett White was correct in her answer but she did not know exactly why, her inquisitor had the wrong answer on his list of Gotcha questions but wouldn’t have the patience or desire to know why it was wrong or even what it means. As long as Kathleen Hartnett White knows CAGW is BS and if she can pack all the clowns at the EPA into as few Electric cars as possible when they are terminated and sent off to green energy pasture the better. They can take all those high paying green energy jobs Obama says he created.

Now we find out NASA has found volcanic heat under western Antarctic ice shelf… and the loss of ice there is NOT from “climate change” but from Pele.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to alaskabob. | November 11, 2017 at 9:50 pm

    The Western Antarctic Ice Shelf(WAIS) which is the Northern most part of the peninsula is the only area of slight periodic decline and that is in fact due to volcanic activity. The rest of Antarctica is increasing in size and the new research stations are designed on adjustable stilts so that they can be periodically raised so that they are not buried like the old research stations.

    Here is something to show global warming enthusiasts:

    In the mid 1960s, ITT built a power transmission line in Antarctica. The transmission towers stood 115 feet tall.

    As you can see in these photos, all but the top 30 feet of the towers are now buried in ice.

      Great pictures, and I definitely am a “climate science denier” (and proud of it). But I don’t think I would show that site to the acolytes of AGW. That site is posting pictures from at least three decades ago and anyone who takes the time to read the description would know that. My take would be if that is the result of about 20 years of snow accumulation, there likely is no trace of them ever existing now that another at least thirty years accumulation has occurred. An AGW cultist would probably say that it has melted since the 1980s.

        Paul In Sweden in reply to Edward. | November 12, 2017 at 4:19 pm

        ‘cept the last idiot CAGW alarmists going to Antarctica were trapped on their ship of fools in the ice and the ice has been so extensive and long lasting that the research facilities have had difficulties in being supplied during the summers to last out the winters.

he organized attack by environmental justice warriors also included viscus social media attacks.


The study of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) long ago ceased to be a case of scientific inquiry and has now become a cult. Those scientists that support AGW largely do so because it promises them a huge source of funding that dramatically would increase their chances for obtaining grant money that would go a long way to allow them to publish and eventually obtain tenure. Under Obama, funding for AGW research, in some areas, increased ten fold turning the “research” there into a cash cow for researchers. Being that only proposals promising to show how some aspect of AGW was real and the bad things it was going to do to the world was funded and little to no funding was provided to even discuss whether or not AGW was real speaks loudly of how this “research” was actually nothing more than scientific prostitution.
This all stems from the fact that the entire field of AGW study has become politicized because there are many who want to use AGW as a club to justify their political agenda. As such, non-scientsts such as Senators or Congressmen, journalists, and even the common person on the street, all hear a one sided story based upon the propaganda the Left wants you to hear. Few to none of these people know the least bit about science so they develop a rabid like attachment to the “experts” who support their view that is more based on peer pressure than it is science. These adherents to AGW are so rabid that they have absolutely no clue as to what the science says or of the most fundamental concepts of science and yet they have the audacity to lecture real scientists on the subject. I and many of my colleagues have had situations that arise almost every year where some freshman child, armed with their newly minted high school diploma, tell us, their chemistry professor, how we are poor scientists because we do not support AGW and “everyone just knows AGW is real and a clear threat to the world”.
The result of this is situations like the one recorded in this article. When a pompous politician asks the gotcha question such as the one here, there is a better response that only a real scientist (or someone coached by one) would know. That response would be something along the lines of
“If you are asking me Senator of whether or not I know the rigorously defined and precisely measured random number you have in mind, then the answer is “no”. My question to you is do you know how such a value would even be obtained, the degree of uncertainty associated with the value obtained, the assumptions made to obtain the value, or anything else associated with the value? The crux of the matter is not this arbitrary value, rather it is how could such a value be determined given all of the assumptions and unknowns. Indeed, I would not waste my time worrying about your preferred number for first I would rather look to understand the energy flows that would lend itself to generating your desired number. Before that even happens though, I think it would be far more important and enlightening that we determine what the correct and necessary question that first need to be asked. For example, we still do not have a good handle on how much of the global warming effect is caused by man and how much is nature driven. There are some who claim this has already been done, but this is not the case for the numbers thrown around have not undergone a rigorous debate or analysis and, as such, this number is highly controversial and dependent upon whether or not you are a “denier” or a support of AGW. If it turns out the vast majority of perceived AGW is nature driven, then hearings such as this one are completely worthless. Additionally, we do not know the cost that will be incurred to fix AGW if it is shown to be primarily man made just as we do not know the cost of doing nothing. In other words, if AGW is shown to be man made, then we do not know if we can even afford to try and fix the situation for we do not even have a definition of what fixing this situation would entail so we cannot even determine what success looks like. Now Senator, your friends and “experts” may wish to tell you that these questions have already been asked and answered, but I can assure you that we do not know nearly enough to do that today. Wouldn’t you agree that we should understand the scope and size of the problem before we run off finding solutions? Wouldn’t you agree that we should know the relative costs of a solution before we try to implement them? Don’t you agree that we should define what success looks like before we even start to find solutions? The answer to all of these fundamental question do not exist, despite what your experts tell you for we do not know nearly enough to answer them. Doesn’t this seem like the real issue we should be discussing?”
If you are a real scientist, then you know the answers to the questions I cite have yet to be found. If you are a scientist, then you know the overwhelming complexity of things like climate and how we do not nearly understand it well enough to know the answer to these questions. As a scientist, I know I can talk to the lay person, politician, journalist, or whomever, and make it sound lie a crisis or a no-never-mind, like a well defined and understood situation of a confusing case where superficial answers based upon what I want you to hear, and so forth. Few people understand what research and science is all about. They fail to understand that the American Ph.D. in the hard sciences is likely the most difficult academic achievement one can attain nor do they understand how complex and intellectually challenging scientific research is. (For example, as a post doctoral student 35 years ago, I was told that my success as a researcher starting our would be defined as one peer reviewed publication per year with me as a first author. Think of this. To be successful, you would need to work 50-60 hours a week for a year to obtain one peer reviewed publication and that was a successful effort. This is considerably more effort than most would ever believe to be required to obtain enough information for a publication.) Despite these realities, a great many who have no clue about science or research seem to think that it is something they can easily understand and that simple answers suffice. If research is so simple and so easily understood, then why is it that of all the Ph.D. researchers I have known throughout my career, I would estimate that less than 25% are truly good at it?

‘Let’s put you in the ground.’ — Jerry Brown, Governor of California

Sounds so much like …

“We will bury you!” (Russian: «мы вас похороним!», translit. “My vas pokhoronim!”).

A phrase that was used by Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956.

“Climate change is real… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.”

— National Academies of Science; Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, U.K., U.S.

    Sorry, Zachy, but we just don’t believe organizations paid off by government grant money and the hope of looting the US.

      SDN: we just don’t believe organizations paid off by government grant money and the hope of looting the US.

      Pointing to national academies of science is a stronger argument than saying “Is not!”. If you prefer, we could point to virtually every scientific organization on the planet.

        Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | November 13, 2017 at 12:51 am

        On the contrary, these academies are driven by politics, not science. We’ve seen over and over how they lie, and how they persecute dissenters.

          Milhouse: On the contrary, these academies are driven by politics

          There’s always politics, that doesn’t make the academies wrong, or the specialists within the climate science community mistaken.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Zachriel. | November 13, 2017 at 2:33 am

    “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”
    -Richard Benedik United Nations

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
    -Ottmar Edenhoffer United Nations

4th armored div | November 12, 2017 at 9:29 am

i did a goggle search and on the 1st page found

In 1807, as Parliament in London was preparing to pass at last William Wilberforce’s bill to abolish the slave trade, the largest factory complex in the world had just opened at Ancoats in Manchester. Powered by steam and lit by gas, both generated by coal, Murrays’ Mills drew curious visitors from all over the country and beyond to marvel at their modern machinery. There is a connection between these two events. The Lancashire cotton industry was rapidly converting from water power to coal. The world would follow suit and by the late twentieth century, 85 percent of all energy used by humankind would come from fossil fuels. —>It was fossil fuels that eventually made slavery <—
–along with animal power, and wood, wind and water–uneconomic.

PragerU features James Damore, the Google software engineer who was fired

Yeah, Google lost a real asset there.

Fired Google employee James Damore has Twitter war after KKK questions

Ive seen video of this popping up on friends timelines on Facebook. The thing that struck me was the holier than thou attitude towards White along the lines of “look what an idiot has been nominated”. Its the usual belittling approach lefties have to anyone who doesn’t confirm to their world views etc. I had ignored them until now merely observing to myself something along the lines of “now what the fuck is the left outraged over”.

But how tone deaf are liberals? They complain about the Republicans war on woman YET when women are nominated to be leaders within the administration its as if it don’t count cause they are Republicans? And we wonder how it is liberals keep attempting to kill conservatives because of their political beliefs eh.

There is no empirical evidence which confirms that long term, large scale climatic warming is the result of human activity. The the greatest provable fact that sinks the argument that global climatic warming is induced by human activity, or is even significantly influenced by it, is the fact that it has been occurring since before the human race ever produced any noticeable pollution. As the facts not only do not support the theory of man-made global warming, those supporting that theory are left with nothing but empty insults and ad hominem attacks.

What drives the man-made global warming craze are three things. The first is simply profit; money and/or power. The second is a perverse need to feel important. And the third is a perverse desire for suicide, on a species scale.

Much of the man-made global warming hoax is driven by simple greed. Third world countries are using it to steal power and money from mainly the first world countries. Entrepreneurs are getting rich selling anti-pollution devices which have little of no effect on the levels of global pollution. And researchers are making money chasing the latest end-of-the world craze [these are the same people who were predicting another ice age in the early 1970s]. And, the politicians are lining their pockets with campaign contributions and subsidies and off-the-books perks.

Then we have the people who are so insecure that they want to believe the human race is actually capable destroying an entire planet by use of fluorocarbon propellants, passing intestinal gasses and breathing. Then you have the wanna be heroes. These people are also insecure. They need some dragon to slay in order to feel important, or even worthy of life. And, the dragon of world ending global warming is the biggest dragon in sight. Bot of these groups are classic psychological case studies. But, these people are extremely dangerous, as any proof that their belief in their own own relevance may not be accurate can cause them to react violently.

Finally, we have the self haters. They so loath themselves that are actually attempting to commit suicide by taking the entire human race down with them. They find themselves to be inherently evil and, by extension, all of the human race is evil and must be destroyed. Again, a clear psychological case study. And, again, very dangerous. These people are willing to do almost anything to insure their own demise along with the civilized world.

What is so intriguing about this phenomenon is that seemingly ration, intelligent people have actually listened to crooks and crazies for decades. When a rain maker could not bring rain, he was run out of town on a rail. When these people are unable to even provide a smidgen of empirical proof that man-made global warming even exists, people either ignore this or give them a second, or fiftieth, chance to prove it.

Photosynthesis – Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2/H2O into Food/O2; neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. More CO2 helps plants resist drought, damage &disease from insects & viruses. It extends growing seasons & lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using H2O more efficiently. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies, increase net rainfall & save lives. As CO2 levels rise, photosynthesis flourishes & plants take in more CO2, sparking more plant growth, photosynthesis & CO2 uptake.
This Cradle of Life is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 50 years ago.

And, remember, Sen. Whitehouse has been trying to get all “skeptics” INDICTED under RICO laws. Such ignorant politicians do not realize that the very crux of the scientific method is to be scepital of any theory, or model prediction, until it is validated by independent experiments. The models of the “warmest” cult, the IPCC models, have been shown to be grossly incorrect by all measurements made to date.
Martin Fricke, Ph.D., nuclear physics

Gordon J Fulks PhD | November 12, 2017 at 6:28 pm

Kathleen White should perhaps have realized that Senator Whitehouse was just blowing smoke during his obnoxious questioning of her. She need not know the details of alarmist arguments, because she is not a scientist. And of course, neither is he.

Whitehouse did not know the correct answer to his own question! He just knew the answers from the climate cult. As theoretical physicist Lubos Motl said of such people: “they just memorized a number from an article wouldn’t really know what it means, whether it means anything.”

The alarmist narrative claims tiny energy imbalances that do not show up as heat in the earth’s atmosphere, as they logically should. To solve this problem, they use either aerosols or heat absorption by the oceans as a fudge factor to bring their theory more in line with reality.

It is all a game to avoid admitting that they are failures.

What I like to point out when they claim to be worried about an imbalance of 1 or 2 watts/m2 is the 80 watts/m2 imbalance we encounter every year between January and July, due to the Earth’s slightly elliptical orbit. We get that much more insolation (incoming solar radiation) in January than July. Yet the planet is considerably warmer in July, because of the much greater land mass in the Northern Hemisphere. Dry land has a far lower heat capacity than our oceans.

Whenever someone encounters Senator Whitehouse, the safest assumption is that he knows NOTHING about climate science.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA