New “politically incorrect” climate change book sells out everywhere; “point-by-point take down” of global warming nonsense
April 17, 2018 by: JD Heyes
(Natural News) Proving once again that the Left’s claims about human-caused “climate change” and “global warming” are anything but universal, a new book disputing their progressive nonsense has shot to number one on bestseller lists while selling out all over the place.
The appropriately named tome, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” by Marc Morano, has rocketed to No. 1 on Amazon’s Climatology, Environmental Science, Nature and Ecology list, and is maintaining a solid ranking among Amazon’s Top 100, having already sold out once. Retail giant Walmart is also selling the book now.
A reported by Climate Depot, a website dedicated to exposing the fraud that is man-caused global and climate change edited by Morano, both Target and Walmart list the book “out of stock” on their websites, as of this writing.
He notes that the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which publishes Climate Depot, does have copies of Morano’s book, however.
A description of the book notes:
Less freedom. More regulation. Higher costs. Make no mistake: those are the surefire consequences of the modern global warming campaign waged by political and cultural elites, who have long ago abandoned fact-based science for dramatic fearmongering in order to push increased central planning. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change gives a voice — backed by statistics, real-life stories, and incontrovertible evidence — to the millions of “deplorable” Americans skeptical about the multibillion dollar “climate change” complex, whose claims have time and time again been proven wrong.
Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verifiedprovides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at HealthRangerStore.com.The book is winning plaudits from readers and pundits alike.
Talk host Mark Levin, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration and co-founder of CRTV, called Morano a “one-man general” leading the effort against the climate hoaxers.
“Marc Morano and he’s a terrific guy and he has written a brand new book ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.’ — I can’t possibly in this segment give this book the attention it deserves or give you the attention you deserve. You are like a one-man general fighting this effort and you have a complete comprehension of it. I want to strongly encourage my audience [to read it] — it’s digestible, it’s in plain English,” he said during a recent interview.
Conservative pundit and author Cal Thomas noted, “Read this book and you will become an informed climate change denier, armed with arguments and facts to counter the propaganda being pushed by climate change fanatics.” (Related: UN official actually ADMITS that ‘global warming’ is a scam designed to ‘change world’s economic model.’)
“I took everything Al Gore did in his books and movies and tried to do the exact opposite: use humor, entertainment and fun,” Morano told the Washington Times.
The paper further noted:
That makes his ideological foes even angrier…The liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America once dubbed him “Misinformer of the Year.” The 2015 documentary “Merchants of Doubt” portrayed him as a mustache-twirling villain. The progressive news/opinion website The Daily Kos slammed him as “evil personified.
In his book Morano essentially refutes the Left-wing climate doom-and-gloomers, noting that no, the sky isn’t falling, and no, there is no hard-and-fast, replicable evidence to ‘prove’ that our SUVs, cattle farts, and technology is sabotaging the planet.
The fact is, despite the claim on the Left that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” with the man-caused premise, it’s simply not true. That statistic is based on a hugely flawed sampling that was given overly broad ‘authority’ after then-President Barack Obama tweeted on May 16, 2013: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”
No one really disputes that the earth has warmed about a degree over the 100 or so years. No one really disputes that our climate is “changing.”
Where the alarmists lose people is when they blame it on just about every facet of life.
See more of the nonsense at Climate.news.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
Scott Pruitt’s Effort To Expose ‘Secret Science’ Has Environmentalists Scared Stiff
Posted on Sun 04/29/2018 by PA Pundits – International
By Diane Katz ~
A proposed rule announced Tuesday by Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is intended to bring much-needed transparency to agency rule-making.
The environmental lobby is positively apoplectic about the proposal (naturally), even though it aligns perfectly with its long-held commitment to the public’s “right to know” principle.
The proposed regulation would require the EPA to ensure that the scientific data and research models “pivotal” to significant regulation are “publicly available in a manner sufficient for validation and analysis.”
Despite existing rules on government use of scientific research, federal agencies routinely mask politically driven regulations as scientifically-based imperatives. The supposed science underlying these rules is often hidden from the general public and unavailable for vetting by experts. But credible science and transparency are necessary elements of sound policy.
The opposition from greens and much of the media greeting Pruitt’s announcement is, frankly, hypocritical in the extreme. Opponents claim that the EPA’s regulatory power would be unduly restricted if the agency is forced to reveal the scientific data and research methodologies used in rule-making.
But that is precisely the point. The EPA should no longer enjoy free rein to impose major regulations based on studies that are unavailable for public scrutiny.
Their claim that research subjects’ privacy would be violated is groundless. Researchers routinely scrub identifying information when aggregating data for analysis. Nor is personal information even relevant in agency rule-making.
Meanwhile, the EPA and other federal agencies are duty-bound to protect proprietary information.
Transparency in rule-making is vital to evaluating whether regulation is justified and effective. It is also essential to testing the “reproducibility” of research findings, which is a bedrock principle of the scientific method.
It takes real chutzpah for the champions of environmental “right-to-know” laws to now claim that the EPA should not be required to make public the scientific material on which regulations are based.
The public’s “right to know” was their rallying cry in lobbying for a variety of public disclosure requirements on the private sector as well as state and local governments, including informational labeling; emissions reporting; workplace safety warnings; beach advisories; environmental liabilities; and pending enforcement actions, to name a few.
The proposed rule is hardly radical. It aligns with the Data Access Act, which requires federal agencies to ensure that data produced under grants to (and agreements with) universities, hospitals, and nonprofit organizations is available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act.
However, the implementation guidance from the Office of Management and Budget has unduly restricted application of the law.
Moreover, the Information Quality Act requires the Office of Management and Budget “to promulgate guidance to agencies ensuring the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by federal agencies.”
However, the law’s effectiveness has been limited by a lack of agency accountability. Courts have ruled that it does not permit judicial review of an agency’s compliance with its provisions. The proposed rule is also consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.
The proposal also mirrors legislation passed by the House last year to prohibit the EPA from “proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such action is the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
A Senate companion measure failed to advance to a vote.
The EPA regulation has expanded exponentially every decade since the 1970s at tremendous expense to the nation. Secret science underlies some of the most expansive regulatory initiatives.
President Donald Trump has focused significant attention on re-establishing the constitutional and statutory boundaries routinely breached by the agency. The special interests that thrive on gloom and ever-increasing government powers are attempting to block the administration’s reforms at every turn.
But their opposition to the proposed transparency rule sets a new low for abject hypocrisy.
Diane Katz contributes Posts at The Daily Signal, and she has analyzed and written on public policy issues for more than two decades as a Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy at The Heritage Foundation . http://www.heritage.org/