“Meet the Press” Drops Any Pretense at Objectivity on Climate Change Issue

“The science is settled” on the issue of “climate change,” declared NBC’s Meet the Press host Chuck Todd, in introducing a special program promoting only one side of the issue with politicians who included former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Governor Jerry Brown.

Governor Brown even compared America’s challenge in fighting climate change to the challenge the country faced in World War II in defeating Nazi Germany.

“I would point to the fact that it took Roosevelt many, many years to get America willing to go into World War II and fight the Nazis,” Brown told Todd. “Well, we have an enemy, though different, but perhaps, very much devastating in a similar way. And we’ve to fight climate change. And the president’s got to lead on that.”

Brown did not specifically say who the “enemy” is now, but all the participants in Todd’s program clearly consider those who do not agree with them on the issue of climate change as either the enemy or perhaps collaborators. They often refer to those who do not believe that human industrial activity is having a significant impact on global warming as “deniers” — with an obvious allusion to the Holocaust.

As discomforting as it is to hear Democratic politicians such as Brown and Bloomberg to offer comparisons of today’s “climate change deniers” to Adolf Hitler’s National Socialists, it is not uncommon for such comparisons to Hitler to be made in U.S. political contests. But even beyond the climate change issue, Todd’s decision to not only take sides on the issue, but to declare the contrary position as illegitimate, powerfully illustrates an even larger reality: Todd and many other so-called journalists are not reporters, but seek to make sure one side wins.

“We’re not going to give time to climate deniers,” Todd explained. “The science is settled even if political opinion is not. We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter and human activity is a major cause. Period.”

Despite years of “climate change” propaganda, a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll demonstrates that Americans remain deeply divided — largely along partisan lines — on the issue. Only 15 percent of Republicans are convinced that climate change is “serious,” requiring “immediate action,” but 70 percent of Democrats are convinced.

And Todd, hosting a news interview show, has made it clear that he not only favors one side of an issue that deeply divides Americans, but he does not view those who hold a different position than he holds on the issue as even legitimate. Their arguments should be ignored.

This is not surprising, as Todd is clearly on the Democratic Party team, even having worked in 1992 on the presidential campaign of Senator Tom Harkin, an extremely liberal Iowa Democrat. Even since taking over the Meet the Press program, Todd has continued to support Democrats. The Daily Caller has reported that Todd and his wife even hosted a dinner party in 2015 for the communications director of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign effort. Kristian Todd, his wife, is the co-founder of a political consulting firm, which supports many partisan Democrat campaigns or progressive issues.

Clearly, Todd may want us to think he is wearing the uniform of the umpire, but he is really ready to make a hit for just one team.

As Governor Brown’s allusion to the efforts of President Franklin Roosevelt to persuade Americans to get the country into the war against Nazi Germany demonstrates, liberals believe it is up to them to alter Americans’ opinion on climate change. Interestingly, Roosevelt was never able to convince Americans to go to war against Nazi Germany — Hitler declared war on the United States. War came to the United States on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. That did not put us into the war against Germany, at least not until Hitler decided to honor his alliance treaty with the Japanese and declare war on America. Roosevelt did not even ask for a declaration of war against Germany until they first declared war on the United States. Most historians who have studied this subject believe Congress would not have otherwise declared war on Germany.

Tornadoes Have Not Cooperated With Climate Alarmists in 2018

With only scant days left in the year, 2018 is set to become the first year since formal record keeping began in 1950, in which the United States has not endured even one “violent” tornado. Violent tornadoes are classified on the Enhanced Fujita Scale as being EF4 (winds of 166-200 mph) or EF5 (winds over 200 mph).

The previous low number of violent tornadoes reported was in 2005, with only one. The strongest tornado reported in all of North America this year was an EF4, which touched down in Manitoba in August. Only 12 EF3 tornadoes (136-165 mph) have touched down in the United States this year, also a record low.

The record low for tornadoes is not quite a sure thing as of yet, as severe thunderstorm activity will threaten parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee through Tuesday of next week.

Fatalities from tornadoes in the United States are at an all-time low this year as well, with only 10 deaths reported. In an average year, tornadoes kill 69 Americans. The deadliest year for tornadoes was reportedly 1925, when the Tri-State Tornado alone killed 695 people in Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana.

The reasons for the lack of tornadoes this year are not completely known; however, “one key factor is high pressure tending to be more dominant than normal throughout peak season this past spring,” noted Ian Livingstone, a forecaster for Capital Weather Gang. High pressure systems generally tend to lead to blue skies and fewer clouds and storms.

“This was particularly so during April and May when tornado numbers were below to well below normal,” Livingstone added.

But with climate change, aren’t we supposed to see more violent and extreme weather?

The year 2018 is unusual for tornado activity, to be sure, but NOAA data suggests that the United States has been seeing a downward trend since formal record-keeping began in 1950. A NOAA chart appears to show that, despite what climate alarmists tell us, there is no correlation between severe weather (tornadoes, at least) and slightly warmer temperatures since 1950.

The lack of severe tornadoes over the past few decades has long been a thorn in the side of climate alarmists. Way back in 2012, James Taylor of the Spark of Freedom Foundation wrote, “Tornadoes are becoming less frequent and less severe as our planet modestly warms. Yet global warming alarmists focus attention on the few tornadoes that still do occur and say that global warming is causing these increasingly rare tornadoes.”

This year in particular, climate alarmists are blaming current weather events such as Hurricanes Florence and Michael on global warming. A new climate discipline known as “attribution science” is helping climate alarmists and the media connect current weather events to global warming — something that was “forbidden” previously since climate and weather are not the same thing.

These new “attribution scientists” were quick to blame climate change for the Atlantic hurricanes, Tropical Storm Olivia which hit Hawaii in September, the Japanese heatwave, and the California wildfires. And the mainstream media obligingly reported it.

But these “attribution scientists” and most media outlets are conspicuously absent in the study of tornadoes in connection with climate change. The fact that tornadoes are becoming less frequent rather than more frequent flies in the face of their contention that global warming will lead to more severe weather.

Thus far in 2018, climate alarmists such as carbon credit salesmen Al Gore are mum on what they think about the lack of tornadoes. Since a good part of climate alarmism plays up an increase in extreme weather due to warmer temperatures, their silence on the absence of tornadoes speaks volumes.

Texas City Celebrated by Al Gore in Financial Trouble Over Green Initiatives

Georgetown, Texas, a city featured in Al Gore’s 2017 science fiction film An Inconvenient Sequel because of its commitment to “green” energy, is now facing a serious financial shortfall due to those policies.

Gore, a carbon-credit entrepreneur and failed presidential candidate, copiously praised the city, saying, “I think Georgetown is already a trailblazer.”

“And one thing that Georgetown demonstrates to other places that are just beginning to think about [green energy] is that the power supply is not only more affordable, the cost is predictable for at least 25 years into the future and really beyond that.”

Wrong, Mr. Gore. Those costs aren’t even predictable even a year into the future.

Georgetown, a city of approximately 60,000 people in the center of the state, about 30 miles from Austin, is now desperately attempting to renegotiate contracts that it currently has with two renewable energy companies from which it purchases energy.

Georgetown has signed long-term contracts with the two companies: a 20-year contract the Spinning Spur 3 wind farm west of Amarillo and a 25-year contract with the Buckthorn solar power farm near Fort Stockton. The city purposefully purchased more energy than it needed to accommodate expected growth.

The city planned to sell the excess energy back on the Texas electricity market. However, the drop in fossil fuel energy prices — particularly natural gas prices — in recent years made that plan unprofitable, to say the least. Georgetown had budgeted $45 million for renewable energy, but ended up paying $53.6 million. In total, the city lost a total of 6.8 million in fiscal 2018 because of the switch to “green energy.”

City Manager David Morgan claims that the shortfall would have happened whether they had purchased green energy or not, and that the shortfall was more due to the long-term nature of the contracts. “We took competitive bids for all types of energy production and chose wind and solar because of the competitive nature of the pricing at the time,” Morgan said.

“If we had chosen a natural gas project in 2012 for a long-term contract, we would still have the same situation, because it’s all about long-term contracting and where the energy market was in 2012.”

Maybe. But some residents and at least one conservative think tank believe that Georgetown’s “green” initiative was more about attracting attention than dollars and sense.

Bill Peacock, the vice-president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), disagrees. “The city claims that this is just one of the challenges with doing business in an energy market and could have happened with any contract they had,” Peacock said. “That’s not the case, because what they did was bought more electricity than they could use almost any day of the year…. They knew they would have to buy this and sell it, and that’s not the way most people work. It’s more evidence that they are wanting to portray themselves as a green city rather than doing something for their consumers.”

And Georgetown has definitely attracted that type of attention. Besides Gore, many mainstream media outlets have taken to calling Georgetown a “city of the future” because of its commitment to “green” energy. The Texas city has even attracted international attention for being seen as a community that is “battling Trump” on climate change.

Dale Ross, the Republican mayor of Georgetown, sold the “green” energy scheme to his constituents as not just an environmental measure, but a cost-savings measure as well. “This is a long-term pocketbook issue,” Ross said in August. “It’s a win for economics and a win for the environment.”

It’s also an attention-grabber for Ross. At a town hall hosted by socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), which also included incoming socialist Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ross doubled down on his claim that “green” energy not only saves the planet but saves money as well.

“We’re at a tipping point right now,” Ross said. “Coal cannot compete with wind and solar on cost.”

But it’s definitely not just about dollars and sense for Ross, who according to the Smithsonian is the “unlikeliest hero of the green revolution.”

“I think we have a duty and obligation to leave the world better than we found it,” Ross told the panel. “We can do that; you just have to have bold, visionary leaders who we can elect — with ya’ll’s help.” The line received a deafening roar from the environmentalist crowd.

But while the mayor receives adulation from Al Gore and environmentalists worldwide, the taxpayers of the city are on the hook for an additional $7 million in energy costs because of short-sighted, attention-grabbing “green” policies.

CFSA21 banner