"You're not laughing now, are you!"

Nigel Farage to the European Parliament:

BREXIT!

In Summary:



Doom, gloom and scare-mongering continue 

The Economist:
CBC:
Globe and Mail: Richard Nesbitt 
National Post: Andrew Coyne, John Ivison 

Realism and optimism

National Post: Rex Murphy, Conrad Black,  Terence Corcoran
PJ Media: Roger L. Simon, Roger Kimball

CO2 is beneficial, there is no climate crisis

So says Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore in his latest publication.  From the conclusions:

... Despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary, much of Western society has been convinced that a global warming and a climate change crisis is upon us. The idea of catastrophic climate change is a powerful one, as it encompasses everything and everywhere on Earth. There is nowhere to hide from “carbon pollution.” There is also the combination of fear and guilt: we are fearful that driving our cars will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing so. A powerful convergence of interests among key elites supports and drives the climate catastrophe narrative. ...

... Lost in all these machinations is the indisputable fact that the most important thing about CO2 is that it is essential for all life on Earth and that before humans began to burn fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was heading in a very dangerous direction for a very long time. Surely, the most “dangerous” change in climate in the short term would be to one that would not support sufficient food production to feed our own population. ... The best outcome would be that CO2 does cause some measure of warming, but somewhat lower than that suggested by extreme predictions.  We should ask those who predict catastrophic climate change, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, some pressing questions regarding the outcome if humans had not intervened in the carbon cycle. 

• What evidence is there that we are not already past the maximum global temperature during this Holocene interglacial period? 

• How can we be certain that in the absence of human emissions the next cooling period would not be more severe than the recent Little Ice Age? 

• Given that the optimum CO2 level for plant growth is above 1,000 ppm and that CO2 has been above that level for most of the history of life, what sense does it make to call for a reduction in the level of CO2 in the absence of evidence of catastrophic climate change?

• Is there any plausible scenario, in the absence of human emissions, that would end the gradual depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere until it reaches the starvation level for plants, hence for life on earth? 

• What evidence or argument is there that the global climate would not revert to another glacial period in keeping with the Milankovitch cycles as it has done repeatedly during at least the past 800,000 years?

These and many other questions about CO2, climate and plant growth require our serious consideration if we are to avoid making some very costly mistakes.  

[via]

"If you see something, say something!"

Mike Huckabee on the Obama counter- terrorism strategy:

... At the same time that the Obama Administration was arguing for the right to gather electronic data on every US citizen, including reporters, it was abandoning real leads, killing a serious terrorist investigative unit and deleting its files, and removing experts and training materials on how to identify threats, all because those things might be seen as culturally insensitive to Muslims. This is how political correctness kills, and it just set a new US record. 

To sum up, the Obama Administration’s counter-terrorism strategy in 13 words:

Socialism for the Uninformed

Thomas Sowell:

Socialism sounds great. It has always sounded great. And it will probably always continue to sound great. It is only when you go beyond rhetoric, and start looking at hard facts, that socialism turns out to be a big disappointment, if not a disaster. ...

...