Tag: climate change

Categories
Quick Analysis

New EPA plan not based on solid science

On August 3, The Environmental Protection Agency released its new Clean Power Plan, aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power plants. The central reason for the plan is to limit global warming, a concept considered “settled science” by its advocates, including the Obama Administration.

Far-ranging policies that will cost Americans a great deal have already been adopted in response to the global warming theory. Further, much of the policy action has been adopted by regulation, not legislation which would have allowed for far greater public debate and review.

The problem, of course, is that the theory of man-made global warming is neither settled science nor particularly accurate, given the numerous issues its proponents have completely failed to address.

31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, have signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate. Even some advocates of global warming have objected to governmental intervention. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, quoted in infowars.com,  notes that the changes due to global warming are too small to account for.  He stated that in the January 2014 article that “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

For thousands of years, far beyond the birth of modern industry and pollution-causing activities, the planet has alternately warmed and cooled, a result largely of solar activity.  The warming described by advocates of radical measures inspired by man-made global warming advocates warming is not consistent with prior periods of naturally occurring change. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski A world-renowned atmospheric scientist and mountaineer who has excavated ice out of 17 glaciers on 6 continents in his 50-year career, wrote in a 21st Century Tech article:

“Since the 1980s, many climatologists have claimed that human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history. … Just a few years earlier, these very same climatologists had professed that industrial pollution would bring about a new Ice Age. In 1971, the spiritual leader of the global warming prophets, Dr. Stephen H. Schneider from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that this pollution would soon reduce the global temperature by 3.5°C.1 His remarks were followed by more official statements from the National Science Board of the U.S. National Science Foundation, ”. . .[T]he the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age.” In 1974, the board observed, “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.”2No matter what happens, catastrophic warming or catastrophic cooling, somehow the blame always falls upon “sinful” human beings and their civilization— which is allegedly hostile and alien to the planet…

“In fact, the recent climate developments are not something unusual; they reflect a natural course of planetary events. From time immemorial, alternate warm and cold cycles have followed each other, with a periodicity ranging from tens of millions to several years. The cycles were most probably dependent on the extraterrestrial changes occurring in the Sun and in the Sun’s neighborhood.”

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a physicist researching climate change, has found that the variation in temperature over the past century is within the planet’s natural variability over the past 8,000 years. Lloyd formerly was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His conclusions are the result of ice-core based data.

The data employed to foster the manmade change theory has been shown to be seriously flawed. When “change” advocates generally cite records only a few hundred years old, they ignore extremely relevant information. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the planet’s temperature was warmer  than that of our time. This period was followed by an era now known as “the Little Ice Age.”  Changes continued, not tied to human activity, and continue still.

As climate change advocates pursued significant alterations in the U.S. economy, some scientists began to notice an interesting phenomenon. The planet Mars appears to be experiencing climate changes similar to Earth. Clearly, human activity could not be a factor there.
On the other hand, this medicine is the alternative plant based version of viagra overnight, essentially the most widely sought after drugs approved by FDA for curing impotence in men. There are multiple levitra samples issues that produce impaired hearing sensitivity. The medicines have to take before 30 minutes of sexual action. purchase generic viagra valsonindia.com There are many people who are not familiar with the causes that have brought the problem into their life. generic cialis valsonindia.com
Peter Ferrara, writing in Forbes,  noted:

“The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

“Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.”

“The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economistmagazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.”

Alan Caruba, who passed away on June 16, 2015, wrote in Heartland  has also noted that some of the extremist scenarios portrayed by the global change advocates, (many of whom have built careers and personal fortunes from the concept) are thoroughly incorrect. Even if the scenario of warming did occur, the increase in C02, which they maintain would be the cause, would actually increase, not decrease vegetation throughout the planet.

As serious as the ignored data has been the intentional falsifying of key science studies. The most well-known case, popularly known as “Climategate,” came to the public’s attention when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed that results of studies were tailored to ignore actual results in favor of propping up the beliefs of global warming theory advocates. The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA have fabricated computer modeling of the atmosphere, perhaps in response to political pressure, also to better serve the wishes of climate change advocates.

Professor Don J. Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, writing in Global Research concludes:

“Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Man-made climate change theory challenged

Frequently overlooked in the debate over whether human activity has resulted in global climate change are two key factors: To what extent do current temperature variations differ from those experienced in the past, particularly in pre-industrial times, and, if there is any significant change, to what extent is it due to human activity?

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a physicist researching climate change, has found  that the variation in temperature over the past century is within the planet’s natural variability over the past 8,000 years. Lloyd formerly was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His conclusions are the result of ice-core based data.

An abstract of his research, which has also been reported in the Daily Caller, states:

“There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.”

Dr. Philip’s research adds to the growing body of work that contradicts the largely unsupported claims of significant man-made climate change. Highlighting that increasingly large group of scientists disagreeing with the unsupported claims of man-made climate change proponents is the statement by over 9,000 Ph.D’s who, as summarized by Weather Channel founder John Coleman, found that (as quoted in Breitbart)  that “the science [purportedly proving man made global warming] is not valid…“It is important to … know that there is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”
For instance, Technorati has 100 million blogs in tadalafil canadian pharmacy its index, with a new one started every second. This may even help men with best online cialis premature ejaculation. It also helps to increase testosterone level and hence very popular among those struggling with impotence. cialis 40 mg reached in popularity the legendary cialis that created the whole market of ED pills in cheaper rate with cialis 40 mg. In the fight against viagra cialis on line erectile dysfunction many have turned to alternative sources outside of conventional medicine.
Repeatedly, the Obama Administration has alleged that the scientific community is virtually unanimous in its support of the man-made climate change theory. The facts simply do not support that claim. Secretary Kerry has stated that addressing the “crippling consequences” of climate change, as supported by “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists…is urgent.” Science fails to support his statement.

The scientific world has been rocked by numerous reports of falsified data engaged to support the man-made change theory, as well as substantial incidents of the suppression of contrary data. Christopher Booker wrote in the Telegraph,

“When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified … Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming. This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.”

The extraordinary political and financial dimensions proposed to counterman-made warming are apparently based on unsound and suspect information.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Time for a candid look at the climate change theory

The time has come for a candid re-examination of an almost sacrosanct article of faith: the acceptance of significant global climate change resulting from human causes.

Originally, advocates of the theory suggested that the planet was cooling.  That concept didn’t work out, and the same advocates proposed that the population, particularly in industrialized nations, was causing global warming.  That, too, hasn’t withstood the rigors of scientific analysis, particularly since the alleged warming trend appears to have halted for decades, if indeed it ever existed, and so the rather nebulous concept of “climate change” was proposed, and is now widely taught in schools, accepted by most of the media, and used as a factor in fostering large-scale government intervention in the private sector.

A number of explicit facts have challenged the notion that manmade activities are having a significant impact on the Earth’s temperature, starting with the fact that the Earth has continuously experienced climate change, even before humans made their relatively recent appearance.

The data employed to foster the manmade change theory has been shown to be seriously flawed. When “change” advocates generally cite records only a few hundred years old, they ignore extremely relevant information. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the planet’s temperature was warmer  than that of our time. This period was followed by an era now known as “the Little Ice Age.”  Changes continued, not tied to human activity, and continue still.
In blend with sexual incitement, vardenafil meets expectations by expanding blood stream to the penis and may help men with discount cialis ED get and keep up erection for sufficient measure of time. It improves your immune system and allows males to last longer in bed to make her delighted with sexual pleasure. cialis tadalafil 5mg The two generic cialis pill dominant supplements, Blue and Pink color. A regular chiropractic check-up should be included in every person’s wellness plan viagra stores in order to avoid debilitating pain and irreversible degenerative damage.
As climate change advocates pursued significant alterations in the U.S. economy, some scientists began to notice an interesting phenomenon. The planet Mars appears to be experiencing climate changes similar to Earth. Clearly, human activity could not be a factor there.

As serious as the ignored data has been the intentional falsifying of key science studies. The most well-known case, popularly known as “Climategate,” came to the public’s attention when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed that results of studies were tailored to ignore actual results in favor of propping up the beliefs of global warming theory advocates. It has now been revealed that the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA have fabricated computer modeling of the atmosphere, perhaps in response to political pressure, also to better serve the wishes of climate change advocates.

The Earth’s environment does require attention, and actual harmful activities should be addressed. But the use of ignored facts and falsified data to support incorrect theories can only cause harm. The cynical employment of counterfeit science to pursue political ends is unacceptable.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Global warming, the “Irreconcilable Differences” Issue

Guest editorial from Russell Cook

 Russell Cook recently appeared on the Vernuccio/Allison Report.  In response to a number of requests for more information, he has submitted the following.

One has to wonder if global warming promoters are oblivious to the manner in which their talking point narratives are plagued with crippling contradictions. Consider the following statements, paraphrased from my own experience of being on the receiving end of such assertions:

“You have no climate science expertise allowing you to comment on whether global warming is happening.” Neither does Al Gore, nor scores of book authors declaring the issue settled, or the collective lot of environmental organization administrators, or any mainstream media reporters.

“You’re a denier of climate change.” But not one skeptic climate scientist or prominent skeptic speaker has ever been seen saying the climate has remained static over the last century, nor has any actually advocated for an unchanging climate. Global warming promoters, on the other hand, appear to advocating for exactly that.

“You’re ignorant.” Of what? Avid followers of the issue who are skeptical of man-caused catastrophic global warming are often adept at citing specific IPCC material in order to point out which climate predictions are failing to happen, and they are often well-versed in related facets of the issue, such as the fine details and overall scope of the ClimateGate scandal.

“You oppose stopping global warming because you are guided by your religious beliefs / economic greed / political views.” Again with advocating for an unchanging climate? But what church do I belong to / what is my economic situation / what political party am I registered in? Can anyone hazard a guess that has any hope of being confirmed? Can anyone do the same on other skeptics?

“You oppose President Obama’s global warming reduction efforts because you’re a racist.” Vice President Biden holds the same views, as does Hillary Clinton. President George W. Bush suggested global warming reduction efforts could be accomplished through voluntary means.

“If you don’t see what runaway global warming is going to do to us in the future, you are crazy.” Diagnosing a person’s mental health is usually left to those having psychology expertise. But we are talking about events that have not yet happened.

This is what creates the addiction for the impotence medication and brings out such positive results that men are left wonder if they had consumed the original generic sildenafil uk next. After all, a buy brand viagra treatment is supposed to eradicate all problems and not let them come back later in life. Both men and women generic viagra buy get affected by erection problems. These are rich generic cialis professional in potassium, minerals, and other essential steroids. “There’s a 97% consensus among climate scientists saying global warming is happening.” It’s more like 100%, but this goes back to the assertion about ‘deniers’ above. Regarding the “97%” talking point, that largely stems from just three reports having highly suspect methodologies, not restricted to just the loaded too-simple question of whether global warming is happening. On top of that, a show of hands has never validated scientific conclusions any time in the entire history of the Scientific Method.

“A minority of denier scientists have long been given media balance by reporters when they never deserved it.” Again with the denier talking point? But show all of us the last ten times when any mainstream media news outlet balanced their news reports about global warming with equal time given to purely scientific viewpoints offered by skeptic scientists.

“Denier scientists don’t publish papers in peer-reviewed journals, the gold standard of determining science conclusions.” Could we stop with the denier talking point? Skeptic scientists most certainly do get their papers published in peer-reviewed journals, they also describe in great detail how that process has been stacked against them by biased science journal editors, and there is at least one instance of where a science conclusion was seen in a science journal and its conclusion was widely cited as a situation to make decisions from. However, the paper’s author was later found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data for his work The mere presence of a science conclusion in a science journal is therefore no validation of the conclusion’s merits.

“Denier scientists deny that cigarettes cause cancer, that there is an ozone hole, or that acid rain exists.” Each time the ‘denier’ talking point is repeated, it undermines the critic when that individual never proves skeptic climate scientists deny climate change or that global warming has happened over the last century. As for the other points, they would be devastating if only they were supported with actual evidence to prove such a denial took place.

“Well, you and they are shills of Exxon / the Koch brothers / ‘dark money’, and are paid to lie, deceive, and fabricate false reports.” Two words: prove it. If that accusation had any merit, it would have wiped out the skeptic scientists’ credibility more than a decade ago. One more thing, remember who accusers are talking to in this particular situation: I am the one who has access to my bank accounts and my correspondence, and there is no way on Earth anyone can make that accusation stick to me.

“You are an idiot and no amount of reason will change your closed mind.” It must be first proven I am an idiot, that I’ve been presented with reasonable arguments, and that I have rejected such arguments.
I have no climate science expertise, and have said so from the beginning. All I ever did from the start was point to one side of the scientific consideration of the issue completely contradicting the other side. Rather than receive any informed degree of information on why the contradiction existed, I was told to ignore the skeptic side out-of-hand, usually culminating every time with the latter two responses above. The bit about skeptic scientists being paid to lie via industry money at least sounded plausible, but I didn’t proceed farther than just one day into a serious look into where the accusation came from before I ran into irreconcilable differences on who had discovered ‘smoking gun’ evidence proving the accusation to be true, and I could not even find the so-called ‘evidence’ – leaked industry memos – in order to read them for myself. Long story short, when I did find partial copies of the memos seven months later buried in Greenpeace archive scans in a way that ordinary internet searches would not dredge them up, it turns out the memos are not evidence of a sinister top-down industry-wide directive. Worse, narratives about who discovered this ‘industry plot’ are full of holes, and the people surrounding the initial push of the accusation have a lot of explaining to do if they want the accusation to stay afloat.

Basically, the entire global warming issue can be boiled down to a 3-point mantra on “settled science” / “corrupt skeptics” / “reporters may ignore skeptics because of points 1 & 2.” Its promoters almost seem to be praying to whatever god they believe in that nobody will question those assertions.

However, we don’t have to be climate scientists, or really any kind of scientist at all, in order to ask tough questions about the whole issue. We most certainly do not have to be a scientist to ask whether their accusation about ‘corrupt industry funding’ is true, and when it is readily seen how that one folds up like a cheap suit, then the central point in their 3-point mantra implodes, wiping out the other two by default.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Politics vs. True Environmentalism

The Heartland Institute http://news.heartland.org/print/156871 recently interviewed Dr. Alan Carlin, an environmental scientist who has been at odds with the Environmental Protection Agency. Carlin is by no means alien from the belief that the environment requires protection.  In the past, he was a leader within the Sierra Club, and was involved in a number of key campaigns. He served as a scientist within the EPA itself, but became estranged from the federal agency when he criticized its support of extremist views not supported by science.

Dr. Carlin maintains that the EPA’s positions on climate change since 2009 are based on politics, not science. The problems pointed out by Dr. Carlin and others concerning the politicization of the EPA and climate change activists and organizations loom large in true efforts to protect the environment.  While vast resources are committed to efforts to combat threats that may not exist, other, scientifically accurate needs may have trouble gaining the resources necessary for success. Frequently, global warming funds wind up enriching leftist politicians and institutions, but doing nothing to truly address real environmental needs. Al Gore and Solyndra come rapidly to mind as examples.
Order for these herbal cialis cipla pills can be placed under the tongue to dissolve, and are easily absorbed by the body. greyandgrey.com generic levitra Stress or low energy level is among the leading anti-aging supplements. Thus by providing adequate blood cheapest cialis generic supply to the main board. For them sports massage Dublin is also equally cialis tablets for sale important.
A truly unbiased examination of global warming extremists finds that their interests and goals are more geared towards providing greater power to federal agencies rather than meeting environmental challenges.  Capitalism itself is frequently their target.  They should examine the comparison between Eastern Europe during its period of Soviet domination, where there was exceptional damage, and their western European counterparts, with far cleaner records.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Climate Change Desperation

Later this month, President Obama will travel to New York to discuss climate change at the United Nations.  He is seeking to do an end run around the Senate by adopting an international agreement, (as opposed to a treaty, which must be approved by the Senate) which he hopes to finalize at a UN gathering in 2015 .

The whole idea of global warming is crucial to American politicians on the left who seek greater central control over the U.S. economy.  The basis of their position is that, according to NOAA data, the planet warmed by 1.5% Fahrenheit  from 1880 to 2012, a condition they blame on human activity. To minimize potential damage, they believe greater controls over energy production and use are vital to preserve the current environment.  These advocates ignore solid data of prior changes in Earth’s climate in years prior to industrialization, and the role of solar activity in warming and cooling.

There have been substantial scandals of pro-warming advocates fudging or manipulating contrary data to hide facts that tend to disagree with the concept of global warming. Most recently, Prof. Ross McKitrick  notes that what had been portrayed as an ongoing warming trend has ceased for 19 years on the Earth’s surface, and up to 26 years in the lower troposphere.
Individuals couldn’t care less about the actualities cost of prescription viagra and truths thus myths joined in it. The signs for this condition are prices for cialis click description chills, fever, nausea, vomiting and change in bowel habits, or cramping. There is no doubt that, by this time she will cialis samples cialis samples report be set in her ways. With e-shopping trend, you can Buy Generic drugs from authorized medical stores and prevent falling prey to illicit viagra 20mg drug traders.
These revelations have placed a substantial handicap on the left, which believed it had finally found an argument that could persuade an American public fundamentally opposed to greater centralized economic and energy controls to change course.

The United Nations, which is deeply invested in the concept of climate change, appears to be aware it is facing a public relations dilemma.  The Herald Sun newspaper  found that the UN is seeking to hire a female from a developing country to be the new voice for its now largely discredited position.

Categories
NY Analysis

The Misuse of Executive Orders

As this report goes to press, President Obama is expected to make a significant statement concerning his proposal  to reduce carbon emissions from America’s 600 coal-based energy facilities.

Even before the details are released, significant controversy has occurred based on several key points: whether the president has the authority to enact sweeping and substantive measures without the consent of Congress; whether the proposals will be too costly for the depressed U.S. economy (which shrunk 1% during the first quarter of 2014);  whether reducing American energy output will place both the U.S. and our allies in a weakened position; and finally, whether the science upon which the theory of human induced climate change rests is, in fact, accurate.

This week, The NEW YORK ANALYSIS OF POLICY & GOVERNMENT briefly examines the President’s promised use of Executive Orders for the Environmental program. The regulations are expected to be significant, forcing American power plants to cut carbon emissions, and imposing vast costs on the U.S. economy. The President believes that he can engage in actions that will have the full force of law without the consent of Congress.

Weakening the President’s position is his prior failure to guide proposed environmental laws through Congress in his first term. Critics can maintain that the White House at first attempted to comply with the appropriate Constitutional methods, but resorted to an unconstitutional utilization of Executive Orders when he didn’t succeed.

U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

 President Obama, 2013: Where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Article II, Section I of the Constitution vests executive power in the President. While there is no mention in the Constitution of executive orders, as chief executive, the President of the United States clearly requires the unilateral ability to take certain actions to fulfill his duties. The President’s role in seeing that federal laws are executed requires no consultation with the other two branches of government. It would be absurd to expect that every deployment of troops, every regular or normal daily operation of federal agencies, and every other normal administrative process be subjected to direct Congressional oversight.

There have been periods of history when Congress has been relatively lenient in its oversight of the President’s use—or abuse—of executive orders. During the establishment of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression, Humorist Will Rogers   remarked that “that Congress doesn’t make laws anymore, they just wave at the bills as they go by.”

The online law journal thelegality.com  notes that “While the mandate of Article II seems broad, it also limits the president’s power to only directing the actions of the executive branch.  For example, [former] President Bush’s E.O. 13435 (regarding the limited use of stem cells in research) have a limited effect because they only reach government agencies…The Executive is not a legislator…He is not above the law.”

Although Congress tends not to challenge most executive orders, it has met with success on some occasions when doing so. Several executive orders issued by President Clinton were struck down by the Court in reaction to Congressional objections.

Justice Hugo Black,  in the case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer wrote that an executive order (1) “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself” and (2) an executive order is on dubious ground if it’s “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.”

In restricting then-President Truman’s ability to engage in actions which had the impact of legislation rather than mere administrative action, the Court held that an Executive Order not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, cannot stand, and exercises of Presidential authority which have the effect of lawmaking cannot stand because the Constitution vests such power in Congress alone.

There is a keen difference between administrative actions in fulfillment of the law and actually taking steps that affect the law itself, or, indeed, have the same impact as law. This controversy has been evident in the White House’s actions concerning the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare.)  The President’s unilateral action in deciding which portions of the law to enforce and which to ignore until sometime in the future when it is more politically expedient to do so has merited extensive and appropriate criticism.

Impotency resemble a major revile for the man to have proper love making sessions with levitra pills for sale proper erections. Certainties about Kamagra* It offering costs are sensible, as makers don’t need to do much interest as to its advancement, showcasing and improvement. buy generic viagra http://djpaulkom.tv/video-dj-paul-x-drumma-boy-x-crunchy-black-muscle-so-strong-visual/ Instead, you like to drink tadalafil sales sodas, you crave pizza, frozen foods, and sugars, and you smoke. So, Erectile viagra price Dysfunction Therapy can develop its characteristics at puberty, such as increased penis, voice deepening, testes size, and growth of body and facial hair but it can also negative and adverse effects on the follicles. President Obama has not been criticized for the number of Executive Orders issued—both of his predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush issued more—but for the scope of activities covered in those he did issue.

Writing in Forbes earlier this year, James Powell noted that:

“Apparently President Obama has become convinced that he can make magic with that pen he keeps talking about, the one he plans to use for signing executive orders to revive his beleaguered presidency.  Executive orders are irresistible, because a president doesn’t have to propose anything, debate the issues, endure hearings or solicit votes.  An executive order can be issued in a few minutes — behind closed doors and away from bright lights… Many executive orders are in a twilight zone of dubious constitutional legitimacy if not open defiance of the Constitution, especially when they amount to lawmaking without congressional approval…”

John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, has written in a Heritage publication   that “President Obama has shown no qualms about taking unilateral actions that bypass Congress and ignore important separation of powers principles that are an essential safeguard of our liberty.”

Joel Pollack, writing in Breitbart, provides three criticisms of President  Obama’s use of executive orders:

“The first is that Obama is using executive orders and actions to alter his own legislation. …The second way in which Obama’s abuse of executive power is different is that he has done it to prevent the legislature from acting…the president issued his “Dream Act by fiat” in 2012 not just because Congress wouldn’t pass his version of immigration reform, but to outflank Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who was preparing his own version, embarrassing Obama among Latino voters…The third way in which Obama’s behavior is unusual is that he commands sweeping executive power on some issues while arguing, on other issues, that he has no power to act… There is no constitutional doctrine behind the president’s executive orders, actions, and omissions…”

 

Attorney Gary Wickert, examined some of President’s Obama’s executive orders:

“In the spring of 2012, President Obama issued an aggressive string of executive orders to combat what he viewed as hopelessly-deadlocked Congress. Some of his more controversial, and arguably unconstitutional executive orders are as follows:Directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act;Gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls;Changed significant provisions of and the timing of Obamacare;Declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional;Reshaped immigration policy by ordering  the federal government to halt deportation of certain illegal immigrants.
Each unilateral action by the president substituted for a failed legislative proposal.  ‘I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,’ he said. However, under the Constitution, that is not the way things are supposed to work. “

The President’s use of his authority to implement environmental measures has been a particular source of criticism. The Congressional newspaper The Hill noted that Attorneys general  in 17 states have contended that “the Environmental Protection Agency has overreached in pursuit of President Obama’s plan to counter the effects of climate change via federal regulation.” They maintain that the “EPA, if unchecked, will continue to implement regulations which far exceed its statutory authority to the detriment of the States, in whom Congress has vested authority under the Clean Air Act, and whose citizenry and industries will ultimately pay the price of these costly and ineffective regulations…”

CONCLUSION

The dueling sides for and against the President’s carbon emissions plan will disagree on the specific merits of the proposal.  The far more important debate, however, will have nothing to do with the details of this program and everything to do with whether the United States will continue to be governed by Constitutional provisions clearly calling for a series of checks and balances on the authority of the chief executive.

Categories
Announcements

Climate Change reports set by White House & NY Analysis

President Obama is expected to release his carbon action plan on Monday, June 2.

The NEW YORK viagra canadian It increases libido and sperm count. It boosts blood flow and relieves you from tension and buy levitra viagra anxiety. It carries the best components inside it which mainly includes the components essential for a check these guys get viagra from india safe abortion in men. An erecting best price on viagra male organ is something which fulfills all desires relating to healthy, pleasurable and enjoyable sexual intercourse for both the partners. ANALYSIS OF POLICY & GOVERNMENT will release its report on the climate change debate on that date.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Scientists Object to White House Climate Plans

The White House released its Climate Change report earlier this month, and will unveil its greenhouse emissions plan within the next few days. Those favoring the concept that human activity has substantially altered the planetary temperature are joined by those eager to use that belief to expand the federal role in the national economy. The Obama Administration and its supporters maintain that the science behind the issue is a settled fact.

Opposing the President’s proposals are numerous scientists who note that their research and findings, (which are contrary to the conclusions espoused by supporters of the human effect on the global temperature theory) have been wholly ignored. They are joined by those concerned that what they describe as faulty or incomplete evidence is being employed to use global warming as an excuse to enhance governmental authority, establish a more centralized economy, and enrich special interests. Some, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cite the astounding cost of the White House’s preferences, estimated at $50 billion annually, as an independent reason to oppose the plan.

With both the President and the media favoring the views of the climate change adherents, relatively little unbiased information has been made available to the public.  But there are crucial objections that should be noted.

All these ingredients are blended in correct tadalafil 20mg cipla ratio to help produce more seminal fluid naturally. It improves blood flow to the body waste cleansing but, it indirectly impacts the digestion health of the individual. on line cialis viagra online purchase How beneficial is Forzest for men? Forzest aids and improves the blood supply in the heart. Medicines are taken to treat erectile dysfunction since it proves to be beneficial for generic tadalafil cheap the usage of senior people for having long- lasting nights of copulation. 31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, have signed a petition  opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate. P

Even some advocates of global warming have objected to governmental intervention. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, quoted in infowars.com,  notes that the changes due to global warming are too small to account for.  He stated that in the January 2014 article that  “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

The President has advocated major policy moves which could substantially and detrimentally impact the American economy and the cost of energy.  Major geopolitical implications will result as non-U.S. providers of  energy sources, such as Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and others benefit from it.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Salem Witch Trials and Climate Change

Beginning in 1692, 200 people in the settlement of Salem, Massachusetts were accused of witchcraft. 20 were eventually executed. Rather than fair trials with hard facts, spurious “spectral evidence” was used to convict the accused.

Recently, President Obama announced an imposing program to deal with “climate disruption.” It  used to be global cooling, then was changed to global warming, then climate change.  Embarrassing facts kept mandating name revisions. By no small coincidence, much of the agenda of those, mostly on the political left, perpetuating the belief of man-made changes to the environment happens to fit precisely with a political agenda they have been attempting to impose in one way or another for decades.

Similar to the Salem Witch Trials, those who disagree with the prevailing hysteria are labelled as heretics and generally prevented from submitting hard evidence. The falsifying of data by advocates is ignored. Scientific evidence of prior periods of climate swings is given minimal consideration.

The reason for the hard blocking of evidence by proponents of the theory of man-made global climate disruption is the difficulty of the task they face.  From the dawn of Earth’s existence, the climate has periodically altered, heating and cooling even before the existence of humankind. What is occurring currently appears to be part of that unending cycle. But advocates, like the President, must convince the public that this is a threat caused by an economic system they oppose in order to pass laws and regulations that replace free enterprise with the top-down economic system they prefer.

Increasingly, studies by researchers across the planet about this very normal cyclical pattern are becoming increasingly difficult to sweep under the rug.  This threatens the agenda of those seeking to use normal climatic changes as an excuse to impose their agenda.

Consider just a few examples of recent scientific research:

prices cialis In order the treat Diabetes, we should first repair damaged pancreas and improve insulin secretion. Those who have visit to find out more cialis 40 mg Diabetes, Alzheimer’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and so on can lead to repeated injury and prostate congestion, especially in a long time to ride a bicycle is the most common. cheap viagra http://appalachianmagazine.com/2019/04/12/kristina-montuori-former-meteorologist-finds-comedy-to-overcome-lifes-storms/ It also enhances performace of adrenal glands which results in better erections for men. Most parents aren’t prepared for the hassles, worries and constant demands of viagra sample online parenting. Science magazine recently reported a study by three scientists noting that water temperatures during the Medieval warming period were warmer than those today. The report also notes that “normal cyclical changes, not human activity, is responsible for current temperature fluctuations.”

Swedish researchers studying forestry patterns have concluded that “there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about Earth’s current level of warmth.”

James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News writes in a Forbes article  that “assertions that warming temperatures in the United States are causing a host of problems are soundly contradicted by objective temperature data.  The U.S. Historical Climatology Network’s thermometers, which have been measuring U.S. temperatures since the 1890, shows no long-term trend in U.S. temperatures.”

The list goes on and on.  The news is even worse for advocates of the global warming theory, as astronomers around the world increasingly report that, due to decreased solar activity, global cooling may be more of a reality than global warming.

For those with an agenda to alter America’s economic system, hard scientific evidence is as unwelcome as common sense was to the Salem judges who ordered 20 innocents executed for witchcraft hundreds of years ago.