A Local lefty blog is promoting the Climate Change Scare Mongers, again!

Here is a quote from one of the more left wing vocal voices, someone calling himself Joe Koyote, in a comment on a Sierra Foothills Report post on an article by Bill McKibben: Trump’s reckless climate decision.

McClintock, La Malfa, trump, and all of the rest of the climate deniers in government are stupid beyond belief. They have not evolved enough to see past the dollar sign. . .

First off, the Koyote does not provide any evidence that Congressman McClintock or Congressman LaMalfa are on the fossil fuel payroll. Just an irrational claim often made by the left without any evidence. Anyone that does not agree with their view of climate change must be paid by some oil company. This is easy for them to assume, as they are often the paid lackeys of some environmentalist foundation, like Bill McKibben.

Consider this from the Financial Post in 2013:

Nothing influences President Barack Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline quite like the protests against it, led by Bill McKibben, an American environmentalist, and his organization, called 350.org. On Wednesday, 350.org and the Sierra Club participated in an anti-Keystone protest at the White House and this Sunday they are holding another one on Capital Hill. They expect 20,000 people from across the United States.


350.org has the look and feel of an amateur, grassroots operation, but in reality, it is a multi-million dollar campaign run by staff earning six-digit salaries.


More than half of the US$10-million came from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, where McKibben, a trustee, was paid US$25,000 per year (2001-09). Since 2007, the Rockefellers have paid US$4-million towards 1Sky and 350.org, tax returns say. The Schumann Center provided US$1.5-million to McKibben’s three campaigns as well as US$2.7-million to fund the Environmental Journalism Program at Middlebury College, in Vermont, where McKibben is on staff.

Secondly, I have been sending both McClintocks and LaMalfa staff peer reviews papers that explain the real science of climate change. Papers which I hope fuels the Congressmen’s skepticism of anthropogenic global warming.  Graphic examples of the information sent are shown below:

The Supercomputer Models reference by McKibben do not reflect the real world data:


And,  this graphic showing there is not a rapid increase in sea level rise since the melting of the last ice age. At the current rate, the sea will rise about half of foot in 100 years.


I have also sent them polling information showing them that the general population lists climate change or global warming last out of the top twenty issues that concern them.

If their constituents are not concerned, then the Congressmen should not be either.

About Russ Steele

Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.
This entry was posted in California, Climate Change, History, Local Media. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A Local lefty blog is promoting the Climate Change Scare Mongers, again!

  1. George Rebane says:

    Wake up, indeed. The local Left has nothing to contribute to the debate other than propagandized consensus science – the most reprehensible type of pedagogy that stifled human learning for centuries. Starting in the 20th century the socialists, including their local lackeys, have done their best to reinstitute the bad old days. Their efforts have now stunted America’s K-12 STEM education. We don’t even matriculate enough young people smart enough to enter industry’s apprenticeship programs. Dumbth is dominant.


  2. gjrebane says:

    Good piece Russ. Agenda21 objectives are the overarching ones for ‘climate change’ (a meaningless semantic retreat since ‘global warming’ was obviously a global hoax) that include wealth redistribution.


  3. Russ says:

    Here are some of the provisions, not reported by the mainstream press, which underscore that it was no more than a redistribution scheme designed to hamper U.S. competitiveness papered over by gaseous, meaningless platitudes about saving mankind. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2017/06/whats-really-inside-paris-climate.html

    It was designed to limit American competitiveness and, at best, could have done virtually nothing to affect the climate while impoverishing us and displacing U.S. workers.

    [L] isten to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

    “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

    So what is the goal of environmental policy?

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

    For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

    Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

    If you had any doubt about the redistribution aim, consider this: To date the U.S. has contributed $1 billion to the Accord’s “Green Fund” and all the other signatories have contributed exactly nothing to it.


Comments are closed.