Conroe area business owner shoots, kills burglar (armed) with crowbar

According to Assistant District Attorney Donna Berkey, a man and his son were at a business on Texas 105 near Chrystal Forest Drive when they heard class breaking around 2 a.m. Wednesday.

“(The business owner) had been burglarized before so he locked his son inside the went out to check what was happening,” Berkey said.

The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office along with the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office are investigating an early morning shooting that left one man dead.

Once outside, the business owner was confronted by a man with a crowbar and the business owner fired a handgun several times striking the man at least twice. Berkey said the man ran about 150 feet before collapsing.

The business owner called 911 and the responding deputy found the man, Thomas Dillard, 39, deceased along Texas 105.

Berkey said no charges had been filed in the case but added the case would be presented to a Montgomery County Grand Jury.

The names of the business owner and the business have not been released.

Today October 3, is the 26th anniversary of the beginning of the ‘Battle Of Mogadishu’ during UNOSOM II, United Nations Operations in Somalia II.

I’ll bet everyone has seen the movie Blackhawk Down, at least once; so you’ve got a ‘not bad’ overview of what occurred. The book is a little better and I recommend it to your reading list.
As it was, 18 U.S. soldiers were killed and 73 were wounded during the battle.
I had the honor of later serving with one of the 160ths pilots who had been in the middle of that hell, so much so that he had been awarded a Silver Star for his actions. He was our unit’s Command Chief Warrant and it turned out, it was his last assignment as well as he retired about a year before I did.

IOWA VOTER ID LAW SURVIVES LAWSUIT CLAIMING IT IS “AN ATTACK ON THE LATINO COMMUNITY”

In a much-needed victory for election integrity a judge has upheld Iowa’s voter identification law, rejecting claims by a leftist open borders group that the measure is unconstitutional because it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. When the group, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), filed the lawsuit, the head of its Iowa chapter referred to the state’s voter ID law as “an attack on the Latino community” that places many restrictions on the right to vote. He also said the measure, passed in 2017, is a form of “voter suppression.”

Under the law Iowans must present a valid form of identification before voting in elections. Acceptable IDs include a driver’s license, non-operator’s license, passport, military ID, veteran’s ID or state-issued voter card. Voter ID laws are created to prevent election fraud and 35 states have enacted them, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. In 2008 the high court upheld Indiana’s Voter ID law, ruling that the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process outweighed the insufficiently proven burdens the law may impose on voters. “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” the nation’s highest court wrote in its decision. Even the famously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of voter ID laws. In a decision involving Arizona’s measure, the federal appellate court found that the “photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction” and does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Yet states continue to spend a fortune defending their voter ID measures in court, mostly against leftwing groups that assert they discriminate against minorities and the poor. LULAC filed its Iowa lawsuit in 2018 and the case went to trial this year, around the end of June. The Latino civil rights group claimed the law makes it harder for certain citizens—especially minorities—in Iowa to vote and that it violates sections of the state Constitution that guarantee the right to vote, due process, equal treatment under the law and freedom of speech. The defendant is Iowa’s Secretary of State, Paul Pate. The Polk County District Judge, Joseph Seidlin, who presided over the case wrote in his decision that “for the vast majority of eligible voters in Iowa, the voter identification requirement poses no real burden. They either present a driver’s license or nonoperator’s identification card which they already have, or a voter ID card which they either have or can easily obtain for free.” Seidlin also found that the evidence presented in his courtroom failed to demonstrate what LULAC alleged; that the burden on young, old, female, minority and poor voters to show an approved form of identification at the polls is greater than the rest of the population.

Pate, Iowa’s Secretary of State, applauded the court for upholding the principles of Voter ID and election integrity. “My goal has always been to make it easy to vote, but hard to cheat,” Pate said in a statement following the ruling. “Iowans have overwhelmingly voiced their support for Voter ID and this law ensures voters will be asked to provide identification before casting their ballot.”

Impeachment Is About Putting Down the Peasants’ Revolt

It should by now be obvious to the meanest intelligence that the Democrats are determined to impeach President Trump with or without credible evidence that he has committed any act resembling “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The “whistleblower complaint” that Nancy Pelosi used as the pretext for launching her ersatz impeachment inquiry contains little but hearsay and fabrication, while her claim that it proves Trump has “violated the Constitution” fails the laugh test. In the end, however, impeachment is less about offenses committed by the president than the desire of the Washington establishment to put down what they see as a peasants’ revolt.

Impeachment is, in other words, an attempt to restore the old order that the voters overturned in 2016. It seeks to annul that election and return us to the nascent totalitarianism of the Obama era, an incipient autocracy the Democrats expected to be nurtured during the presidency of Hillary Clinton. Thus, when the hoi polloi got above themselves and put Donald Trump in the White House, his removal from office became the primary objective of Washington’s self-appointed Optimates. They began planning Trump’s impeachment before he was inaugurated because he is the leader of the insurrection, and they know full well that it can’t be put down until he is gone.

House Democrats must impeach the president despite the near impossibility of securing a conviction in the Senate. Indeed, their need to do so is more urgent now than ever because of the booming Trump economy and the weakness of their Democratic presidential candidates. As Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who has introduced several abortive impeachment resolutions, put it in May, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” This was reiterated by Professor Allan Lichtman, who has accurately predicted the outcomes of the last nine presidential elections. Lichtman says that the Democrats can’t win in 2020 if they fail to impeach Trump:

It’s a false dichotomy to say Democrats have a choice between doing what is right and what is constitutional, and what is politically right. Impeachment is also politically right.… Right now, based on my system, there has to be six negative factors against the party holding the White House, the Trump party, to predict their defeat. They’re down only three. But an impeachment would nail down the scandal key, a fourth key, it might trigger other keys like a real challenge to his re-nomination.

This may, however, be the first presidential prediction that Lichtman gets wrong. His belief that impeachment would “nail down the scandal key,” for example, is probably incorrect. The Democrats and the media have been carpet-bombing Trump for more than three years based on false or wildly exaggerated accusations of wrongdoing.

By now there is almost certainly a considerable amount of “scandal fatigue” throughout the electorate. The Democrats have cried wolf, to coin a phrase, with such frequency that the voters are likely to disregard further alarms, even in the unlikely event that an impeachment inquiry actually manages to produce a genuine canine.

Three police officers among four killed in Paris knife attack
One of the most popular tourist areas in Paris was sealed off after an attacker went on a knife rampage and was shot dead.

Unpossible! islam is the “Religion Of Peace™”!

Three police officers and a support staff member have been killed by a fellow employee in a knife attack at a police headquarters in Paris.

The 45-year-old attacker, who was said to have worked for the police for 20 years, was shot dead at the scene………..

He said the employee believed to be responsible was an administrator in the intelligence unit who had never created any problems before.

The attacker had also recently converted to Islam, according to the French news channel BFM TV.

 

‘There Is No Climate Emergency’: Scientists Call for Reasoned Debate

The message was clear: “There is no climate emergency.”

With those five simple words, a global network of scientists and professionals attempted to inject reasonableness and decorum into what should be a robust discussion about a complex scientific and public policy issue, but has instead degenerated into an ever more intense mud-slinging contest over the years.

People on one side of the argument dismiss their opponents as wild-eyed socialists attempting to leverage public fear and ignorance to further their political agenda. On the opposite side, people dismiss those who disagree with their supposedly settled scientific conclusions as nothing more than knowing shills or ignorant dupes of evil energy interests.

In between those extremes that are so popular with armies of public relations professionals, who shape the messages of public interest groups and professional politicians to maximum effect, are a not-so-quiet silent majority of scientists and professionals who take a more measured, reasoned view of the science when considering the supposed climate emergency some say we’re facing.

A group of 500-some scientists and professionals signed on to the “European Climate Declaration” that was released last week. This simple, short, and understandable statement proposed how analysis of any public policy issue involving complex science should be approached from a reasoned, fact-based perspective………

In a letter sent to António Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, the leaders of the European Climate Declaration urged the U.N. to “follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics, and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”

Hundreds of scientists and professionals from 13 European nations signed on to the Declaration, supported by fellow signatories from 10 other countries outside the European Union. I was honored to be asked to be one of the signatories from the United States and most enthusiastically agreed to do so.

There is likely to be much criticism of the professional qualifications of many of the signatories, since many, like me, are not climatologists. And yet, so many people speaking out on the issue of climate change who are convinced there is a climate emergency have so little personal understanding of the science involved in the discussion.

Firearms Are the People’s Liberty Teeth — it is for Americans to Grin (Resist) In the Face of Tyranny

“When government takes away its citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes the citizens’ duty to take away governments’ right to govern.” —credited to President George Washington

Here is how it is played out: On one side of the divide and conquer aisle (Mark 3:25) we have Donald Trump, sold to you as the Republican, who calls for illegal “red flag laws,” which are not law. In the end, they will be aimed at their political opposition.

On the other hand, we have those who are sold to you as the Democrats, who are calling for the removal of AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons.

Which do you prefer? Do you prefer small infringements through the good guy Donald Trump, or complete disarmament by the bad guy? Either way, you are being disarmed and tyranny wins out.

I would advise everyone to take heed to President George Washington, who is responsible for arming the citizenry that we are to “guard ourselves against impostures of pretended patriotism” (Matthew 24:5-8; 2 Corinthians 11:14).

If you are paying attention, this is not only leading through “created” opposition, but it’s also happening through what is called the Hegelian dialectic (John 8:44).

Hegelian dialectic is defined as “a framework for guiding thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead to synthetic solutions (of a proposition— having truth or falsity determinable by recourse to experience) which can only be introduced once those being manipulated take a side that will produce the predetermined agenda (Outcome).”…

Friends, look to history. George Mason warned us that those who mean to disarm, mean to enslave.

Gretna man arrested after reporting he was shot at; shooter says he robbed her first

Stupid is as………

A man who told Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office deputies that someone had taken a shot at him neglected to mention that the shooter was a woman he had robbed at gunpoint, authorities said.

Damont Meredith, 21, of Gretna, was arrested and booked with armed robbery and aggravated assault with a firearm, said Capt. Jason Rivarde, spokesman for the JPSO.

The Sheriff’s Office received a 911 call about 11:10 p.m. Sunday reporting gunfire in Marrero in the area of Dimarco Drive and the West Bank Expressway.

Deputies arrived and spoke with Meredith, who told them he’d been shot at and volunteered to take them to the nearby crime scene, Rivarde said.
But as Meredith and the deputies made their way to the 1000 block of Dimarco Drive, the 911 center received a call from a 28-year-old woman saying she had just been robbed at gunpoint at the same location, Rivarde said.

The woman said the robber shot at her while fleeing, and she returned fire, Rivarde said. No one was injured.

“As she’s describing the guy who shot at her, they realize she’s describing the man who showed them where the initial incident occurred,” Rivarde said.

Meredith admitted witnessing the holdup but denied responsibility. The woman, however, identified him as the man who had robbed her, Rivarde said.

Meredith was booked into the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center in Gretna. He was still being held there without bail Tuesday.


Homeowner holds burglar at gunpoint, deputies link him to two other B&E’s

STATESVILLE, N.C. (WBTV) – Deputies in Iredell County arrested a man Monday after a homeowner reportedly found him burglarizing a home and held him at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived.

The incident happened at a home on Turnersburg Highway in Statesville. Officials say the homeowner returned home to find the back door had been pried open. He then found 26-year-old Brandon Taylor Knight in a bedroom stealing jewelry, the report states.

The homeowner held Knight at gunpoint until deputies arrived and took him into custody.

“It is lucky for this suspect, this investigation did not end in a drastically different way,” said Sheriff Darren E. Campbell.

During the investigation, deputies found that two other nearby homes had been broken into as well. They say Knight had stolen property on him.

Knight was arrested and charged with two counts of felony breaking and entering, and two counts of felony larceny after breaking and entering. Investigators say more charges are expected.

Knight is being held on a $30,000 secured bond.

NASA: Climate Changes Due To Shifts In Solar Orbit, Not Human Activity

According to NASA scientists, so-called “climate change” is mostly driven by factors unrelated to human activity. A past study by the agency found the Sun has been the main factor behind changes in the Earth’s climate over the past 1,000 years.

Scientists say our planet’s solar orbit has changed several times over the past centuries. This resulted in a warmer climate in the Middle Ages, or medieval period, and a global cooling in the 14th Century known as the Little Ice Age.

NASA’s findings suggest so-called “man-made climate change” is a political narrative to impose economic control over the global population. The agency has reportedly known about this since 1958. However, its findings seem to have been buried in the archives, while the global push of climate advocacy has taken the forefront of world politics.

According to NASA scientists, so-called “climate change” is mostly driven by factors unrelated to human activity. A past study by the agency found the Sun has been the main factor behind changes in the Earth’s climate over the past 1,000 years.

Scientists say our planet’s solar orbit has changed several times over the past centuries. This resulted in a warmer climate in the Middle Ages, or medieval period, and a global cooling in the 14th Century known as the Little Ice Age.

NASA’s findings suggest so-called “man-made climate change” is a political narrative to impose economic control over the global population. The agency has reportedly known about this since 1958. However, its findings seem to have been buried in the archives, while the global push of climate advocacy has taken the forefront of world politics.

Secular humanism was full of promise. Now it’s having an existential crisis.

The 20th-century left tended to define progress in terms of material goods, and that was true of liberals and Communists alike. Lyndon B. Johnson waged “war on poverty,” and in 1920 Lenin confidently declared that “communism is Soviet government plus the electrification of the whole country.”

That optimism is gone. Americans live in a world of mass air travel, endless entertainment options, food delivery, constant connectivity and air-conditioning, and the left insists we have to renounce it all. “Every one of the world’s major polluting countries,” writes novelist Jonathan Franzen in the New Yorker, must “institute draconian conservation measures, shut down much of its energy and transportation infrastructure, and completely retool its economy. . . . Human beings, including millions of government-hating Americans, need to accept high taxes and severe curtailment of their familiar life styles without revolting. They must accept the reality of climate change and have faith in the extreme measures taken to combat it. . . . Every day, instead of thinking about breakfast, they have to think about death.”

Children shouldn’t even think about schoolwork, according to 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, organizer of the Global Climate Strike: “Why should we study for a future that is being taken away from us?” This atmosphere promotes an antipathy to religious optimism. “Thinking of sending your ‘thoughts and prayers’?” asks a CNN report. Don’t bother: “Some atheists and agnostics would pay money to avoid them, according to a study.” A co-author of the study told the network that the “result is surprising because one might expect that atheists/agnostics would be indifferent to people praying for them—why care, if you don’t believe in the gesture?”

I applaud her honesty about her open Marxism. It’s only been recently that the demoncraps have been so clear about their socialist fantasies and that’s because the new crop of commies in Congress have opened their yaps wide and blared out the truth.

16 Indiana students hospitalized after getting shot with insulin by mistake

Government Run Healthcare, thy name is bureaucrap.
What happens is that an excess of insulin causes your body to absorb too much glucose back from your blood. It also causes the liver to release less glucose.  This is called hypoglycemia and you turn into a rag dolly. If you don’t get prompt treatment, you can easily die.
Don’t ask me how I know.

Sixteen students at an Indiana career center were hospitalized after they were accidentally injected with shots of insulin during what was meant to be a tuberculosis skin test, the school district said.

The error happened Monday at the McKenzie Center for Innovation and Technology in Indianapolis, according to a statement from the Metropolitan School District of Lawrence Township.

“Immediate action was taken to care for those students” and they were transported to area hospitals for observation, the statement read.

A spokeswoman with the school district told ABC News on Tuesday that all the students had since been released from the hospital.

Biden’s gun control plan would impose strict regulations on owners of assault-style rifles

Nothing new from the demoncraps, as this idiocy has been rolled out before, but it’s logistically impossible.
There are about 175,000 transferable machineguns on the registry and about 1,500,000 suppressors, not to mention Destructive Devices and Any Other Weapons.
Right now it takes about 8-10 months, at a minimum, for a transfer to be approved by the bureaucraps at the NFA branch of BATFE. As there are an estimated, minimum, 15,000,000 to 16,ooo,000 AR & AK style rifles (10 times) in the hands of the people, any paperwork would take 10 times as long to be completed without a drastic expansion of the NFA branch personnel and budget. Of course, with demoncraps, that’s a feature, not a bug.

Joe Biden is proposing to force owners of assault-style rifles to either sell their firearms through a voluntary buyback program or register them with the federal government under the same law that was first used to strictly control sales of machine guns in the wake of the gangland shootings of the 1920s and ’30s.

The gun control plan that Biden’s campaign unveiled on Wednesday also aims to tackle urban gun violence with an eight-year, $900 million program that would go toward efforts to combat shootings in 40 cities with the highest rates of gun violence.

It would eliminate legal protections that prevent gun manufacturers from being held liable for how their products are used.

Climate Science’s Myth-Buster
It’s time to be scientific about global warming, says climatologist Judith Curry.

We’ve all come across the images of polar bears drifting on ice floes: emblematic victims of the global warming that’s melting the polar ice caps, symbols of the threat to the earth posed by our ceaseless energy production—above all, the carbon dioxide that factories and automobiles emit. We hear louder and louder demands to impose limits, to change our wasteful ways, so as to save not only the bears but also the planet and ourselves.

In political discourse and in the media, major storms and floods typically get presented as signs of impending doom, accompanied by invocations to the environment and calls to respect Mother Nature. Only catastrophes seem to grab our attention, though, and it’s rarely mentioned that warming would also bring some benefits, such as expanded production of grains in previously frozen regions of Canada and Russia. Nor do we hear that people die more often of cold weather than of hot weather. Isolated voices criticize the alarm over global warming, considering it a pseudoscientific thesis, the true aim of which is to thwart economic modernization and free-market growth and to extend the power of states over individual choices.

Not being a climatologist myself, I’ve always had trouble deciding between these arguments. And then I met Judith Curry at her home in Reno, Nevada. Curry is a true climatologist. She once headed the department of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, until she gave up on the academy so that she could express herself independently. “Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible,” she says. Do you mean that global warming isn’t real? I ask. “There is warming, but we don’t really understand its causes,” she says. “The human factor and carbon dioxide, in particular, contribute to warming, but how much is the subject of intense scientific debate.”

Curry is a scholar, not a pundit. Unlike many political and journalistic oracles, she never opines without proof. And she has data at her command. She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one.

But aren’t oceans rising today, I counter, eroding shorelines and threatening to flood lower-lying population centers and entire inhabited islands? “Yes,” Curry replies. “Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.” To blame human-emitted carbon dioxide entirely may not be scientific, she continues, but “some find it reassuring to believe that we have mastered the subject.” She says that “nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.”

This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. “Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.

Scientific research should be based on skepticism, on the constant reconsideration of accepted ideas: at least, this is what I learned from my mentor, the ultimate scientific philosopher of our time, Karl Popper. What could lead climate scientists to betray the very essence of their calling? The answer, Curry contends: “politics, money, and fame.” Scientists are human beings, with human motives; nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct. Among climatologists, Curry explains, “a person must not like capitalism or industrial development too much and should favor world government, rather than nations”; think differently, and you’ll find yourself ostracized. “Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” she complains. In other words, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”

“Nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct.”

This has long been true in environmental science, she points out. The global warming controversy began back in 1973, during the Gulf oil embargo, which unleashed fear, especially in the United States, that the supply of petroleum would run out. The nuclear industry, Curry says, took advantage of the situation to make its case for nuclear energy as the best alternative, and it began to subsidize ecological movements hostile to coal and oil, which it has been doing ever since. The warming narrative was born.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration played a role in the propagation of that narrative. Having ended its lunar expeditions, NASA was looking for a new mission, so it built some provisional climate models that focused primarily on carbon dioxide, because this is an easy factor to single out and “because it is subject to human control,” observes Curry. Even though it is just one among many factors that cause climate variations, carbon dioxide increasingly became the villain. Bureaucratic forces at the UN that promote global governance—by the UN, needless to say—got behind this line of research. Then the scientists were called upon and given incentives to prove that such a political project was scientifically necessary, recalls Curry. The UN founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to push this agenda, and ever since, climatologists—an increasingly visible and thriving group—have embraced the faith.

In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.

Curry is skeptical about any positive results that might follow from environmental treaties—above all, the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. By the accord’s terms, the signatory nations—not including the United States, which has withdrawn from the pact—have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in order to stabilize the planet’s temperature at roughly its present level. Yet as Curry elaborates, even if all the states respected this commitment—an unlikely prospect—the temperature reduction in 2100 would be an insignificant two-tenths of a degree. And this assumes that climate-model predictions are correct. If there is less future warming than projected, the temperature reductions from limiting emissions would be even smaller.

Since the Paris Climate Accord was concluded, no government has followed through with any serious action. The U.S. pullout is hardly the only problem; India is effectively ignoring the agreement, and France “misses its goals of greenhouse-gas reduction every year,” admits Nicolas Hulot, the French environmental activist and former minister for President Emmanuel Macron. The accord is unenforceable and carries no sanctions—a condition insisted upon by many governments that wouldn’t have signed on otherwise. We continue to live in a contradictory reality: on the one hand, we hear that nothing threatens humanity as much as rising atmospheric carbon dioxide; on the other hand, nothing much happens practically to address this allegedly dire threat. Most economists suggest that the only effective incentive to reduce greenhouse-gas levels would be to impose a global carbon tax. No government seems willing to accept such a levy.

Is there an apocalyptic warming crisis, or not? “We’re always being told that we are reaching a point of no return—that, for instance, the melting of the Arctic ice pack is the beginning of the apocalypse,” Curry says. “But this melting, which started decades ago, is not leading to catastrophe.” Polar bears themselves adapt and move elsewhere and have never been more numerous; they’re less threatened by the melting, she says, than by urbanization and economic development in the polar region. Over the last year or so, moreover, the planet has started cooling, though “no one knows whether it will last or not, or whether it will put all the global-warming hypotheses in question.” According to Curry, the truly dramatic rupture of the ice pack would come not from global-warming-induced melting but from “volcanic eruptions in the Antarctic region that would break up the ice, and these cannot be predicted.” Climatologists don’t talk about such eruptions because their theoretical models can’t account for the unpredictable.

Does Curry recommend passivity, then? Not at all. In her view, research should be diversified to encompass study of the natural causes of climate change and not focus so obsessively on the human factor. She also believes that, instead of wasting time on futile treaties and in sterile quarrels, we would do better to prepare ourselves for the consequences of climate change, whether it’s warming or something else. Despite outcries about the proliferation of extreme weather incidents, she points out, hurricanes usually do less damage today than in the past because warning systems and evacuation planning have improved. That suggests the right approach.

Curry’s pragmatism may not win acclaim in environmentalist circles or among liberal pundits, though no one effectively contests the validity of her research or rebuts the data that she cites about an exceedingly complex reality. But then, neither reality nor complexity mobilizes passions as much as myths do, which is why Judith Curry’s work is so important today. She is a myth-buster.

NRA 1, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 0

Remember last month when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization and ordered city employees to “take every reasonable step to limit” business interactions with the NRA and its supporters? The one that our David French labeled “a retaliatory public attack on constitutionally protected speech”?

In a formal memo to city officials, San Francisco mayor London Breed declared that “no [municipal] department will take steps to restrict any contractor from doing business with the NRA or to restrict City contracting opportunities for any business that has any relationship with the NRA.”

The memo declares, “resolutions making policy statements do not impose duties on City departments, change any of the City’s existing laws or policies, or control City departments’ exercise of discretion.”

“Through these actions and our public advocacy, we hope the message is now clear,” NRA CEO and executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in a released statement. “The NRA will always fight to protect our members and the constitutional freedoms in which they believe.”

“The memo serves as a clear concession and a well-deserved win for the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel for the NRA. “It is unfortunate that in today’s polarized times, some elected officials would rather silence opposing arguments than engage in good-faith debate. The NRA – America’s oldest civil rights organization – won’t stand for that.”

The NRA is challenging a similar law passed by the Los Angeles city council that requiring city contractors to disclose any ties they have to the gun-rights group. Back in August, a federal judge denied a request by the city to dismiss the suit.

18-year-old shot, killed during home invasion

MILWAUKEE —
An 18-year-old man was shot and killed Sunday afternoon during a home invasion near 60th Street and Sheridan Avenue.

Milwaukee police said an 18-year-old broke into a home and exchanged gunfire with an 18-year-old inside the home.

The alleged trespasser was shot and killed, police said. The other was taken to the hospital.

Police have not yet released the identity of the man killed.

This was the second fatal shooting on Sunday. A man was shot and killed while driving Sunday morning in the area of 47th and Center streets.


La Crosse woman confronts neighbor carrying AR-15 in her basement

A La Crosse man was arrested Sunday after his neighbor found him in her basement at 11:30 p.m. claiming he wanted to play with her dog, police say.

Randy W. Markland, 57, was charged Monday with misdemeanor disorderly conduct and trespassing.

The La Crosse Police Department responded to a home near the intersection of Cottage Grove Avenue and 26th South Street after a woman reported an intruder with an AR-15 gun in a rifle case in her basement.

The woman was sitting in her living room while her four children were in bed when she heard a sound in her basement, according to the police report. Initially she thought it was her dog, but then noticed it was in the same room as her.

The woman took a handgun from a drawer and went to investigate, finding Markland in her basement holding a rifle case. According to the report, Markland tried to give her the gun, and she refused it, telling him to leave or she’d shoot.

Markland told police he went to the woman’s house to play with her dog and give her the gun, saying he was worried because her husband wasn’t home, according to the report. He also said the light by the back door was on, which he took as an invitation.

Markland has a previous conviction of fourth-degree sexual assault — a misdemeanor — stemming from a 2005 case.

If You Can’t Sell Your Hysteria To Adults, Try Kids
Hysterias are to the Left what oxygen is to biological life.

The entire American left — the mainstream media, the environmentalist movement and Democratic politicians in particular — are celebrating the involvement of teenagers and even younger children in protesting the world’s “inaction” with regard to global warming.

And not just the American left, of course. The left throughout the world is celebrating. A 16-year-old Swedish girl whose contempt for adults is breathtaking is an international hero. Congressional Democrats invited her to testify in Congress, and the United Nations has likewise invited her.

The mayor and city council of New York City further politicized their city’s public schools by allowing students to skip school to actively participate in a global warming protest.

The message of young climate change activists is: “You adults aren’t doing your job. As a result, we have no future.” As a sympathetic reporter — are there any non-sympathetic reporters? — for the Los Angeles Times put it, “(T)eens are still waiting for a sign that their elders get it.”

The Times’ coverage is typical. It reported: “Underneath the activism lies a simple truth: Young people are incredibly scared about climate change. They see it as a profound injustice and an existential threat to their generation and those that will follow. …

“‘They do worry, and they worry kind of a lot,’ said Maria Ojala, an environmental psychologist at Orebro University in Sweden. …

“Arielle Martinez Cohen” — an 18-year-old Los Angeles activist with the youth climate group Zero Hour — “remembers reading a report from an Australian think tank that warned the human species could face extinction by 2050 if society doesn’t get its act together.

“‘I almost imagine, like, an apocalypse-type thing happening,’ Arielle said.

“Many young people say they can’t fathom bringing kids of their own into the world. …

“‘It’s not ethical. It’s literally a burning house,’ Lana said.

“‘That’s something that’s not realistic,’ agreed her twin sister, Yena.

“And how can they even think about college or contemplate their careers when faced with so much uncertainty?

“‘It’s something I feel every single day,’ Yena said. ‘I work really hard at school and I do all these things, and I’m like, “What am I working for? Do I have a future?”‘”

It is critical to remember that hysterias — such as Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, “endemic and systemic racism in America,” the heterosexual AIDS “crisis” in America and the “rape culture” on American college campuses — are to the left what oxygen is to biological life. No oxygen, no life; no hysteria, no left.

Apparently, however, the left-wing hysteria about global warming leading to the virtual extinction of life on Earth has not moved enough adults. Many adults who do not deny that the Earth is getting warmer — such as Danish writer and environmentalist thinker Bjorn Lomborg — do deny that the threat is “existential” and do believe that the left’s solutions, such as the Green New Deal, will damage the world far more than will carbon emissions. Proof that the left is hysterical is its unwillingness to promote nuclear power — a completely clean, non-fossil fuel-based source of power. It provides France with 70 percent of its energy. Anyone who really believes life on Earth is endangered would grasp at the nuclear power lifeboat. That they do not proves what many of us have believed from the beginning: The “existential threat” scenario is another left-wing falsehood used to whip up hysteria that will lead to the left’s control of the economy and society.

And that takes us back to the children: If you can’t sell your hysteria to adults, try kids. And that is what the left has done. After all, no one is as malleable or as easily indoctrinated as children.

 

Yellowstone visitor severely burned after falling near Old Faithful

Just to point out, again:
“ETOH (alcohol) is a force multiplier. It takes poor decisions and magnifies them into tragedies of epic proportions.”

A tourist visiting Yellowstone National Park on Sunday suffered severe thermal burns after he tripped into a hot spring near Old Faithful Geyser, according to local reports.

Cade Edmond Siemers, 48, a U.S. citizen who lives in India, told rangers he was walking without a flashlight at the time of the fall, the Jackson Hole News & Guide reported. He managed to get back to his hotel room and was eventually flown to the burn center at an Idaho hospital. He was listed in critical condition.

Park rangers said they detected “evidence” of alcohol use back in the hotel room.