the models relied upon by the Left to predict future global warming are so poor that they cannot even reproduce the temperature changes in the 20 ^th  century.

If these models cannot reproduce past temperatures already known when the models were developed, how can they possibly reliably predict temperatures decades into the future?

Second , Koonin’s book also documents that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own analysis indicates that any negative economic impact that global warming eventually may have will be so modest that it warrants no action.

Third , the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the UN IPPC do not claim that a link has been established between global warming and natural disasters.

In 2020, the NOAA stated: “it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity,” and “changes in tropical cyclone activity … are not yet detectable.”

The UN IPPC, the  Wall Street Journal  reported, “says that it too lacks evidence to show that warming is making storms and flooding worse.”

Fourth , as the earth’s temperature has risen, natural disasters have become far  less  deadly.

Since 1920, the planet’s temperature has risen by 1.29 degrees Celsius and world population has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion – yet EM-DAT, The International Disaster Database, reports that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined by over 80 percent, from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year.

Fifth , some of the world’s best scientists believe that global warming will be beneficial rather than harmful.

In 2017, a group of eminent scientists – such as Richard Lindzen of MIT, William Happer of Princeton, and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech – wrote that “[o]bservations [over the last] 25 years … show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign.”

Carbon dioxide, they noted, “is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth.”

Sixth , global warming saves lives. A study published in 2015 by the British medical journal  The Lancet  found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.

thenewstalkers

Nothing to see here. Some garbage blog site or something without any actual links to actual studies and cherry picked stats lacking any context. 

And of course, global warming is good because more people die from cold weather than heat? Is that including all those who die from starvation, and conflict due to drought? What a ducking stupid thing to add. 

[Deleted] posts this garbage the west is breaking heat records left and right and drying up so fast some climate scientists are considering upgrading us from mega drought to full on aridificarion. 

Real Clear is a very well respected site by most people that carries a wide variety of viewpoints even opposing ones in competing articles in the same section.  Warming generally allows for much more agricultural opportunities than cooling does. The temp is never going to remain at a static constant.  You think we haven’t had heat waves and drought here before?  

Real Clear took a hard right turn in their editorial policies when Trump was elected..

The only truths in this article are the names of paid fossil fuel industry shills.

Climate Change Did Not Cause Recent Record Heat Waves

July 9, 2021

Guest Essay by Anthony Watts

“ Unprecedented Heat Wave in Pacific Northwest Driven by Climate Change , ” the headline in  E&E News ,  WOWT-TV ,  WorldNewsNetwork ,  and other media outlets recently, couldn’t possibly be less scientific. With absolutely no analysis, no historical context, and nothing but conjecture, author Anne C. Mulkern, in her article for Scientific American , eschewed science for advocacy in her coverage of the brief Pacific Northwest (PNW) heat wave at the end of June.

heartland

Anthony Watts

'Interesting' fellow, why don't you tell us all about him.

Lake Mead is being devastated. Never been that low in its history.

See 2.2

While dumbass here posts this garbage the west is breaking heat records left and right and drying up so fast some climate scientists are considering upgrading us from mega drought to full on aridificarion. 

It's hot because it's summer.

The record high at Death Valley was set over a hundred years ago, and the 30's had some very hot years.

Not a shred of evidence this hot spell is linked to "climate change"

"This hot tub is really nice" said one frog to the other.

That’s the tub that climate change and global warming tree huggers are trying to put America and we the people in.  

We the people, the real American people, are rightfully concerned about the severe damage being caused by the climate change disaster.  No one is fooled by the lies and propaganda spread by ignorant Trumpist fascists in the service of the forces profiting off the disaster.

The chicken little lobby is indeed trying to scare us.  They are using their hoax to implement socialist economic policy.  

So let's get this straight. The people who are making these claims have no vested interest but we're supposed to believe that #1 Global warming isn't actually happening and it's all a hoax, and #2 if it is happening "any negative economic impact that global warming eventually may have will be so modest that it warrants no action", and three "the NOAA have no proof that a link has been established between global warming and natural disasters" and 4th, "as the earth’s temperature has risen, natural disasters have become far  less  deadly." So wait, which is it, is there no connection or are the Exxon scientists claiming there is a connection and that it has made natural disasters "less deadly"?

Sixth , global warming saves lives. A study published in 2015 by the British medical journal  The Lancet  found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat

What kind of dipshit thought process created such hysterical bullshit idiocy? That fact is completely irrelevant in regards to global warming and has exactly ZERO relevance regarding the change in climate. Anyone who thinks that is a somehow a cogent response is most like mentally disabled and should be assigned someone who can manage their health care needs.

Climate change is not a hoax, but as a political matter, it is a persistent pretext for expanding government control over the economy, redistributing wealth, and empowering unaccountable elites at the expense of voters and their elected representatives.

In fact, climate change does not endanger the survival of civilization or the habitability of the planet. So-called climate solutions are bureaucratic power grabs and corporate welfare schemes with no detectable climate-related benefits.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute offers a realistic policy alternative to both catastrophism and denialism to policy makers and the public that preserves our climate and allows for abundant energy and economic development.

cei

In fact, climate change does not endanger the survival of civilization or the habitability of the planet.

Try telling that to those who've been effected already. They'll likely tell you to go fuck yourself.

 So-called climate solutions are bureaucratic power grabs and corporate welfare schemes with no detectable climate-related benefits.

More baseless accusations without a single fact to back that ridiculous claim.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute offers a realistic policy alternative to both catastrophism and denialism

They are central in the disinformation machine and denialism is their bread and butter.

policy makers and the public that preserves our climate and allows for abundant energy and economic development.

Those engaged in continual idiotic denialism preserve nothing but their jobs. They are fucking worthless selfish pieces of shit.

Falling CO2 Emissions Expose 'Global Warming' Alarmism As Anti-Science

David Simon January 15, 2021

The “experts” that dominate government, big business, universities, and international institutions vitriolically insist that “science” purportedly establishes beyond doubt that carbon dioxide emissions are raising global temperatures and that the warmer earth will be catastrophic.

In 2020, the pandemic-induced shutdowns that inflicted so much economic harm, particularly on the Third World’s already poor,  reduced  CO2 emissions by a record-breaking 7 percent. Those demanding that Americans reduce emissions must be especially pleased: the U.S. led the world with a 12 percent reduction.

Prevailing scientific orthodoxy dictates that lowering CO2 emissions will restrain global warming. Yet NASA  data  show that the planet’s temperature increased by 0.03 degrees Celsius in 2020, more than double the average annual increase since 1920.

So much for the supposedly conclusive “scientific” link between CO2 emissions and global warming. Yet demands to reduce CO2 emissions continue unabated. Their insistence that we accept a theory contradicted by facts disregards basic scientific principles, fails to “follow the science,” and instead reflects religious views about the earth’s climate.

The assertion that reducing CO2 emissions will limit the planet’s warming isn’t the worst of the anti-scientific claims that dominate the climate change debate. That honor goes to the assertion that global warming is harmful and will be catastrophic. The scientific evidence contradicts this theory and shows the opposite: a warmer earth is beneficial.

A 2017  statement  by some of the world’s most eminent scientists – such as Richard Lindzen of MIT, William Happer and the late Freeman Dyson of Princeton, the late Fred Singer of the University of Virginia, and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech – attests that “[o]bservations [over the last] 25 years … show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign.”

Their statement notes that “carbon dioxide … is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth.” The  dry ice  used to keep the coronavirus vaccines cool, indeed, is solid frozen CO2.…

read more: realclearmarkets

In 2020, the NOAA stated: “it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity,” and “changes in tropical cyclone activity … are not yet detectable.”

Wow, what a load of utter rubbish. Here is the actual study:

gfdl.noaa

You are kind of missing the context of what was written:

Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:

• What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?
• Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?

The   IPCC AR5   presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. “ Detectable ” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:

• Sea level rise   – which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to   IPCC AR5   – should be causing   higher coastal inundation levels   for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
• Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase   in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
• Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase   on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.
• The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase   due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century. There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.
• In terms of   detection and attribution , much less is known about hurricane/tropical cyclone activity changes, compared to global temperature.  Recent findings include:
  • In the northwest Pacific basin, there is   emerging evidence   for a detectable poleward shift in the latitude of maximum intensity of tropical cyclones, with a tentative link to anthropogenic warming.
  •  A new study   finds an increase in the fraction of tropical cyclones reaching at least Category 3 intensity both globally and in the Atlantic basin, over the past four decades.  These observed changes have not been compared with modeled responses to historical anthropogenic forcing or to modeled natural variability; they have not been confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing.
  • A study of rapid intensification of hurricanes   finds that the observed increase in an Atlantic rapid intensification metric (1982-2009) is highly unusual compared to one climate model’s simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, and is consistent in sign with that model’s expected long-term response to anthropogenic forcing.
  • There is increasing evidence from modeling studies at   GFDL/NOAA   and the   UK Met Office/Hadley Centre   (UKMO) that the increase in tropical storm frequency in the Atlantic basin since the 1970s has been at least partly driven by decreases in aerosols from human activity and volcanic forcing.    Natural variability   may also have contributed to recent changes.  The recent GFDL and UKMO studies do not imply that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm frequency since the 1970s will continue into the future:     these same models   project future decreases in Atlantic tropical storm frequency in response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
  • There is   evidence   for a slowing of tropical cyclone propagation speeds over the continental U.S. over the past century, but these observed changes have not yet been confidently linked to anthropogenic climate change.
• In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming.  Some possible human influences on tropical cyclones are summarized above.  Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations.

….The facts, however, do not matter to Biden. He has been making unfounded statements about global warming for decades. On the campaign trail in 2019, ignoring the last three decades of beneficial global warming, he  bragged  that he had sought to enact climate change legislation in the 1980s. “I said, we have an existential threat, we are in a situation where, if we don’t act quickly, we’re going to basically lose almost everything we have.”

Biden also chooses to ignore the fact that even the most severe restrictions on carbon dioxide omissions  will have almost zero impact on the earth’s temperature . Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels calculated that if the United States eliminated all carbon emissions – which would not only require Americans to give up fossil fuels, but also to stop breathing (to cease exhaling carbon dioxide) – it would only reduce global warming by a negligible  0.052° C  by 2050.

There is, however, one carbon dioxide emission limitation measure that would benefit humanity – convincing Biden to stop telling whoppers about global warming.

Read more: realclearmarkets

Where was that picture taken. Could it be from Death Valley where it was hotter than that almost 100years ago?

You don’t want to throw cold water on their narrative, do you?  

I absolutely do. 

DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING

There are several facts that are glossed over, dismissed, or simply ignored.  Even by the seeded article.

Human greenhouse gas emissions include much more than just carbon dioxide.  Human emissions include artificially produced gases that are thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide.  There aren't records available to estimate how much artificially produced greenhouse gas has been emitted.  That's why the models are screwy and there's no way to fix the models.

Water vapor can also act as a greenhouse gas.  Humans emit water vapor when fossil fuels are burned.  That water vapor is not the result of feedback evaporation; the water vapor is chemically produced.  Emitted water vapor will change absolute humidity, requiring more heat to evaporate standing water and reducing the cooling effect of evaporation.  

Warming in the Arctic (and now Antarctic) are skewing the global average temperatures.  The fairly large increases in temperature in the Arctic (and Antarctic) really does suggest the planet is warming significantly.  But the link between polar warming and carbon dioxide emissions is not as clear cut as has been suggested.  Polar warming can certainly be attributed to human impact but that impact is the result of many human activities affecting both the atmosphere and oceans.  Fossil fuels, alone, isn't responsible for polar warming.

Global warming is far more complex than the human impact on the ozone layer.  There isn't a single smoking gun for global warming as there was with the ozone layer.  That's why the Montreal Accord isn't a suitable model for addressing global warming.  

Good perspective.  Thanks for putting it here.  

Good perspective.  Thanks for putting it here.  

Bottom line is a lot of this stuff is guesswork.  The only thing we know with sufficient certainty is that the planet is warming.  We can't continue to do things as we have been because the planet is warming.  If nothing else, we are going to be forced to adapt to a warmer planet.  And that adaptation will be expensive, change our economy, and change our society.  Adaptation is unavoidable.  Quite a bit of the politics on both sides of the issue is about trying to avoid adapting to a warmer planet.  Adaptation doesn't fit with the conventional wisdom of growth, development, and progress.

The idea that humans have caused global warming is pretty nonsensical.  But denying that humans are contributing to global warming is just as nonsensical.  And the idea that global warming can be fixed, like the ozone layer, by switching to cleaner pollutants is ludicrous.  Degradation of the ozone layer was chemical but global warming is thermodynamics; not even remotely the same thing.

Switching energy sources is busy work that creates an illusion that our economy and society won't have to change.  But our future depends upon adapting to a warmer planet; changes to our economy and society are inevitable.  There's no way to square that circle.

This is why I ask the question:  What are the signs of a coming Ice Age?  I had one commenter say it gets colder, which is not possible, for ancient sea levels were higher before each Ice Age, which would mean that it was warmer before the Ice Ages, because to get that sea level rise (at least 8 meters higher than current levels) the worlds glaciers, ice sheets of Greenland, and some of the ice sheets of Antarctica had to release the water into the oceans and water just being liquid is warmer than ice.

I could add more, but I have to go to work.

This is why I ask the question:  What are the signs of a coming Ice Age?  I had one commenter say it gets colder, which is not possible, for ancient sea levels were higher before each Ice Age, which would mean that it was warmer before the Ice Ages, because to get that sea level rise (at least 8 meters higher than current levels) the worlds glaciers, ice sheets of Greenland, and some of the ice sheets of Antarctica had to release the water into the oceans and water just being liquid is warmer than ice.

The question is: how did the ice get there?  The oceans didn't flood the land and freeze.

Granted the ice sheets built up over thousands of years.  But the water still had to move through the atmosphere to get there.  I suspect the ice ages began with massive storms moving a lot of water inland.  Since massive storms require a lot of heat then the planet had to be pretty warm at the beginning of the ice age.

Storms do remove pollutants from the atmosphere; even carbon dioxide.  The number and size of storms can cause fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.  

The complicating factor is that now humans are flying above the storms.  And flying above the storms does emit warming pollutants of carbon dioxide and water vapor.  And since the pollutants are emitted above the storms then the storms won't remove those pollutants.  Storms carry heat up into the atmosphere where it can be released to space.  And the pollutants being emitted by flying above the storms will trap some of that heat.  The effect that may have on storms is all guesswork at this point.

What is ironic is that the so called pro science consensus fascists deny any guesswork or alternative ideas to their secular climate change religion and accuse all who question their socialist economic/environmental solutions as pseudoscience and try to ban them from big tech social media.  I’m proud to be called a pseudoscience advocates by those arrogant asses.  

Is the climate warming?. Probably. Has it been warming since the last ice age? Yes with a slight reversal here and there. Are humans responsible for the warming? Very doubtfull. 

It is mostly cyclical as well as solar activity related both the warming and the cooling through all history 

Steven Koonin is another of a handful of physicists trying to capitalize on their supposed 'expertise' in climatology. Here's an quote from an article in the Scientific American which takes Koonin's book to task:

So, what is the takeaway message? Regardless of what Koonin has written in his new book, the science is clear, and the consensus is incredibly wide. Scientists are generating and reporting data with more and more specificity about climate impacts and surrounding uncertainties all the time. This is particularly true with regard to the exaggerated natural, social and economic risks associated with climate extremes—the low-probability, high-consequence events that are such a vital part of effective risk management. This is not an unsettled state of affairs. It is living inside a moving picture of what is happening portrayed with sharper clarity and more detail with every new peer-reviewed paper.

scientificamerican

For a military perspective:

I’ve studied military and security issues for decades. Although President Trump has called climate change a hoax and worked to reverse the Obama administration’s climate initiatives , senior U.S. military officers have long been aware of warming’s detrimental effects. Military leaders believe climate change seriously threatens U.S. national security. They contend it is stirring up chaos and conflict abroad, endangering coastal bases and stressing soldiers and equipment, which undermines military readiness. But rather than debating the causes of climate change or assigning blame, they focus on how warming undermines security, and on practical steps to slow its advance and minimize damage.

theconversation

1. Steven E. Koonin

Steven E. Koonin was appointed as the founding Director of NYU’s Center for Urban Science and Progress in April 2012. That consortium of academic, corporate, and government partners will pursue research and education activities to develop and demonstrate informatics technologies for urban problems in the “living laboratory” of New York City. 

He previously served as the U.S. Department of Energy’s second Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for Science from May 19, 2009 through November 18, 2011. As Under Secretary for Science, Dr. Koonin functioned as the Department’s chief scientific officer, coordinating and overseeing research across the DOE. He led the preparation of the Department’s 2011 Strategic Plan and was the principal author of its Quadrennial Technology Review. Dr. Koonin particularly championed research programs in High Performance Simulation, Exascale Computing, Inertial Fusion Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification. He also provided technical counsel on diverse nuclear security matters. 

He joined the California Institute of Technology’s faculty in 1975, was a research fellow at the Neils Bohr Institute during 1976-1977, and was an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellow during 1977-1979. He became a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech in 1981 and served as Chairman of the Faculty from 1989-1991. Dr. Koonin was the seventh provost of Caltech from 1995-2004. In that capacity, he was involved in identifying and recruiting 1/3 of the Institute’s professorial faculty and left an enduring legacy of academic and research initiatives in the biological, physical, earth, and social sciences, as well as the planning and development of the Thirty-Meter Telescope project. 

As the Chief Scientist at BP from 2004 to early 2009, Dr. Koonin developed the long-range technology strategy for alternative and renewable energy sources. He managed the firm’s university–based research programs and played a central role in establishing the Energy Biosciences Institute at the University of California Berkeley, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

Dr. Koonin is a member and past chair of the JASON Study Group, advising the U.S. Government on technical matters of national security. He has served on numerous advisory committees for the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense, including the Defense Science Board and the CNO’s Executive Panel. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a former member of the Trilateral Commission. In 1985, Dr. Koonin received the Humboldt Senior U.S. Scientist Award and, in 1998 the Department of Energy’s E.O. Lawrence Award for his “broad impact on nuclear many-body physics, on astrophysics, and on a variety of related fields where sophisticated numerical methods are essential; and in particular, for his breakthrough in nuclear shell model calculations centered on an ingenious method for dealing with the huge matrices of heavy nuclei by using path integral methods combined with the Monte Carlo technique.”

1000 Independence Ave. SW
Washington DC 20585
202-586-5000

energy

About 2,000 people get physics PHDs each year, so assuming a 30 year active lifespan, there are about 60,000 of them active at any given time. If physicists have some special ability to spot the flaws in climatologists' models/data/etc, there should be thousands of them pointing out these problems; probably tens of thousands. But, the right has only a handful -- most likely because this handful of physicists are just opportunists taking advantage of the right's desperate need for validation of their ridiculous viewpoint on anthropogenic climate change.

A doctorate and an anti-AGW stance will get a spot on Fox.

There are always a few who want the spotlight, regardless of the cost to their honor.

Going along with the majority rarely gets noticed, but swimming against the current often does. A person's interest, as a member of a group, is often less than that same person's interest in acting against the group. Thus, a few Blacks support Trump... a few scientists oppose AGW... The outliers are "news", because they are outliers. Not because their opinions are worthwhile. 

Of course anyone disagreeing with the hard left pro science socialist point of view on the issue must have their character questioned and be called an opportunist because and that closed minded subset, there is absolutely no room for honest disagreement.  To disagree with the group think makes a person bad. 

See 8.1.3 as well.  

hard left pro science socialist point of view

Wow... 

Of course anyone disagreeing with the hard left pro science socialist point of view on the issue must have their character questioned and be called an opportunist...

First of all, 99+% of all physicists are not disputing anthropogenic climate change, just as 99+% of climatologists who have expressed an opinion support it. This definitionally makes the deniers outliers. If you're going to have scientists, perhaps the best path is to go with the overwhelming majority, rather than what your politics would like to believe.

Secondly, there are a small number of physicists who have capitalized on their credentials. One group produced 'research' and 'studies' showing that smoking does not cause cancer for 40 years -- guess who paid them. The same group produced 'research' and 'studies' showing that coal power plants were not responsible for acid rain -- guess who funded that. The same group produced 'research' and 'studies' showing that CFCs were not causing the hole in the ozone layer -- guess who funded that. They lost to science in all these cases, but major industries have deep pockets to fund nonsense that allows them to continue to make money at the expense of our lives. Although this may not be true of all deniers, this has been shown to be true over and over in the past.

When it comes to climate change theology that is exactly right.  

And how many climatologists have not expressed an opinion on it for fear of being ostracized by the woke pro science mob?  

And how many climatologists have not expressed an opinion on it for fear of being ostracized by the woke pro science mob?

If a climatologist expresses an opinion on anthropogenic climate change, then he will be expected to provide data and analysis to back up that opinion. Right now, the consensus based on the data and analysis is that human activity is the largest contributor to global warming. If a person, not even a scientist, let alone a climatologist, could provide a better explanation for the data they would be elevated immediately. That is the way science works. It is a wet dream of scientists to make such a discovery. I doubt anyone is holding back because of fear, they simply can't back up the denier position very well.

I remember, fifty years ago, when AGW was very much the minority opinion among climatologists. Then... data.

Of course, data are of no interest to TrumpTrueBelievers. 

Global ice ages and then global warming were total hoaxes.  As to the data and climate change fraud and manipulation…well there’s been plenty of that starting with the fake hockey stick.  

You do not know what you're talking about... and I doubt you care. 

and I doubt you care. 

It's known as ''talking out your ass'', which of course is the pefect description.

I do not care at all that you think that about me.  When it comes to environmental issues, I stand with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute.  They are generally right snout all those matters.  

They are generally right snout all those matters.  

And that's why you do not know what you're talking about. 

Something that you are a world wide well known top expert in…

That would be you.  I know exactly what I’m talking about.