Who will be the
2016 candidates
for President of
the United States?



Walker has broad appeal to
GOP constituencies and is a
proven winner. Look for him
to select New Mexico
Governor Susanna Marinez
as his running mate.

Who, from among this
strong, diverse field , will
emerge victorious to return
the GOP to the White

The road to the White House
leads past the Governor's
mansion. Marco Rubio, Rand
Paul and Ted Cruz need to
go back to their state capitals
and fill out their resumes.
Among governors, Jeb Bush
and Rick Perry are stale, and
worse, remind people of
GWB 43. John Kasich is
unappealing to the base.
Mike Pence is an intriguing
alternative to Walker; the
other Mike (Huckabee) is



Look for Hillary to drop out
and open the way for Bill
Clinton's HUD Secretary.
Cuomo, also Cinton's
neighbor in Westchester
County, finished his 2014
re-election with $8.8 million
in the bank, and would have
no problem raising much,
much more. Look for him to
pick MA Senator Elizabeth
Warren - or even Hillary
Clinton! - as his running

Is Hillary a foregone
conclusion, or will
someone else swoop in and
steal the show?

A Clinton run is a 50/50
proposition at best, given
her failures as First Lady
(HIllaryCare) and SecState
(Reset). In the meantime the
prospect keeps her speaking
fees in the stratosphere, and
keeps a path open for the
Clinton's hand-picked
designee: Cuomo. Warren is
an instant contender if she
jumps in. Everyone else is an
also-ran at this point. Webb
is an interesting Presidential
candidate, but a non-starter
in the Primaries: this is the
extreme left Democratic
Party of Sanders and

President Obama called climate change the "greatest threat to future generations". But what about the climate lobby special interest groups that funded his campaigns and control his administration? Are those climate interest radicals, led by President Obama himself, pulling a "bait-and-switch" on us"?

The fact is that climate has been changing since the world's foundation. "Climate change" is almost redundant, the more it changes the more it remains the same. When considering the broader context of climate it is important to realize that the only constant is change.

It is generally accepted that we are presently in an ice age, the fifth ice age since there's been an "Earth", each one lasting various hundreds of millions of years. In between these ice ages there have also been extended warm periods, also lasting hundreds of millions of years, marked by a near or utter absence of frozen water anywhere on earth - no snow storms, no glaciers, no polar ice caps, no snow-capped mountain peaks.

But global climate does not change smoothly and evenly, either within, or in and out of ice ages. Rather, climate varies considerably within these periods. Particularly cold periods within ice ages are referred to as "glacials" while stretches of less severe cold are referred to as "interglacials". Earth is presently is an interglacial period of less severe cold that began about 12,000 years ago, within an ice age that began approximately 2.5 million years ago.

Ponder that for a moment. Global climate is in a period of relative cold in the context of earth's history, but we've been - thankfully - in a warming trend for the past 12,000 years. Thankfully, because everything humanity has ever accomplished, has been accomplished during the current warming period. It's not so bad!

But even within the current interglacial, called the "Holocene", that began 12,000 years ago, there have been and will continue to be extended periods of cold and warm spells. Most recently, the "Medieval Warm Period" from 950 to 1250 was followed by the "Little Ice Age" that lasted from perhaps 1600 to 1850.

The fact is that climate varies quite a bit, not unlike a stock on the stock market. A stock can have an uptick during a minute that stock went down, during an hour the stock went up, on an otherwise bad day. But it was still up for the week, but, unfortunately, was down for the month. But it's had a really good run over the past couple of years.

Asking whether the earth is warming or cooling, is a lot like asking, "What's better, stocks or bonds?" It depends upon what time period you look at. Stocks have outperformed bonds over the last five years, but bonds have outperformed stocks over the last ten years.

Similarly, the earth has warmed over the past 100 years - coming off the Little Ice Age - but cooled over the last 800 years - coming off the Medieval Warm Period. In fact the Medieval Warm Period was sufficiently pleasant to induce Scandinavians to colonize the balmy seaside resort of Greenland.

Not unexpectedly, yet fortuitously and thankfully so, climate has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. However, the widespread, rigorous, precision collection and archiving of climate data has also coincided with the end of the Little Ice Age, presenting climatologists with an accurate set of data points showing a warming trend in global climate. And that is where the charlatans have stepped in and hijacked the science and turned it into a get-rich-quick scheme.

The science of climatology has given way to the Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) hysteria. The MMGW lobby claims that, based upon a microscopic data sample, because a warming climate has coincided with economic progress that warming MUST be caused by economic progress. And the reason why? Ummmm... hmmmm... Eureka! Carbon Dioxide! CO2! The worst poison ever! And so, armed with their bogey-man, the MMGW crowd whips up fear in the public in order to line their pockets with billions of dollars expropriated from deceived taxpayers.

But what if it's just not so? What if it's the other way around? What if warming is the cause of economic progress, rather than an effect? Or, by far the most likely case scenario, there is no causal relationship between the two, one way or the other?

Given that the current global climate, as well as current climate trends, are well within historical norms, it seems far-fetched that all the forces that have caused radical climate change in the past - from solar activity to continental drift and everything in between - are suddenly void, and that a new force - human CO2 emissions - have us suddenly hurtling to disaster. Not only is it not likely, it is also not happening.

If the MMGW crew were right, how could the Medieval Warming Period have happened? King Richard didn't have a private jet fleet like Al Gore does. Those folks didn't have cars and planes, they didn't burn fossil fuels - how did they manage to induce global warming? Will President Obama also blame the Medieval Warm Period on the Crusades? And for that matter, can we credit the EPA for stopping the Medieval Warm Period and brining on the Little Ice Age?

According to President Obama, a natural phenomenon that has been going on for 4.5 billion years and has made life possible on earth, is now the "greatest threat to future generations". Or is this a bait-and-switch? You're advertising Climate Change but selling us Man-Made Global Warming?

Resources allocated to MMGW are funds unavailable to other projects and programs - infrastructure, feeding the poor, job training, you name it. How much treasure are we going to squander on MMGW, resources that could have been far more usefully deployed elsewhere, before we realize this was all a hoax?

Fighting the MMGW Hoax:
The Hegemony of Client Science?

The man-made global-warming special interest lobby is trying to create a "settled science" hegemony for the primary purpose of padding their bank accounts.

Let's not kid ourselves - governments are lavishing ever-increasing billions of dollars on various MMGW boondoggles, and get-rich-quick schemers are continuously lining their pockets by extracting your hard-earned tax dollars from unaccountable bureaucrats.

These crony capitalists have a vested interest in keeping the public frightened about man-made global warming. The MMGW complex, including cronyists, lobbyists, Democrats, and the liberal media complex, attempts to suppress opposition, stifle debate, and mislead the public.

Worse still, the science of climate is becoming a self-selecting echo chamber. Scientists who reject the MMGW party line are cut-off from funding. Science students who reject the Kool-Aide choose other fields, while those currently in the field move out as your government cuts off funding to those who refuse to play the game.

Don't believe it? Check out the blog of University of Colorado scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. who has been forced out of the field by attacks from one of America's very worst Congressmen - now that's saying a lot! - Democrat Raśl Grijalva (D-AZ03).

Still, in spite of the persecution, many scientists come out in opposition to these climate change crony capitalists, and attempt to keep an objective discussion in the public view. We support their efforts, and we join them.

" The facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage. "

So says preeminent physicist Freeman Dyson, a life-long Democrat and Obama supporter, who has taken not-so-friendly fire for daring to air some learned perspectives that contradict the ideology of the MMGW cult. Check out this article for some insight. Though the accomplished scientist accepts climate change, he believes that it is not an urgent problem and that climate models contain too much fluff to generate statistically significant output. Further, he believes Obama chooses the wrong science which leads to inappropriate public policy - you don't need to be a scientist to see that!

Check out this article where Georgia Tech climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry takes down Democrat Don Beyer (D-VA08). Dr. Curry points out to the deluded big-government inner-beltway Congressman that climate has been changing since forever, and that we are wasting resources by attempting to prevent it, rather than deploy resources to adapt to it.

Include Weather Channel founder John Coleman as a skeptic (as are we here at Challenge The Premise). Check Coleman's forceful pushback against attempts by the media to suffocate debate. Note too how he shows your government wasting your hard earned tax dollars - now there's a surprise!

Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has written just one of the many fine repudiations of the climate change lemming-think. We invite you to read Dr. Moore's article. Enjoy!

© Copyright 2014 Challenge The Premise. All rights reserved.