Free Markets, Free People

Bruce McQuain

Again, what’s $15 times zero?

A “told you so” follow up on that $15 minimum wage hike in Seattle (and coming to San Francisco soon):

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law goes into effect on April 1, 2015. As that date approaches, restaurant across the city are making the financial decision to close shop. The Washington Policy Center writes that “closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.”

Of course, restaurants close for a variety of reasons. But, according to Seattle Magazine, the “impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour” is playing a “major factor.” That’s not surprising, considering “about 36% of restaurant earnings go to paying labor costs.” Seattle Magazine,

“Washington Restaurant Association’s Anthony Anton puts it this way: “It’s not a political problem; it’s a math problem.”

“He estimates that a common budget breakdown among sustaining Seattle restaurants so far has been the following: 36 percent of funds are devoted to labor, 30 percent to food costs and 30 percent go to everything else (all other operational costs).  The remaining 4 percent has been the profit margin, and as a result, in a $700,000 restaurant, he estimates that the average restauranteur in Seattle has been making $28,000 a year.

“With the minimum wage spike, however, he says that if restaurant owners made no changes, the labor cost in quick service restaurants would rise to 42 percent and in full service restaurants to 47 percent.”

Key quote: “It’s not a political problem; it’s a math problem.”  Of course it is a “political problem” because it is clueless politics that pushed this.  However, for the owners, it is indeed a “math problem”. And the math for staying open doesn’t add up.

Are there alternatives to closing.  Sure.  But they’re the same ones we’ve talked about for years:

Restaurant owners, expecting to operate on thinner margins, have tried to adapt in several ways including “higher menu prices, cheaper, lower-quality ingredients, reduced opening times, and cutting work hours and firing workers,” according to The Seattle Times and Seattle Eater magazine. As the Washington Policy Center points out, when these strategies are not enough, businesses close, “workers lose their jobs and the neighborhood loses a prized amenity.”

Welcome to the land of $17 dollar cheeseburger.  And, as you can figure out fairly quickly, everything else will be more expensive too … which, of course, erodes the purchasing power of that $15 wage.  More importantly, if you work for one of those establishments that is closing, your wage is $15 times zero hours, isn’t it?

~McQ

 

Government is problem #1

Or so the most recent Gallup poll says:

pm7sqx2akuocbruzcjlhwaHere’s a quiz for you – name the one “problem” that this administration has given top priority that doesn’t even make the list?

Yes, that’s right – climate change.

Notice the top “problem”, and apparently increasingly seen as such by more and more Americans.

Notice also that every other problem listed is one in which government has at least a finger in if not stuck in it up to the elbow.

Our public education system is not good – it’s run by the government.  Our federal budget is a disaster – government ill-discipline.  Foreign policy doesn’t exist – government malfeasance.  Terrorism is increasing – government ineptitude.  National security at risk – government incompetence.  Race relations – government partisan bias.  Poverty – government enabling.  And healthcare – don’t even get me started. Etc. etc.

Every “problem” under the top problem have become more of a problem because of government meddling, incompetence, over-reach, bumbling, malfeasance or partisan bias.

And yet one of Obama’s stated goals as president was to again make big government “cool”.

Well, heck of a job there, Barack.

~McQ

Where’s the “treason?”

You know, anymore you have to wait a couple of days for the hysteria to settle before you can figure out what may or may not have happened.   And unfortunately, our “National Enquirer” media is usually the leaders of the hysteria.

This supposed “treasonous” letter, for instance.  Finally, Jennifer Rubin lends a little sanity to what have been the equivalent of click bait headlines these past few days.

First:

[T]he letter was “open” — that is, akin to an op-ed, not dropped in the mail with a Tehran address. This is not a private negotiation or even a message primarily to the Iranians; it was a statement concerning the president’s powers, in contravention of prior promises, to make an critically important deal without Congress. It was unfortunate that it was not instead a letter to the editor or the president; the content would have been the same and Democrats would have been deprived of a silly but unifying talking point. But let’s get to the reason it had to be sent in the first place. As Jeb Bush noted in a statement, “The Senators are reacting to reports of a bad deal that will likely enable Iran to become a nuclear state over time. They would not have been put in this position had the Administration consulted regularly with them rather than ignoring their input.”

Can’t begin to see how that measures up to “treason”.  I can see how the subversion of the Constitution could lead in that direction though.

Second it is a warning to Iran to deal straight with the President:

Republicans are saying to the mullahs they’d better not sucker the president into a sweetheart deal because ultimately that deal will have to pass muster with Congress. Any savvy negotiator would use that to say to the mullahs they need to deliver more, not less, because of the ornery lawmakers. But Obama is so determined to give the mullahs whatever they demand he cannot recognize bargaining leverage when it is staring him in the face. It is only when you are trying to give away the store that you consider a letter warning the mullahs the bar will be high for a deal to be “sabotage.”

So instead, it’s backing this idiot’s sucker’s President’s play.  They’ve actually managed to give Obama some leverage and Obama is rejecting it for heaven sake.

Finally:

The letter was meant to highlight a point about which critics have not quarreled: The president can have a binding treaty with Senate approval, or he can have an executive agreement that may be null and void when he leaves office. (If he has told the Iranians otherwise, either he is confused or he is selling snake oil.)

Got that?  Deal straight and make the sort of deal we will approve in the Senate.

But, as Rubin points out, there’s a bigger question:

What does the president think he is negotiating if he intends to keep Congress in the dark and present a fait accompli?

Does he understand that if he thinks its a “treaty” and it doesn’t go before (and get passed by) the Senate, it isn’t worth a war bucket of spit?  I mean, he may have a pen and a phone, but he can’t agree to a treaty without Congress’s okay no matter how hard he tries to pretend he can.

Which may necessitate some more “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” reasoning from Democrats.

There’s the story.

So, in terms of the letter, another partisan tempest in a teapot.

Meanwhile, the big Constitutional question mostly gets ignored.

Thanks media.

~McQ

 

Quote of the Day: Rule of Law edition

From the inestimable Kevin Williamson:

When the law does not apply to the lawmakers and law-enforcers, you are not being governed: You are being ruled. And we are ruled by criminals. If you treat IRS rules the way the IRS treats IRS rules, you go to prison; if you treat federal law the way the secretary of state does, you go to prison. If you treat immigration controls the way our immigration authorities do, you go to prison. If you’re as careless in your handling of firearms as the ATF is, you go to prison. You cook your business’s books the way the federal government cooks its books, you go to prison.

If you believe that any of those who you’ve watched arrogantly refuse to follow the law are going to actually be prosecuted and pay the same penalty you would, you’ve not been paying close attention.  When’s the last time you saw any politician or bureaucrat with any real power frog marched off to jail?  When is the last time you actually saw one held accountable for their actions?

All of Williamson’s statements are true when applied to you and I.  I’ve always used the example of a numbers racket.  You run a numbers racket and you go to jail.  The government runs one and they call it “the lottery” – and, of course, it’s proceeds are “for the children” – so its ok if they do it.

Until we see scofflaws like Hillary Clinton and others actually held accountable by law and suffer consequences for breaking it, there’s no downside for politicians and bureaucrats who break or ignore the law.  And since there is no incentive right now for them to change and every incentive not too (in terms of increasing their control and power) we’re not going to see anything change.  They’ll just continue to abuse and disobey the law and dare us to do anything about it.  We’ll be treated to outrageous story after outrageous story (sort of what our fare has been for the last few years) and nothing will change.  In fact, you can count on those stories becoming even more frequent.

But “rule of law”?  That, apparently, is an old fashioned concept for our ruling elite and reserved only for the “little people”.  And they hang us high when they get the chance to keep the fear of government alive and ensure their control doesn’t slip.

We have a ruling elite, folks, and we need to hold them accountable in the most basic way – if we want to see a return of the “rule of law” for all, bring government under control and again have the politicians and bureaucrats serve us instead of rule us.

~McQ

Screw the science, we need the money!

The title is essentially what is going on in California as the Democratic controlled state imposes a tax for the “prevention” of global warming.

Californians will now have to pay yet another tax as part of the state’s effort to fight global warming. Residents will now pay a global warming tax for buying gasoline on top of the already existing state gas tax.

But being “smart” politicians, they don’t call it a tax:

The global warming tax on gas retailers is part of the state’s cap-and-trade program. But state officials are not calling the global warming charge a tax, instead they are saying it’s a fee paid by gas retailers when distributors load tanker trucks — even though the cost is passed onto consumers through the cost of fuel.

“They are not calling it a tax, and these guys (wholesalers) are adding it to the cost of the fuel, so you are paying a tax on a tax,” Max Castillo, who owns a convenience store and gas station, told the San Diego Union-Tribune. “California is the leader of the nation in paying taxes.”

That’s right, folks, it’s a “fee”.  So Californians, who live in the state with the highest taxes, now get to pay a tax on a tax “fee”.  The result?

The global warming tax adds about 10 cents a gallon to wholesale gas prices and 12 cents to diesel prices, reports the Union-Tribune. But with gas prices down about one dollar from last year, few residents have noticed the global warming fee being added to their gas bills.

Californians pay a whopping 77 cents per gallon extra on gasoline due to fees and taxes. The Union-Tribune reports that “[e]xcise taxes… cost consumers 36 cents per gallon for the state and 18.3 cents for the federal government.” This is in addition to the 2 cent underground storage tank fee and the “global warming fee, which is variable and could soar in the future, added about a dime this week.”

The global warming fee adds 2.25 percent to the full retail price of gasoline — which includes existing taxes and fees — meaning that once gas prices start to rise, Californians may take notice when their gas bills go way up.

Science doesn’t support this.  It simply isn’t there.  And California’s politicians deciding to do it on their own is simply an exercise in political arrogance and vanity.  A decision to get the “little people” to again pay for a political boondoggle (see current “light rail” boondoggle).  Nothing will come of this in real terms.  California fossil fuel usage for transportation needs is 96%. That hasn’t changed much and isn’t likely to change anytime in the near future.

However, that apparently doesn’t prevent politicians from imposing their utopian pipe dreams on the citizens of that state – and frankly, they richly deserve this given their past voting record.

The imposition of a global warming tax on fuel retailers comes as Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown announces plans to push the state to get 50 percent of its energy from green sources and move away from oil.

“If we have any chance at all of achieving that, California, as it does in many areas, must show the way. We must demonstrate that reducing carbon is compatible with an abundant economy and human well-being,” Brown said in a recent speech.

Brown wants to put the state on track to get 50 percent of its energy from green sources, like wind and solar, by 2030 and cut the state’s use of petroleum in half in the next 15 years. Brown also promised more rules to make buildings more energy-efficient.

“All of this is a very tall order. It means that we continue to transform our electrical grid, our transportation system and even our communities,” Brown said.

It’s BS built on a questionable scientific theory based in models which have been found to be horribly wanting and consistently wrong.  This isn’t about the environment (other than it will help keep that lobby a bit quieter and in the politician’s pocket), it’s about money – revenue.  And power.

But then, when isn’t it anymore?

~McQ

The “entitled” who would be president

Yes, today I’m going to talk about Hillary Clinton, who does indeed feel entitled and also seems to believe that the law is only for “the little people”.  There are others who feel entitled to the presidency (on both sides) that I don’t want anywhere near it as well, but this is one person who would essentially be an Obama third term if she were to win … and her actions prove that.

Right now we have a man in the Oval Office who is, frankly, a scofflaw. If a law is inconvenient, he simply ignores it, or issues his own in the guise of an executive action or, working through his “executive agencies” sees that unelected bureaucrats produce regulations that do his will, all without Congress.  Or oversight. Or the Constitution for that matter.

Now we have a contender for his position who has demonstrated the same sort of inclination to ignore the rules and laws that are designed to keep our elected and government officials on the straight and narrow and provide a vital record of their doings.

Hillary Clinton, did, with malice aforethought, conspire to work around the law and the rules that required her to do government business on a government email account.  There’s no disputing this.  The email server is in her home.  It was set up prior to her becoming Secretary of State.  And we know, thanks to a hacker, that she received highly sensitive emails from various cronies and State Department personnel on that account.  An account that wasn’t at all secure enough for such traffic (that point made obvious by the hack).

Then there’s this:

Just last week, the Washington Post shocked the public with the news that the Clinton Foundation had “accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments” during Hillary’s “tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration.” In and of themselves, these gifts were highly abnormal.

But, as Charles Cooke continues:

“Rarely, if ever,” the Post noted drily, “has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments.” But the infringement is made even worse when one acknowledges that these donations were never so much as reviewed for eligibility by the powers that be within the State Department. There really is no other way of putting it than to record bluntly that, while she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was making private deals with foreign governments via private e-mail, and then declining to request the requisite approval from the U.S. government.

So, let’s see if we have this straight.  Private email account, knowingly refusing to use the government one, and soliciting foreign governments for donations while Secretary of State?

That’s definitely, at a minimum unethical and an abuse of office.  So who does she think she is?

Cooke answers that:

The answer to that question is as it ever was: She is Hillary Clinton, and she believes, with some justification, that she will get away with anything and everything she tries. “Why,” supporters grumble, “knowing full well how effective the charge of elitism can be during a presidential campaign, does she continue to take $300,000 per speech?” Answer: Because she’s Hillary Clinton. “Why,” others inquire, “when tempers are still hot and nerves are still frayed, does she continue to take money from the outfits that are widely blamed for the financial crisis of 2008?” Answer: Because she’s Hillary Clinton. “How could she possibly believe that her ex-president husband’s temporary inability to buy a multi-million-dollar house rendered her ‘dead broke’”? Because she’s Hillary Clinton, and she has a sense of entitlement that would make Imelda Marcos blush. And so, having been championed and overpraised for years, lionized more for her immutable characteristics than for any concrete achievements, and allowed to pretend that her few successes have been the product of her own ability and not her husband’s uncommon political talent, Clinton has of late fallen disastrously deep into the professional celebrity’s most pernicious trap: She has begun to believe her own hype. How long can it be before her fellow disciples begin to lose faith in more than just the small hours of the night?

Supreme arrogance, and a willingness to take a chance that this will all come to nothing. After all, we’re talking about the era of politics and government where no one is really held accountable for anything. The smartest woman in the world probably also figured we’d never put two and two together (i.e. private email, foreign donations). And if we did? Heh … they tried that out yesterday and it failed miserably:

The strongest argument in favor of this behavior — legally, at least — is that Clinton is a clueless, confused, and out-of-touch old woman who struggles to grasp basic technological concepts, and that she therefore had not the first idea what was expected of her. In the immediate aftermath, this was the first defense offered. It’s “worth remembering,” a former Clinton administration staffer assured me quickly on Twitter, “that Hillary didn’t have email until she was in her forties. She was clueless.” “I just mean,” he added, desperately, that “she’s no dummy — except possibly with computers — where she kinda is.”

Bulltacos. There have been countless stories and battles over the use of official emails that this is a complete non-starter. As Cooke notes, it’s “desperate”.  This wasn’t some technodunce-granny completely befuddled by this new age.  This was a deliberate and calculated attempt to circumvent the system:

Digging a little into the story today, Business Insider’s Hunter Walker recorded today that Clinton did not so much inadvertently continue to use her previous account as she had her team build and configure an alternative system over which she had full and unadulterated control.

Exactly.  And now, she should pay the price.

If anyone can find it in themselves to hold people like Hillary Clinton accountable for her misdeeds.

I certainly have no qualms about doing it.  At a minimum, she should be shamed, shunned and dismissed from public life.  She’s demonstrated she isn’t fit to hold the highest office in the land.  And we certainly don’t need and probably couldn’t survive an Obama 3rd term anyway.

~McQ

If you haven’t figured it out yet, it is all about power and control – over you and your life

This is Hillary Clinton, who would love to be your next president, talking about the power grab over the internet by the FCC and Obama administration. She’s fine with it:

“For the FCC to do what they want to do, to try to create net neutrality as the norm, they have to have a hook to hang it on,” Clinton said. She said it’s the only hook the FCC’s got. But that she’d vote for regulating the Internet.

And despite her husband’s administration not taking such action, Clinton suggested the Internet had developed in such a way that something needed to be changed.

“I would vote for net neutrality, because as I understand it, it’s Title II with a lot of changes within it, in order to avoid the worst of the utility regulation,” Hillary Clinton said.

She said President Obama was “right” on the issue.

“It’s a foot in the door, it’s a value statement, I think the president is right to be upfront and out front on that.”

“It’s a foot in the door …”.

To understand her and the left’s mindset, that’s really all of the quote you need to read and understand.  The exponential expansion of government power with her and her ilk at the helm.

A pretend problem (that no one was complaining about) and the usual solution (of which 61% disapprove according to the most recent poll I’ve seen).  I.e. more government, more rules, more power and more powerbrokering.  It’s another beachhead on the sands of freedom.  An unelected commission just took over one of the largest and most innovative entrepreneurial engines we’ve ever seen and has decided to impose 20th century utility regulations on it by fiat.

And the gutless GOP Congress?  Well, just like immigration, DHS, and ObamaCare … they’ll talk about it, stick their fingers in the air, monitor a hostile press and in the end … well, look where we are and figure it out for yourself.

~McQ

If you can’t ban the gun, ban the ammo

That’s the apparent intent of a BATFE proposal as it applies to 5.56 ammunition.  The left, for years, has been trying to ban “assault weapons”, which are, essentially dressed up semi-automatic rifles.  Assault weapons, as you might imagine are capable of fully automatic fire.  Such weapons are already illegal without a very difficult to get permit.

Nevertheless, it is a long cherished dream of the left to implement gun control, because, well the key word is the second one – control.

So, having been absolutely and totally rejected when they tried to impose such laws, they’re decided to take what Marie Harf would surely characterize as “a more nuanced approach“.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

The pitch:

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.

But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

And, according the the article, there is no proof to provide.  None exists.

Of course, the AR15 is one of America’s most popular weapons and hundreds of thousands of them, if not millions are in the hands of Americans.  Certainly not a hard weapon for a criminal to get and use on police. However, they rarely do.  They tend to eschew small caliber arms for those which have a bigger punch in a handgun.

So, logically, that makes little if any sense.  As for the armor piercing capability, while I’m sympathetic to the point, a little proof of it being a problem would be helpful.  To this point, everything I’ve read says it hasn’t been a problem to this point.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.

Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

Another manufactured “crisis” and another “solution” which involves government using its coerscive power to ban something that a particular political ideology finds odious – beside you being free, that is.  And, of course, it opens the door to more invented problems solved by more bans.

This is called “democracy”.  One side gets enough votes to seize power and then they force their ideology on you – if not by legislative means, then by executive action.  The document that is supposed to protect your freedom from government has been declared null and void.  Your freedoms?  Well, let’s just say that they’re up for interpretation depending on which faction is in power.   But what is for sure is they’re eroded and will continue to erode under this system of politics.  Government gets larger and more intrusive and as it does, it squeezes out your freedoms in the name of the “greater good”, or “for the good of police” or “the children” or whatever bit of gimcrackery they can use to attract enough votes.

Your freedom suffers the consequences.

~McQ

 

The bad, the worse and the ugly

A couple of economic notes and an environmental question.

On the econ side, unemployment.  The Mercatus Center explains our current unemployment situation and why the “official number” is a feel-good fantasy:

Alt-unempl-resize-websiteIn case you missed it, the real unemployment rate is in the 11% range.  Also note that before the recession, we were at around 9%.  We’re certainly doing better but why they continue to publish misleading numbers on the unemployment front is a mystery … oh, politics.  Never mind.

It’s better to be lied to and feel good about it than to know the truth.

Also, as a followup, the $15 minimum wage in SF and Seattle continues to take victims.  While neither has fully implemented the wage at present, its enough to push business owners into making decisions which are unlikely the intended consequence of the wage raise. We told you about Borderland Books in SF.   Here’s an example from Seattle:

Cascade Designs, an outdoor recreational gear manufacturing company based in Seattle, announced it is moving 100 jobs (20% of the workforce) later this year to a new plant it is leasing near Reno, Nevada. The company has offered some employees positions in Reno, but others must reapply.

Founder John Burroughs and Vice Chair David Burroughs blamed Seattle’s new $15 minimum wage, indicating it “nudged them into action.” According to the owners, Seattle’s new minimum wage would “eventually add up to a few million dollars a year.”

Once established in Reno, you may see further moves.  And:

The San Francisco Eater, a local publication following the city’s restaurant scene, predicts that the impact of the $15 minimum will likely lead many restaurants to close their doors this year. Abbot’s Cellar and Luna Park, popular locally owned restaurants, already made the decision to shut down. The owners both blamed the $15 minimum wage.

What’s $15 times zero?

Finally on the enviro front, where’s the outrage?  From CATO:

Nicaragua’s plan to build an Interoceanic Canal that would rival the Panama Canal could be a major environmental disaster if it goes forward. That’s the assessment of Axel Meyer and Jorge Huete-Pérez, two scientists familiar with the project, in a recent article in Nature. Disturbingly, the authors point out,

“No economic or environmental feasibility studies have yet been revealed to the public. Nicaragua has not solicited its own environmental impact assessment and will rely instead on a study commissioned by the HKND [The Hong Kong-based company that has the concession to build the canal]. The company has no obligation to reveal the results to the Nicaraguan public.”

In recent weeks we have seen similar opinions aired in the Washington Post, Wired, The Economist, and other media. In their article, Meyer and Huete-Pérez explain how the $50-billion project (more than four times Nicaragua’s GDP), would require “The excavation of hundreds of kilometres from coast to coast, traversing Lake Nicaragua, the largest drinking-water reservoir in the region, [and] will destroy around 400,000 hectares of rainforests and wetlands.” So far, the Nicaraguan government has remained mum about the environmental impact of the project. Daniel Ortega, the country’s president, only said last year that “some trees have to be removed.”

Some trees?!  Where are the enviros whackos on this?

Crickets:

Interestingly, despite this potential massive threat to one of the most pristine environmental reservoirs in the Americas, none of the leading international environmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or the Sierra Club, has issued a single statement about the Nicaragua Canal.

We know for a fact that this is not out of lack of interest in Central America. After all, some of these organizations were pretty vocal in their opposition to CAFTA. Why isn’t the Nicaragua Canal proposal commanding the attention of these international environmental groups?

Why?  Because as Insty points out, “commies get a pass” on this sort of thing.

~McQ

The head “scientist” of the UN’s IPCC has resigned

He’s been called a “scientist” for years, but his training is in industrial engineering.  He’s about as much a climate scientist as I am.  However, we’ve been constantly told that he and the IPCC speak for “science” when it comes to “climate change”.

Well, today he stepped down, submitting his resignation amid allegations of sexual harrassment.

I’m talking about Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, of course.  Head of the IPCC that has published scare warnings for years, few if any of which have come true.

So why is an industrial engineer seen as some sort of an authority on climate?

Well it’s not because of his academic credentials, that’s for sure.  Instead, its for his leftist credentials:

‘For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.’ 

In other words, his “science” is faith based.

And, the left says we should take him seriously … because, you know, “the science is settled”.

Michael Crichton:

‘One of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.’ 

Submit!

Anyone – do you really believe an actual climate scientist will be recruited to fill the job?

~McQ