Further proof that all the talk about ‘our democracy’ is nothing more than a sham.

Daniel Greenfield writes at the Gatestone Institute:

The Government Spent 5 Years Trying to Shut Down the Freedom Center

What Are They So Afraid Of?

Since its confused retreat from Afghanistan, the Biden administration has spent more time trying to shut down the David Horowitz Freedom Center than fighting Al Qaeda.

While Freedom Center Investigates has documented multiple cases of terrorists benefiting from nonprofit status, the IRS ignores and continues to pursue the Freedom Center’s nonprofit status.

Five years should have been more than enough to decide the issue one way or another, but instead we have been left suspended in a state of permanent investigation because while there’s no basis for shutting us down, bleeding us from a thousand cuts makes it harder for the Freedom Center to do our work, to raise money and to keep holding the Left accountable.

Five years is a long time. It’s the statute of limitations for most federal crimes. But the only thing we were ever accused of was providing a forum for political opinions the government didn’t like.

And that’s not a crime. Unless the government succeeds in making it one.

Without a civic life shaped by Christianity, there can be no American republic. //

Some will acknowledge the Christian inheritance of America but insist that it’s a point of departure, that once the American experiment was launched, it could be safely separated from the religion that launched it. They think it’s possible to take the “best” parts of the Christian faith without the need to continually affirm Christ. “Christless Christianity,” you might call it.

But it doesn’t work like that. A few months ago the famous atheist Richard Dawkins wondered aloud in an interview why his own country, England, could not just go on having “cultural Christianity” without actual, believing Christians. He said he liked the cathedrals and the Christmas carols, and would like to enjoy them without the bother of actual Christianity. He wants fewer believing Christians and more cultural Christians.

It never occurred to Dawkins that you don’t get to keep the culture without the cult. The sad spectacle of modern England should suffice to prove the point. If there is no one to worship in the cathedrals, they will become concert halls or, in England’s case, mosques. If no one really believes what the Christmas carols proclaim, eventually people will stop singing them.

The same goes for us here in America. The American proposition that all men are created equal is a religious claim, specifically a Christian one. Not to belabor the point, but the American founders only ever believed that all men are created equal because they believed that we are God’s children, created in His image. Our entire system of government flows from that belief; without it the whole system collapses. //

America is supposedly a secular country, with separation of church and state, free exercise of religion, and so on. Yet we find ourselves in the middle of what amounts to a religious war. How could this be?

Because America, like all nations, is founded on religious claims, and relies on those claims for its coherence. We’ve long been accustomed to talking about America as a “propositional nation,” a phrase taken from Abraham Lincoln’s famous line in the Gettysburg Address that America was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

The idea is that America is fundamentally different from the ethnic nation-states of Europe, which were based on blood and soil and religion. America supposedly transcended all that. It was based instead on an idea — a proposition. Anyone could become an American if he agreed to the proposition.

And this is true. But nearly everyone who says America is a propositional nation is wrong about what the proposition is. America is not a collection of Enlightenment tropes at the intersection of Locke and Rousseau, a grab bag of philosophical sentiments about the rights of man. America is the creation of Christian civilization.

The proposition at the heart of America, undergirding our nation’s existence, is not just “all men are created,” but Christianity and all that comes with it. Without Christianity, you don’t get free speech, liberty, equality, freedom of conscience. All of it relies on the claims of the Christian faith, none of it stands on its own. //

To be clear, the contest is not between secularism or “wokeism” and Christianity. If we reject Christianity, the future of America will not be a secular liberal utopia, where we go on living off the capital of our Christian inheritance without replenishing it. It’s going to be a new version of paganism, and you’re not going to like it. //

The American founding is therefore not comprehensible in strictly secular, rationalist terms. Our nation begins with a proposition about the nature of God and man. If that proposition is discarded or denied, whatever comes after that isn’t America. It might call itself America, it might even deploy the familiar vocabulary of rights and liberties, but it is not America. //

To fight this new paganism, Christians in America will have to shed the false notion that their religion is a purely private matter, that there must be a “wall of separation” between our religion and our politics. We have to argue, without apology, that public life in this country should be shaped by Christian morality and ordered by its dictates, as it was for most of our civilization’s history.

Most of all, we have to accept that our American culture of self-government and liberty under law cannot long survive cut off from its source, which is and always was the Christian faith.

Without that faith, alive and active among the people, there can be no American republic. If we want to save the republic, we’ll have to become a Christian people once again. And that means we’ll have to fight — and win — a religious war for America. //

We see now that there is more than one way for a nation to fall. There is the Roman way: a centuries-long decline eventually succumbing to wave upon wave of invaders. There is the British way: a dwindling to irrelevance and impotence, passive in the face of an assertive Muslim immigrant population.

And then there is the American way: not to decline and fall, not to dwindle into irrelevance, but to become evil.

Contrary to the New York Democrat’s claim, the naming of contingent Republican electors during the 2020 cycle was neither unprecedented nor unlawful. In fact, the process conducted in contested states such as Georgia parallels a similar endeavor that took place during the 1960 presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. //

As my colleague Jordan Boyd previously highlighted, Democrats and their media allies had no problem “calling for electoral disobedience” after Trump won the 2016 election. In an effort to keep Trump out of office, so-called “news” outlets ran “[a]rticles demanding state electors ‘prevent an irresponsible demagogue from taking office’ and overrule Americans to install Hillary Clinton as president.”

“With all-mail voting, we’re counting on the Post Office, and the Post Office is notoriously a giant federal government bureaucracy that’s not running efficiently,” Powers said. “We’ve turned our elections over to it, and now we see the consequences of that.”

There is an alternative to shock therapy that has proven to be effective in addressing a debt crisis in the long term. The alternative is to enact effective fiscal rules constraining deficits and debt accumulation. The Swiss debt brake has proven to be the most successful of these rules-based approaches to fiscal policy. Three decades ago, Switzerland experienced unsustainable growth in debt. They responded with a debt brake that caps the growth in spending at the long-term rate of growth in the economy. Over a transition period, the Swiss were successful in bringing expenditures into balance with revenues and in stabilizing and reducing debt. //

The Swiss debt brake is very much a bottom-up approach to reform. Debt brakes were first enacted at the cantonal level and only later at the federal level. The debt brake was incorporated into the Swiss Constitution through a referendum with support from 85 percent of voters. The debt brake provides for a transition period in which expenditures are brought into balance with revenue. The debt brake has automatic triggers, reducing spending when deficits exceed a tolerance level. Deficit spending is permitted in response to emergencies, but the deficits must be offset by surplus revenues in the near term.

Henrik Kindstedt
@HenrikKindstedt
·
Follow
Replying to @sumlenny
Short list of the results of negotiations with Russia that it never respected:

1. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Russia agreed to “respect independence, sovereignty, and the existing borders of Ukraine” as well as “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. Breached by Russia invading Crimea in 2014.

2. The Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997. Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and “reaffirmed the inviolability of the borders” between the two countries. Russia breached it in 2014.

3. The OSCE Istanbul Summit in 1999. Russia committed to withdrawing its troops from Moldova’s Transdniestrian region and Georgia until the end of 2002. That never happened.

4. The 2008 Georgia ceasefire agreement following Russian aggression against the country. Russia agreed that “Russian military forces must withdraw to the lines prior to the start of hostilities”. That never happened.

5. The Ilovaysk “Green Corridor” in August 2014 and other “humanitarian” death corridors. Russia pledged to let Ukrainian forces leave the encircled town of Ilovaysk in the east of Ukraine, but instead opened fire and killed 366 Ukrainian troops. In the following years, Russia attacked numerous humanitarian corridors in Syria.

6. The “Minsk” agreements of 2014 and 2015. Russia agreed to cease the fire in the east of Ukraine. There had been 200 rounds of talks and 20 attempts to enforce a ceasefire, all of which the Russian side promptly violated. On February 24th, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

7. The 2022 Black Sea Grain Initiative. Russia pledged to “provide maximum assurances regarding a safe and secure environment for all vessels engaged in this initiative." It then hindered the initiative's operation for months before withdrawing unilaterally a year later.

Above is only focused on deals made with Russia to address specific issues and conflicts. Not mentioning almost 400 international treaties that Russia has breached since 2014.

There are no conclusions to be drawn here, except that no one can seriously use the words "Russia" and "negotiations" in the same phrase. Putin is a habitual liar who promised international leaders that he would not attack Ukraine days before his invasion in February 2022.

Russia's tactic has remained consistent in its many wars over the last three decades: kill, grab, lie, and deny.

Why would anyone genuinely believe that Russia in 2024 is any different from Russia in 1994, 1997, 1999, 2008, 2014, 2015, and 2022?

7:51 AM · Jun 14, 2024. //

Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani
·
The thing about the USSR/Russia is not that it is "not democratic". It is that is not contractual. Any contracts dishonour the Tsar. Why?

If Tsar made an agreement with X, it means:

1) X forced him to limit his own power
2) to secure X's interests

That's a huge dishonour

Kirienko's statement that "Russian state is not based upon agreements" should be read in this context.

Contractual = Limited = Dishonourable

Contractual = You faced the interest of the second party and had to back off, giving them concessions. What kind of Tsar you are? //

Putin's current demands may be serious to him, but no one else should consider them as such. No matter what a ceasefire or even a peace deal looks like, keep in mind that Putin's goal is the eradication of Ukraine as an independent state and that any agreement is a tactical ruse to lay the groundwork for that objective. Peace in Ukraine that is not enforced by Western arms and security guarantees is simply not possible so long as Putin is in power or possibly as long as the Russian Federation exists.

The Power of One Vote
The Power of One Vote, Your Vote. Use It.
By the Smallest of Margins…

In 1800 – Thomas Jefferson was elected President by one vote in the House of Representatives after a tie in the Electoral College.

In 1824 – Andrew Jackson won the presidential popular vote but lost by one vote in the House of Representatives to John Quincy Adams after an Electoral College dead-lock.

In 1845 – The U.S. Senate passed the convention annexing Texas by two votes (27/25).

In 1846 – President Polk’s request for a Declaration of War against Mexico passed by one vote.

In 1867 – The Alaska purchase was ratified in the Senate by two votes: 37-2, paving the way for future statehood.

In 1868 – President Andrew Johnson was Impeached but not convicted because the Senate was one vote shy of the necessary two thirds required.

In 1876 – Samuel Tilden won the presidential popular vote but came up one electoral vote shy and lost to Rutherford B. Hayes.

In 1941 – Congress amended the active-service component of the Selective Service Act from one year to two-and-a-half years by one vote, 203 to 202.

In 1948 – A Texas Convention voted for Lyndon B. Johnson over ex-Governor Coke Steven in a contested Senatorial election.

In 1962 – Governors of Maine, Rhode Island and North Dakota were elected by an average of one vote per precinct.

In 1977 – Vermont State representative Sydney Nixon was seated as an apparent one vote winner, 570 to 569. Mr. Nixon resigned when the State House determined, after a recount, that he had actually lost to his opponent Robert Emond 572 to 571.

In 1989 – A Lansing, Michigan School District millage proposition failed when the final recount produced a tie vote 5,147 for, and 5,147 against. On the original vote count, votes against the proposition were ten more than those in favor. The result meant that the school district had to reduce its budget by $2.5 million.

In 1994 – 1.1 votes per precinct in Alaska elected Tony Knowles as Governor and Fran Ulmer as Lieutenant Governor out of 216,668 votes cast in the General Election.

In 1994 – Republican Randall Luthi and Independent Larry Call tied for a seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives from the Jackson Hole area with 1,941 votes each. A recount produced the same result. Mr. Luthi was finally declared the winner when, in a drawing before the State Canvassing Board, a ping pong ball bearing his name was pulled from the cowboy hat of Democratic Governor Mike Sullivan.

Just One Vote
An Election Challenge
Author
Paul Harvey
One voter in each precinct of the United States will determine the next president of the United States. One vote. Thats a big weapon you have there, Mister. In 1948, just one additional vote in each precinct would have elected Dewey. In 1960, one vote in each precinct in Illinois would have elected Nixon. One vote.

One morning in 1844, a grain miller from DeKalb County, Indiana, was walking toward his mill. It was Election Day, but he had work to do and did not intend to vote. Before he reached the mill, however, he was stopped by friends who persuaded him to go to the polls. As it happened, the candidate for whom he voted won a seat in the state legislature"by a margin of one vote.

Now, when the Indiana Legislature convened, the man elected from DeKalb cast the deciding vote that sent Edward Allen Hennegan to the United States Senate. Then, in the Senate, when the question of statehood for Texas came up, there was a tie vote. But who do you suppose was presiding as president pro tempore? Hennegan. He cast the deciding vote from the chair. So, Texas was admitted to the union because a miller in DeKalb County, Indiana, went 10 minutes out of his way to cast...one vote.

More? Thomas Jefferson was elected president by one vote in the Electoral College. So was John Quincy Adams. One vote gave statehood to California, Idaho, Oregon, Texas and Washington. The Draft Act of World War II passed the House by one vote.

Over 200 million Americans are eligible to vote this year. Less than half will. Plato said it: The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. So your vote is important. Historically, you use it...or you lose it. If you're not sure for whom you should vote, turn to a newspaper you can trust. Because everything we've won in 10 wars at the point of a gun can be taken away one vote at a time. Edmund Burke said it another way: All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in this world is for enough good men to do nothing.

FreeBSD is a well-known server platform and a free and open-source Unix-like operating system derived from the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). FreeBSD is an OS designed to power contemporary servers, PCs, and embedded systems.

BSD is an abbreviation for "Berkeley Software Distribution". It is the moniker given to source code releases from the University of California, Berkeley that were initially enhancements to AT&T's Research UNIX® operating system. Multiple open-source operating system projects are based on the 4.4BSD-Lite edition of this source code. In addition, they include a variety of packages from other Open Source projects, the GNU project in particular.

The Republican-controlled House voted 221-198 Wednesday to require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, would amend the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, known as the “motor voter law,” to require that states obtain documentary proof of U.S. citizenship from someone before he or she may register to vote.

Five Democrats voted for the legislation, but 198 Democrats voted against it.

President Joe Biden opposes the legislation and it’s not likely to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate, where Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, sponsored a companion bill.

“Over the past four years, Joe Biden has welcomed millions upon millions of illegals into the country knowing that noncitizens only have to check a box to vote in a federal election,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a public statement. “We have long known this was an intentional effort to turn them into voters, and now the American people know where every member of Congress stands on this critically important issue.”

Imagine for a moment if we treated our laundry the same way we treat our email. It might look something like this: At least ten times an hour, we’d look in the dryer, sigh at the mix of wet and dry clothes, wonder where the shirt we needed was, and then close the dryer door again without emptying a thing. Laura Mae Martin, author of Uptime: A Practical Guide to Personal Productivity and Wellbeing, has a better approach. Treat your email like you would ideally treat your laundry.

How do we put this metaphor to work in our inboxes? Martin has some steps for getting the most out of this analogy, and the first is to set aside a specific time in your day to tackle your inbox. This is the email equivalent of emptying your dryer, not just looking in it, and sorting the clothes into baskets.

The Process

At this set time, you’ll have a first pass at everything in your inbox, or as much as you can, sorting your messages into one of four ‘baskets’ – Respond, To Read, Revisit, and Relax (aka, the archive where the email lives once you’ve acted on it from a basket, and the trash for deleted emails). Acting on those messages comes after the sorting is done. So instead of ‘touching’ your email a dozen times with your attention, you only touch it twice: sorting it, and acting on it.

The calculator is based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Model for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC). As the documentation illustrates, this model has myriad assumptions about climate. The Climate Calculator focuses on two key assumptions: climate sensitivity and the level of emissions reduction. Scientists generally agree that the Earth’s temperature warms as CO2 emissions increase—the real question is to which degree (no pun intended).

Climate sensitivity measures how much the Earth’s temperature will warm as a result of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The emissions-reduction level is the percentage of CO2 emissions that lawmakers would seek to reduce with respect to current emissions. The methodology below contains full details.

The simulations presented in this calculator allow user-selected climate sensitivities between 2℃ and 5℃, stated as the “very likely” range of climate sensitivity according to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, encompassing the “likely” range of 2.5℃ to 4℃. Although empirical evidence comparing observations to predictions suggests that sensitivities at the lower end of these ranges may indeed be more plausible, Heritage’s Climate Calculator allows users to decide which climate sensitivity they would like to assume and how steep of a reduction in fossil fuel use they would like to see. The results speak for themselves—regardless of the assumptions, the climate impact of CO2–reduction policies is slim to none!

Ever since the start of Joe Biden’s presidency, curbing climate change has been a fundamental component of his energy policy agenda.

During the spring, for example, the Biden administration issued a power plant rule­­, imposing strict emissions reductions regarding the use of fossil-fuel power plants. There have been many other rules proposed as well, including regulating cars, stoves, dishwashers, water heaters, and even microwaves.

All of these rules are predicated on concerns about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures and climate change. If greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, then curbing the use of sources of energy that emit them (such as coal, oil, and natural gas) should in theory curb these increases in global temperature.

However, lawmakers often present policies aimed at curbing climate change only in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions reductions. For example, the recent rule the Biden administration issued on electric vehicles claims it will reduce greenhouse gases by 7.2 billion tons through 2055.

This figure sounds large, but it’s surprisingly deceptive: A key unanswered question is the actual temperature impact of these and other related policies.

The predicted temperature impact of these and other policies hinges on a number of assumptions that affect our ever-changing climate.

That’s why we have created The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator, an online tool that enables the public to change some of the assumptions to simulate the climate effects of these policies to reduce carbon emissions.

After reports that a secret 50-year-long “petrodollar” agreement between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. failed, some warned of the U.S. dollar's global demise. What actually happened?

Contradictions: Some said the agreement required Saudi Arabia to keep oil priced in dollars. But others said that wasn't the nature of the deal.

For Context: In 1974, the countries reportedly struck a then-secret agreement to swap U.S. aid for Saudi Arabia's investment of petrodollars in U.S. Treasurys. There's been an "implicit" agreement to keep oil priced in dollars since the 1970's, but nothing official, MarketWatch (Center bias) told AllSides. Oil is typically priced in dollars worldwide, though Saudi Arabia has recently signaled openness to accepting other currencies.

Donovan's Narrative: Paul Donovan, chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, explained the agreement while noting that oil "has always traded in non-dollar currencies," and that contrary reports were born from "confirmation bias" in the crypto world, where many "desperately want to believe in the dollar’s demise." Donovan said Saudi Arabia has "indicated it was happy to negotiate oil sales in other currencies." MarketWatch told AllSides that "practically all of the Saudis oil revenues are priced in dollars."

How The Media Covered It: Outlets like Straight Arrow News (Center bias) and Newsmax (Lean Right bias) reported that the "agreement" to keep oil priced in dollars fell through, though they were contradicted by MarketWatch and ZeroHedge (Lean Right bias), who focused on Donovan's claim that the story was "fake news."

video

Riffle seven times and you’ll have a sufficiently random ordering of cards, an ordering that has likely never existed before. In other words, it’s unlikely you’ll ever shuffle two decks the same. //

...what if instead of a standard riffle using a deck roughly split in half, you were to only riffle 1 card at a time?

That is, using a standard deck of 52 cards, in one hand hold 51 cards and in the other hold the remaining single card. Now riffle these together. This is equivalent to taking one card and placing it at random inside of the deck.

So here’s the question:
How many single riffles do you have to do in order to have a completely shuffled deck? //

On average, 236 single card riffles will randomly shuffle a deck of cards. //

Equations are great, but let’s visualize this! Below is the same ordered deck of cards from before, except the K♦ has been highlighted red so we can follow its journey to the top of the deck.

Click the Riffle button to move the top card somewhere else in the deck randomly.

To avoid a bad news cycle, the Biden administration has allegedly created a human trafficking disaster. According to multiple whistleblowers, some 85,000 illegal immigrant children have been lost by the Department of Homeland Security after handing them over to largely unvetted "sponsors."

Testifying before the Senate on Wednesday, one whistleblower even alleged retaliation from the Biden administration after she alerted superiors about children being placed with people who "clearly were not their relatives." She also observed signs of abuse. //

Worse is that none of this appears to be changing anytime soon. In fact, Democrats were so miffed by these whistleblowers coming forward that they refused to participate in the hearing (which had to be held unofficially by Republican senators). Biden and his congressional cohorts don't care about children being abused. They just care about whether it will blow back on them or not.

All of this was largely preventable with an orderly, secure border. Instead, we've ended up with the worst border crisis in history, and the consequences have been and will continue to be dire.

Facebook’s censorship is totally out of hand, and their “independent and nonpartisan fact checks” are anything but. Now they are censoring “Climate: The Movie.” The supposed “fact checks” provided by Science Feedback and Climate Feedback (they are two branches of the same organization) have been shown many times to be both partisan and ideologically driven. The “fact check” of Steve Koonin’s bestselling book Unsettled done by Climate Feedback was blisteringly criticized by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in a lead editorial by the WSJ editorial staff.

The editorial includes the following:

“Mr. Koonin, whose careful book draws extensively on existing scholarship, may respond on the merits in a different forum. Suffice it to say here that many of the ‘fact check’ claims relied on by Facebook don’t contradict the underlying material, but instead argue with its perceived implications.

The fact-check attacks Mr. Koonin’s book for saying the “net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.” Minimal is in the eyes of the beholder, but the U.S. National Climate Assessment predicted America’s climate costs in 2090 at about $500 billion per year—a fraction of the recent Covid stimulus in an economy that could be four times as large.

The fact-check on the statement that ‘global crop yields are rising, not falling’ retorts that ‘while global crop yields are rising, this does not constitute evidence that climate change is not adversely affecting agriculture.’ OK, but that’s an argument, not a fact-check. …

Climate Feedback’s comment on a line from the review about ‘the number and severity of droughts’ does not identify any falsehood, but instead claims, “it doesn’t really make sense to make blanket statements regarding overall global drought trends.’ Maybe it doesn’t make sense for Facebook to restrict the reach of legitimate scientific argument and competing interpretations of data.”

WSJ, May 7, 2021. //

Science Feedback looks at the same data and facts that the movie examines and draws different conclusions than the eminent scientists in the movie. They have a different opinion than the experts in the movie. That does not mean the scientists in the movie are factually incorrect. Look at the data yourself, support for all 70 serious scientific claims made in the movie can be found here for those that want to see more.

By Andy May

Wow! Our new paper “Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems,” in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology has struck a nerve, judging by the traffic about it on twitter. An anonymous twitter troll who calls himself “Bonus @TheDisproof” has published what he (or she) calls a list of errors in our paper that is getting a lot of views and likes from the usual alarmist suspects, some of whom are probably actually people as opposed to “bots.” One person who has reposted the “Bonus” critique is Michael Mann. Michael Mann says, “This article is a Crok.” I don’t think he was complementing my co-author Marcel Crok, but then Mann is well known for crude and juvenile remarks. Mann might still remember Marcel for his 2005 award-winning article about Mann’s notorious hockey stick graph. Marcel was the first who wrote extensively about the critique of McIntyre and McKitrick on this graph. //

The anonymous “Bonus” somehow created quite a stir on twitter, yet we don’t know who he or she is, could be a twelve-year-old with his mother’s phone for all we know. Bonus cites very few peer-reviewed articles and when he does, he often gets them wrong as in the Rosenthal article mix up discussed above. Yet, Michael Mann cites him in twitter, which gives you an idea about Mann’s academic integrity.

None of Bonus’s claims are true or supportable. Beware of what you read from anonymous sources. Bonus’s critique is a biased and emotional screed with no merit.

By Andy May

Tinus Pulles critique of our paper begins by admitting that, at present there are no adverse effects from climate change, but that we ignored possible future climate change effects. This was deliberate, as we wanted to deal only with established and observed facts and data. Climate model projections of the effects of climate change are highly speculative because the climate change models they use as input are incorrect and project too much warming as documented in the paper and in AR6 (McKitrick & Christy, 2018), (McKitrick & Christy, 2020), and (IPCC, 2021). I do not think there is any need to respond to projections from the critique. //

Pulles acknowledges that AR6 shows that present levels of global warming are moderate, but claims experts project that that will not be the case in the future. The IPCC’s AR6 admits that their models run too hot, and that the AR6 models are worse relative to observations than the AR5 (2013) models were. Their models are getting worse with time, so their projections should not be believed. When new versions of a model get worse, it is a sure sign that the premises the models are based upon are wrong (see here and here). //

I see nothing in this critique that invalidates anything in our paper, but feel free to read Pulles comments and decide for yourself.