AT LAST A CLIMATE DEBATE


Heartland Institute to Host Times Square Debate During UN Climate Summit

Prominent Scientists Who Claim Human Activity Is Causing a Climate Crisis Invited to Debate Scientists Who Are ‘Climate Realists’. Event Moderated by Legendary Journalist John Stossel in Times Square will live-stream on YouTube from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Monday, September 23

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL – On September 23, the day the United Nations holds its Climate Summit in New York City during its upcoming General Assembly session, The Heartland Institute has challenged prominent scientists to explain their hypothesis of a human-caused climate crisis in a debate with skeptical scientists moderated by John Stossel.

Heartland has invited to the debate several scientists who are often quoted in media reports about their grave concerns about the current state and future of the climate: Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Don Wuebbles, Katherine Hayhoe, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. [NOTE: Trenberth and Ekwurzel politely declined, but peers have also received invitations from Heartland.]

Those on the “realist” side of the debate will be Patrick Michaels, David Legates, and Willie Soon – all prominent scientists who have often defended their findings and views in public.

WHAT: Climate Challenge: Bright Lights, Big City … Bigger Debate

WHEN: Monday, September 23, 2019 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

WHERE: New York Marriott Marquis, 1535 Broadway, New York, NY 10036

LINK TO THE LIVE-STREAM: https://youtu.be/faQssBpFvmo

The Heartland Institute is known globally as the leading think tank promoting scientists who are skeptical of a human-caused climate crisis. Visit the website for its 13 Interntional Conferences on Climate Change at this link, and review the volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, published by Heartland, at this link.

“Scientific knowledge and public understanding of important issues benefit from more information, discussion, and debate, not less,” said James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute. “I hope and expect this event will advance scientific knowledge by facilitating more cooperative and productive discussions among expert scientists regarding an asserted climate crisis hypothesis.”

“It is long past time that we have a real debate from people on both sides of this issue about what is happening to our climate,” said Heartland Institute Director of Communications Jim Lakely. “This debate has never been more important than now, especially considering the views and plans put forth by the Democratic candidates for president.

“Every one of them, and the United Nations, blame human activity for global warming, insist it will be catastrophic to life on Earth, and demand big changes to the way Americans live, work, eat, travel, and build,” Lakely added. “Doesn’t the wholesale reordering of our society demand at least a little bit of public debate? We think so.”


The Heartland Institute is a 35-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our website or call 312/377-4000.

–from the Climate Depot

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Politicians are Dead Wrong About the Danger of Red Flag Laws

By the Firearms Policy Coalition

In the era of “just do something” public policy, legislators on both sides of the aisle are pitching red flag legislation as a moderate form of gun control; one having a positive impact on mental health reform while simultaneously keeping Americans safe. Nothing could be further from the truth, and what these politicians won’t tell you is that their position is unsupported by evidence and riddled with far-reaching, unconstitutional implications for everyone.

How Red Flag Laws Work

So what happens when someone is subjected to a red flag seizure? Any of a number of acquaintances – a family member, teacher, roommate, or even a co-worker or former co-worker, can file a petition with the court to have an individual’s rights stripped from them.

This means that people with a merely tangential relationship to a respondent can file a petition, and because most red flag laws have no measures to deter malicious filing, they leave the door open for malicious people to bring forth unsupported accusations.

When the petition is filed, an initial hearing is typically held without the subject person present, so he is completely unable to defend himself. The standard of proof is substantially lower here than what would be required had an actual crime occurred, and as such it’s incredibly easy for the order to attach with little to no evidence.

The Danger of Gun Confiscation Orders

Once a seizure order is issued by the closed court, state-sanctioned “swatting” occurs. The police can show up unannounced at the person’s door, potentially catching him off-guard. This is a recipe for catastrophe, because the police can be mistaken for intruders.

Even if the police identify themselves during a seizure, a combination of insufficient training and heightened anxiety still puts human life in unnecessary peril; red flag laws have already resulted in at least one confirmed death when a surprised homeowner answered the door and was shot by police during a brief argument.

Assuming the police are successful in safely executing the seizure order, not only do they take the respondent’s firearms, ammunition, and magazines, several states also revoke the subject person’s concealed carry license, which can be costly and time-consuming to replace or reinstate. Following the initial seizure, the order remains standing for two to three weeks unless a final hearing is held.

No Right to an Attorney

Unlike in a criminal trial, the subject person has no right to legal representation during final hearings, which often means spending thousands of dollars in legal fees if they want a competent defense. Even if a person is innocent and goes deep out of pocket for a lawyer, they might still lose their rights.

Standard of Evidence

The evidentiary standard for a final hearing is even lower than the initial hearing – “preponderance of the evidence” – which means the difference between the state keeping or returning the respondent’s firearms is essentially a coin toss. If the person loses, the state may keep his property for up to a year, and in New Jersey, indefinitely unless a court terminates the order at a later date.

Red flag laws raise several red flags of their own: they victimize the poor, deny due process, and allow the state to seize property for a substantial amount of time when a crime hasn’t even occurred, leaving people defenseless in their own homes.

Legislators can’t prove they are effective in deterring violence, and they ironically amplify the stigma against people with mental health issues. Not only are these laws ineffective, they may even deter people from seeking the help that they desperately need, creating the threat politicians claimed to be addressing.

To learn more about the specifics of these laws, their history, and FPC’s policy position, you can read more here. To take action against Red Flag Laws, go to StopRedFlagLaws.com

–Truth About Guns

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share