Our planet has just experienced the most extreme two-year cooling event in a century. But where have you seen this reported anywhere in the mainstream media?

You haven’t, even though the figures are pretty spectacular. As Aaron Brown reports here at Real Clear Markets:

From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998.

To put this temperature drop in context, consider that this is enough to offset by more than half the entirety of the global warming the planet has experienced since the end of the 19th century.

Since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1880s, the planet has warmed by about 0.8 degrees C. You might think that was not a particularly drastic rate of warming to worry about. You might also note that such a rate of warming is well precedented in periods throughout history, such as during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods. Nonetheless this 0.8 degrees C rise – 0.9 degrees C, at a push – is the terrible climatic event the alarmist establishment has been assuring these last few decades is the worst thing ever and something that should worry us awfully.

So is this sudden cooling an even-worse thing? Not necessarily. As Brown goes on to explain in his piece, you can’t extrapolate trends from such a short time scale. Well, not unless you’re a climate alarmist… As we know from long experience, if it had been the other way round – if the planet had warmed by 0.56 degrees C rather than cooled, the media would have been all over it.

My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, that’s a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, that’s a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, that’s a story. When they show cooling of any sort—and there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming began—there’s no story.

Meanwhile a study by Judith Curry and Nic Lewis – also largely unreported by the mainstream media – confirms what skeptics have been saying for years: that the computer models used by the alarmist establishment to predict global warming are running too hot.

According to Investors Business Daily:

In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry looked at actual temperature records and compared them with climate change computer models. What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

As Lewis explains: “Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and highly unlikely to exceed that level.

This brings projected “global warming” from being potentially dangerous to being easily manageable. Which is why, of course, it is unlikely to get much attention from a scientific establishment and a complicit media that much prefers to ramp up the global warming scare – even when the evidence doesn’t support it.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) had positioned himself as a champion of gay rights in his opposition to Mike Pompeo to become secretary of state, then on Thursday he voted against Richard Grenell, the Trump administration’s first prominent openly-gay nominee, for U.S. ambassador to Germany.

Grenell’s nomination was confirmed by the Senate anyway, in a 56 to 42 vote, making him the highest-ranking openly gay official in a Republican administration ever.

During Pompeo’s confirmation hearing earlier this month, Booker attacked him over his position that gay persons should not be married, despite Pompeo telling them that as CIA director he treated married gay couples at the agency the same as anyone and believed they should be treated equally.

Booker launched the attack on Pompeo despite having endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for president in 2008, even though Obama held the same view on gay marriage as Pompeo at the time.

“You’re going to be representing this country and their values abroad in nations where gay individuals are under untold persecution, untold violence,” Booker lectured Pompeo at the hearing on April 12.

“And I do not necessarily concur that you are performing the values of our nation when you can’t even — when you believe that there are people in our country that are — are — are perverse,” he said.

The exchange was covered in the press, where Booker was portrayed as tough. He is widely considered to be a presidential aspirant for the Democratic Party.

Earlier this year, Booker went on what some outlets characterized as a rant against Kirstjen Nielson, Trump’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He claimed he had “tears of rage” after Trump allegedly referred to some nations as “sh-thole” nations.

But Booker’s hypocrisy was on full display on Thursday, after he opposed Pompeo’s confirmation based on his gay marriage views, and then opposed the confirmation of Richard Grenell as U.S. ambassador to Germany.

As an ambassador, Grenell would be doing exactly what Booker stated was so important — representing America at a time of “untold persecution.”

Booker had opposed Grenell’s nomination twice in Senate Foreign Relations Committee business meetings — once in October, and another time in January, but made no public statement on doing so.

On Thursday, Booker voted against Grenell’s confirmation, along with 41 other Democrats and Independents.

The opposition came despite Grenell’s extensive foreign policy experience.

Grenell served as the former spokesman for National Security Adviser John Bolton, when he was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush.

He has also served as a political adviser and spokesman for Republican politicians and campaigns, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) during his 2000 presidential bid and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s bid in 2012.

Only red state Democrats, including some facing tough reelection fights, crossed the aisle and voted to confirm Grenell. That included Sens. Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Doug Jones (AL), Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), and Jon Tester (MT).

Gregory T. Angelo, the president of Log Cabin Republicans, who called Democratic senators to secure support for Grenell, said some Democrats were posturing for future presidential runs.

“There’s really no reason for Democrats to continue to stand in the way of his nomination,” he told Metro Weekly, Washington, D.C.’s premier LGBTQ publication on Wednesday.

“There are Democratic senators who have informed me and our office that they would be opposing Grenell. Most of them are grandstanding Democrats with quixotic intentions of challenging Donald Trump for the presidency in 2020,” he said.

WASHINGTON, DC – Senators confirmed conservative legal champion Kyle Duncan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday, President Trump’s 14th confirmed lifetime appointment to the federal appellate courts.

Duncan’s nomination had been delayed as part of Democrats’ unprecedented obstruction on Capitol Hill, despite the fact that he is a former Louisiana solicitor general, law professor, Supreme Court litigator, and clerked for a Fifth Circuit judge.

The 46-year-old Duncan is well-known in the legal community for championing the full range of conservative issues, including litigating for conservative values regarding LGBT issues. He is respected as a soft-spoken Christian gentleman. He is also a prominent Federalist Society member, whose commitment to textualist legal interpretation and originalist constitutional interpretation is exactly what President Trump promised voters.

The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) made Duncan’s confirmation a top priority, organizing grassroots support to move his name through the ongoing Senate gridlock. JCN ran a six-figure ad campaign touting Duncan’s qualifications.

“Congratulations to my friend Kyle Duncan on his confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Carrie Severino, JCN’s chief counsel and policy director. “President Trump selected one of the best lawyers of his generation, someone who has served and will continue Louisiana with distinction.” (Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi are the three states comprising the Fifth Circuit, and the court sits in the Louisiana city of New Orleans.)

“It was sad that only one Democrat was willing to break ranks and vote for such an impressive nominee,” Severino added, denouncing that fact as “a sign of how extreme [Democrats] have become, and another reason we need more conservative Republicans in the Senate.”

Democrats’ no votes against Duncan include Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), all representing Trump states and who are up for reelection in 2018. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL)–who is not up until 2020–also voted no, noteworthy because Jones initially voted with Republicans on several matters, but now appears to be siding with the liberal base of his party instead of deep-red Alabama.

Experts were especially surprised that three vulnerable red-state Democrats voted against Duncan’s fitness to serve on the appeals court.

Sen. Claire McCaskill is in a tough fight against Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley and has consistently opposed President Trump’s nominees who pledge to follow the original meaning of the Constitution.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp is likewise vulnerable in North Dakota, where Rep. Kevin Cramer poses a serious challenge, and voters favor judicial nominees with records of following the law as written instead of ruling according to their personal political preferences.

Sen. Joe Donnelly is similarly in trouble in Indiana, where Rep. Luke Messer and Rep. Todd Rokita are vying for the GOP nomination to take him on in November. Donnelly has built a record of voting against federal judges who favor the Second Amendment, protecting religious liberty, and limiting the federal government’s power – all of which are popular in the Hoosier state.

Judges are very important to voters in all these states, and Republican pickups would likely result in more Trump judicial nominees getting confirmed to lifetime judgeships.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

Sen. Ted Cruz took to Twitter to explain the plight of U.K. toddler Alfie Evans and to warn Americans about the dangers of “socialized medicine.”

In a tweetstorm Wednesday, the Republican senator from Texas described Alfie’s situation from his birth and subsequent illness, to the refusal of both the U.K. and European courts to allow Alfie’s parents to pursue treatment for him at a Vatican hospital:

Alfie Evans was born on May 9, 2016 in the United Kingdom. When he was only several months old, he was struck by a mysterious illness, and slipped into coma.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 25, 2018

Doctors initially thought that Alfie would not survive long, but he fought back time and time again, until a chest infection forced him to rely on a ventilator.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 25, 2018

Alfie’s parents, Kate James and Tom Evans, wish to seek experimental treatments for what is thought to be a mitochondrial condition. Italy has granted Alfie citizenship and offered to transport him to a Vatican hospital.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 25, 2018

But UK and European courts have denied their right to seek alternate treatments for their son and instead have forcibly kept him in a hospital. Now they have turned off the ventilator and are waiting for him to die.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 25, 2018

These events remind us of the tragic case of Charlie Gard last year.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 25, 2018

It is a sad irony that while the people of the UK are busy celebrating a royal birth, its government is brushing off a commoner’s right to life.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 25, 2018

It is a grim reminder that systems of socialized medicine like the National Health Service (NHS) vest the state with power over human lives, transforming citizens into subjects.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 25, 2018

Alfie’s life support was turned off two days ago. NHS doctors expected that he would pass away within minutes. Again, he fought back; at the time of this writing, he is continuing to breathe without assistance. But time is of the essence.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 25, 2018

I urge the UK government to grant the Evans family’s request to treat their precious child in Italy. Americans strive to achieve the promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all our citizens, no matter how young or old.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 25, 2018

I encourage all my fellow Americans to join me today in praying for Alfie and his family.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 25, 2018

Cruz said the events “remind us of the tragic case of Charlie Gard last year.”

“It is a grim reminder that systems of socialized medicine like the National Health Service (NHS) vest the state with power over human lives, transforming citizens into subjects,” the senator said.

“I urge the UK government to grant the Evans family’s request to treat their precious child in Italy,” Cruz continued. “Americans strive to achieve the promise of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ for all our citizens, no matter how young or old.”

As Breitbart London reported, more than 100 supporters of the toddler and his parents gathered outside Alder Hey Children’s Hospital Wednesday night, continuing their two-week vigil.

Alfie’s parents have also received support in a tweet from Polish President Andrzej Duda:

Alfie Evans must be saved! His brave little body has proved again that the miracle of life can be stronger than death. Perhaps all that’s needed is some good will on the part of decision makers. Alfie, we pray for you and your recovery!

— Andrzej Duda (@AndrzejDuda) April 25, 2018

In the U.S., Ashley McGuire, a senior fellow with the Catholic Association, called out Catholic bishops and lay leaders in the U.K. for “abandoning Catholic social teaching and splitting from the Pope by defending the government instead of Alfie and his family.”

“The Church has long been the first and only voice to speak out for truth and defend the vulnerable,” McGuire said in a statement. “True to that legacy, the Pope spoke out in defense of Alfie Evans and the fundamental human rights of his parents to do all they can to save the life of their child.”

“It is moments such as these that Catholics, especially leaders like Austen Ivereigh, are called to stand apart from the fray and defend the truth even when it contradicts the powers that be,” she added. “We thank the Pope for his leadership and look to U.K. Catholic leaders to join him in standing for Church teaching.”

Former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Wireless Bureau Chief Fred Campbell stated in an exclusive interview that the “Safe Harbor” protection for Facebook and Google allows social media giants to censor at will without any legal repercussions.

During the House Judiciary Committee hearing about Facebook, Google, and Twitter’s censorship practices on Thursday, TechFreedom President Berin Szoka argued that amending the Safe Harbor provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would create a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would stifle rather than preserve free speech.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In other words, Internet service providers (ISPs) and edge providers such as Facebook and Google can host or publish other users’ content without being legally liable for their users’ content. Campbell contends that Section 230 allows for Facebook, Google, and Twitter to censor without any legal ramifications.

Szoka said during the House Judiciary Committee hearing:

I often hear conservative groups complaining about the bias of social media platforms, but from what I can see after a decade in this field the real problem is that they just don’t use social media well. Let’s face it: the real people who use social media best and most eagerly are overwhelmingly left-wing.

The TechFreedom president explained how the original Fairness Doctrine stifled rather than expanded free speech. Szoka continued:

First enacted in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to encourage robust hearing in broadcasting; instead, it did the opposite. Broadcasters avoided controversial topics that enforced bland orthodoxy on radio and television, entrenching, instead, what conservatives call the “mainstream media” and, instead, stifling alternative voices, such as talk radio.

“Instead of encouraging competition, a fairness doctrine for the Internet would actually entrench today’s tech giants,” Szoka added.

Campbell disputed Szoka’s argument, contending that Section 230 allows for Google and Facebook to censor at will.

He told Breitbart News, “Here’s the real problem with Section 230: it empowers these Internet platforms to censor content while removing any accountability for their publications. The Constitution has always protected an individual’s right to defend themselves against libel or slander.”

“Section 230 overrides the common law and says that these Internet platforms can censor all they want and won’t be accountable for anything — for libel or any other falsehoods,” Campbell added.

In an interview on Breitbart News Sunday, Campbell called for Section 230 to be repealed, stating that “conservatism itself is at stake,” thanks to Google and Facebook’s censorship.

Campbell suggested that “efforts to paint it as a revival of the Fairness Doctrine are false. I do not support [the Fairness Doctrine]. Most conservatives do not support it. I think it is a red herring.”

House Communications and Technology chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) called for re-examining some of the fundamental provisions contained in the Safe Harbor provision, given the rampant censorship of conservative voices on Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

Blackburn stated that free speech “is endangered even here in America.”

“Like social media platforms, broadcasters clearly are private entities with their own First Amendment rights, but even so, we recognize that some speech is so important that we must protect its access to an important platform,” Rep. Blackburn added.

Blackburn told the House Judiciary Committee:

But Section 230 of the Communications Act gives online platforms broad immunity from liability for user-generated content, except for a responsibility to take down certain things like child sex trafficking, theft of intellectual property, or terrorism. This should translate into more freedom, not less, for their users, but, instead, we are seeing more and more content censored by the new governors on some very flimsy pretenses. As such, perhaps it is time to review some of our fundamental assumptions.

Mike Wendy, president of MediaFreedom, told Breitbart News in an exclusive statement that Congress should re-examine Section 230 and that these social media giants continue to act like publishers, given their content curation.

Wendy told Breitbart News, “I think lawmakers need to take another look at Section 230, which was passed over 20 years ago. It and other aspects of the law create an ethos of willful blindness, a moral hazard of sorts, which allows companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter to pervert the Internet to their selfish, oftentimes partisan, ends. Now, I don’t have a problem with their bias; that’s their right. But, let’s be clear; they’re acting like classic publishers, which demands they be liable for the content and actions over their platforms. This must be better addressed.”

Campbell then suggested that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should require edge providers to disclose their practices on blocking, censoring, and shadow banning users on their platforms. The FCC chairman enacted a similar policy in the “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” that requires ISPs to disclose their practices on blocking and throttling data prioritization for consumers and businesses.

“I think that would be a great modification of Section 230,” Campbell told Breitbart News. “Free-markets only work when there’s sufficient transparency and you know what the terms of the deal actually are, so the problem for a conservative is you often can’t tell whether conservative content is being blocked, and at times, it is very, very subtle. Google can just shift your search results to be on the third or fourth page. If you do not know this is happening, how can you make a marketplace decision to use another platform? Transparency is critical.”

Campbell concluded, “The argument would be if you want to block content as a platform, you can, but you need to be transparent about how you are doing it. Right now, they have no transparency requirements, and, as a matter of fact, they are not transparent about how their algorithms work. They zealously guard how they work.”