GUN BAN IMMINENT....

They're back . . . 

Today, lawmakers return to Washington, D.C. from spring break, and as I warned you yesterday, I'm very worried an anti-gun storm is brewing on the horizon. 

In fact, that storm could hit this week.

That's because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is facing increased pressure to hold a vote on Attorney General nominee, Loretta Lynch. 

Lynch is President Obama's pick to succeed disgraced anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder, and she's shown no signs she'd reverse Holder or Obama's anti-gun agenda.

Henry, your actions and your petitions have held back this questionable nominee so far. 

I hope I can count on your activism again. Will you call your U.S. Senators right away? 

*** You can reach Sen. Daniel Sullivan at (202) 224-3004; and,

*** You can reach Sen. Lisa Murkowski at (202) 224-6665.

Urge them to OPPOSE Loretta Lynch for Attorney General. 

Your actions right now could set the tone on Capitol Hill for the entire week. That's why I hope you'll make these calls as soon as you get this message. 

For Freedom,

-- Dudley Brown, President
National Association for Gun Rights 

---

 

Dear Fellow Patriot,

Thanks to a groundswell of grassroots opposition from NAGR members and supporters, the confirmation of Barack Obama's handpicked candidate for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, remains in doubt.

But that doesn't mean the fight is over.

In December when I first alerted you to Lynch's impending nomination, insiders on Capitol Hill didn't seem to think she would have difficulty getting confirmed.

Then NAGR's more than four million members and supporters began to take action.

January, February and March passed.  Your calls, emails, fax petitions and letters didn't let up.

Last month, after Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated there would be a vote to confirm Lynch, he had to back off because of your grassroots efforts, and the Senate adjourned for Easter without taking a vote.

But our work is far from over.

On Monday, Joe Biden sent out an angry directive to left-wing activists imploring them to do whatever must be done to get Lynch confirmed.

When the Senate returns in a little more than a week, expect this fight to heat up again.

Lynch's anti-freedom record is atrocious . . .

During her Capitol Hill confirmation hearings, she refused to answer direct questions about your Second Amendment rights, yet she called anti-gun provisions in the PATRIOT ACT, "constitutional and effective."

She served on an "Advisory Committee" to Eric Holder during his gun-smuggling operation, "Fast & Furious."

And while a U.S. Attorney in New York, she used a process known as civil asset forfeiture to seize private property -- a process that state has used to confiscate firearms from deceased concealed permit holders.

Now isn't the time to let up the heat on Republican Senators urging them to OPPOSE Lynch's nomination.

Don't wait until tomorrow to take action.

Please sign your BLOCK LORETTA LYNCH EMERGENCY FAX PETITION to be delivered by NAGR staff on Capitol Hill.

Al Gore is an idiot

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

What do aerosols have to do with anything? Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires. There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog. Aerosols tend toreflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions.

The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict.

“Going forward we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting,” write climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that this study could be a “death blow” to global warming hysteria.

Independent climate researcher Nick Lewis put out a study last year with Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry that found that the climate’s response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels — a measurement called “climate sensitivity” was 1.64 degrees Celsius.

Lewis revised his findings based on the Max Planck aerosol study and found something astounding: climate sensitivity drops dramatically. Lewis also looked at climate sensitivity estimates given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — often regarded as the world’s top authority on global warming.

The IPCC’s latest assessment put climate sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. The IPCC says that despite “the large uncertainty range, there is a high confidence that aerosols have offset a substantial portion of [greenhouse gas] global mean forcing.”

Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming — the opposite of the Max Planck study’s finding.

But incorporating the results from the Max Planck study dramatically reduces the upper bound estimate of climate sensitivity from 4.5 degrees to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

To put this into perspective, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 currently stand at around 400 parts per million, if this were to double, according to the IPCC’s estimates temperatures could rise as high as 4.5 degrees Celsius.

But incorporate the Max Planck study results and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half what the IPCC originally predicted.

Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis’s findings basically eliminate “the possibility of catastrophic climate change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.”

“Such a result will also necessarily drive down estimates of social cost of carbon thereby undermining a key argument use by federal agencies to support increasingly burdensome regulations which seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” write Michaels and Knappenberger.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

 Like Rare Politics on Facebook