Pentagon, World Bank, World Meteorological Organization, and U.N. Weather Agency Ramp-up Global Warming Hysteria Prior to U.N. Climate Deal in Paris
"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise." - Adolf Hitler
Pentagon Asserts Decisively That Climate Change Poses an Immediate Threat to National Security
October 14, 2014New York Times News Service - The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.
The report lays out a road map for how the military will adapt to rising sea levels, more violent storms and widespread droughts.
The Defense Department will begin by integrating plans for climate change risks across all of its operations, from war games and strategic military planning situations to rethinking the movement of supplies.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking Monday at a meeting of defense ministers in Peru, highlighted the global security threats of climate change.
“The loss of glaciers will strain water supplies in several areas of our hemisphere,” Hagel said. “Destruction and devastation from hurricanes can sow the seeds for instability. Droughts and crop failures can leave millions of people without any lifeline, and trigger waves of mass migration.”The report is the latest in a series of studies highlighting the national security risks of climate change. But the Pentagon’s characterization of it as a present-day threat demanding immediate action represents a significant shift for the military, which has in the past focused on climate change as a future risk.
“Climate change and water shortages may have triggered the drought that caused farmers to relocate to Syrian cities and triggered situations where youth were more susceptible to joining extremist groups,” said Marcus King, an expert on climate change and international affairs at George Washington University.The Islamic State, often referred to as ISIS, has seized scarce water resources to enhance its power and influence.
The new report does not make any specific budget recommendations for how the military will carry out its climate change agenda, but if the Pentagon does request funding from Congress for its initiatives, it will clash directly with congressional Republicans, many of whom question the established scientific evidence that human activities are causing climate change.
“ISIS is still gaining ground and causing havoc in Syria and Iraq, with foreign fighters from over 80 countries coming and going into the fight and then returning to their home country,” Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said of the Pentagon report. “It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the president and his administration would focus on climate change when there are other, legitimate threats in the world.”
World Bank: Global warming will drive 100 million people into poverty
Without swift action, 100 million people could fall into poverty within 15 years because of global warming, a new World Bank report says.November 10, 2015
Reuters - More than 100 million people could fall into extreme poverty due to global warming, according to a World Bank report released Sunday.
The 227-page report called “Shock Waves: Managing the Impact of Climate Change on Poverty,” warns those numbers could be reached in less than 15 years.
As most of the world prepares for a global warming summit in Paris later this month, the report indicates only a change in strategy will spare the world’s poorest nations from the increasingly devastating effects associated with the Earth’s rising temperatures.
Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are the regions most susceptible to the effects of climate change.
"Climate change hits the poorest the hardest, and our challenge now is to protect tens of millions of people from falling into extreme poverty because of a changing climate," World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said in a statement.The debate over the role of rich and poor nations has already begun. Last week, a high-ranking summit member representing 134 developing nations involved in climate change talks said that, without financial support, poorer countries would not be able to meet the mandates likely to be imposed at the summit.
Wealthier countries are pushing a plan to raise $100 billion each year through 2020 to fund renewable energy, better air quality, and improved public transportation.
The World Bank report indicated those policies must take place now to reach the daunting goal of zero emissions over the next 85 years and should include “rapid and inclusive development” in poorer countries.
Climate change would have destructive effects on agriculture and health, with crop yields possibly cut by 5 percent through 2030, causing poor people to spend more money on food, the report says, also noting that a rise in temperature could also spread diseases and cause more extensive flooding.
Measures such as flood protection, heat-resistant crops, and improved tsunami warnings may also bring relief, the report said. Universal healthcare and new infrastructure could offset some of the damage.
“We have the ability to end extreme poverty even in the face of climate change,” said John Roome, a senior director for climate change at the World Bank Group, in a statement. “But to succeed climate considerations will need to be integrated into development and work. And we will need to act fast because as climate impacts increase so will the difficulty and cost of trying to eradicate poverty.”
One
proposal suggests taxes on carbon and energy use could fund these
changes in developing countries. Another posits that the savings from
the elimination of fossil fuels could be reinvested into developing
countries.
In October, the World Bank said the number of people living in extreme poverty would drop below 10 percent this year to 702 million people making less than $1.90 a day. The figure is down from 902 million people in 2012, even as the world's population has grown.
A report released last week by the Pew Research Center showed a majority of countries believe global warming is a grave concern, with Africa and Latin and American citizens leading the pack. Less than half of Americans polled view climate change as a serious problem.
November 10, 2015"We have a window of opportunity to achieve our poverty objectives in the face of climate change, provided we make wise policy choices now,” said Stephane Hallegatte, a senior World Bank economist.
Reuters - Greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere reached a record high in 2014 and the relentless fuelling of climate change is endangering the planet for future generations, the World Meteorological Organization said on Monday.
His annual plea for the world to do whatever it can to cut greenhouse gas emissions - which come mainly from burning fossil fuels and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation - comes weeks before negotiators from over 190 states convene in Paris to try to agree a new U.N. climate deal."Every year we say that time is running out. We have to act NOW to slash greenhouse gas emissions if we are to have a chance to keep the increase in temperatures to manageable levels," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement.
Graphs issued by the WMO, a U.N. agency, showed levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, climbing steadily towards the 400-parts-per-million (ppm) level, having hit a new record every year since reliable records began in 1984.
Carbon dioxide levels averaged 397.7 ppm in 2014 but briefly breached the 400-ppm threshold in the northern hemisphere in early 2014, and again globally in early 2015.
"Next year we will be reporting much higher concentrations because of El Nino," WMO atmospheric research chief Oksana Tarasova told Reuters, referring to the Pacific Ocean warming phenomenon.Soon 400 ppm will be a permanent reality, Jarraud said.
"It means hotter global temperatures, more extreme weather events like heat waves and floods, melting ice, rising sea levels and increased acidity of the oceans. This is happening now and we are moving into uncharted territory at a frightening speed."
The rise in carbon dioxide levels is being amplified by
higher levels of water vapor, which are in turn rising because of carbon
dioxide emissions, the WMO said.
Levels of the other two major man-made greenhouse gases,
methane and nitrous oxide, also continued a unrelenting annual rise in
2014, reaching 1,833 parts per billion (ppb) and 327.1 ppb,
respectively. Both rose at the fastest rate for a decade.
For the Paris conference later this month, more than 150
countries, led by top greenhouse gas emitters China and the United
States, have issued plans to limit emissions beyond 2020.
But the plans revealed so far will not curb emissions
enough to meet a target agreed in 2010 to limit global warming to within
2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) of pre-industrial levels.
"Two degrees will be bad enough but it will be better than three degrees," said Jarraud. "Of course it would have been better to have 1 degree... But 1 degree is not possible any longer. It's just not feasible. Too late."
UK: Global temperature could rise to pass 1 degree C this year
This story is part of a series focusing on the science, problems, solutions, costs and daily reality of climate change around the world ahead of the climate negotiations in Paris.The U.N. weather agency says levels of carbon dioxide and methane, the two most important greenhouse gases, reached record highs last year. Pushed by the burning of coal, oil and gas for energy, global CO2 levels are now 143 percent higher than before the industrial revolution and scientists say that’s the main driver of global warming.
November 10, 2015
AP - This year is on track to be a record 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than the 19th-century average, hitting a symbolic milestone in the temperature rise that scientists blame mostly on human activities, Britain's weather service said Monday.
To measure global warming, scientists compare today's temperature level with that of the latter part of the 19th century, when record keeping began and before humans started burning fossil fuels on a large scale, releasing heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the air.
A rise of 1 degree C is important because it's halfway to the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) that governments have set as a limit to avoid dangerous levels of warming.
The
British Met Office said global temperatures in January-September were
1.02 C above the 1850-1900 average, adding that the remainder of the
year is expected to remain hot because of the El Nino weather
phenomenon.
Met Office officials noted it doesn't mean every year from now will be at least 1 degree warmer, as natural variability will still play a role."We've had similar natural events in the past, yet this is the first time we're set to reach the 1 degree C marker and it's clear that it is human influence driving our modern climate into uncharted territory," said Stephen Belcher, director of the Met Office Hadley Centre for climate science.
The World Meteorological Organization, the U.N. weather agency, is expected to release its assessment of this year's temperatures later this month, combining the Met Office numbers with data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S.
On Monday, WMO reported that levels of carbon dioxide and methane, the two most important greenhouse gases, reached record highs last year, continuing the warming effect on the world's climate.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels rose to nearly 398 parts per million, from 396 ppm in 2013, WMO said.
The CO2 level fluctuates throughout the year and the monthly average crossed the symbolic 400 ppm threshold in March 2015. The WMO said the annual average "is likely to pass 400 ppm in 2016."
Pushed by the burning of coal, oil and gas for energy, global CO2 levels are now 143 percent higher than before the industrial revolution. Scientists say that's the main driver of global warming.
WMO said methane levels reached a new high of about 1,833 parts per billion in 2014. About 40 percent of methane emissions come from natural sources and about 60 percent from human activities like cattle breeding, rice agriculture and the extraction of fossil fuels.
"Every year we report a new record in greenhouse gas concentrations," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said. "We have to act now to slash greenhouse gas emissions if we are to have a chance to keep the increase in temperatures to manageable levels."
World
governments are meeting in Paris at the end of this month to craft a
new U.N. pact to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. More than 150
countries — including top greenhouse gas polluters China, the United
States, the European Union and India — have pledged to cut or curb their
emissions in the next decade.
Meanwhile, climate change is already transforming the Earth, melting Arctic sea ice, intensifying heat waves and warming and acidifying the ocean.
Climate scientists say if global warming continues unabated, its dangerous effects could include the flooding of coastal cities and island nations, disruptions to agriculture and drinking water, the spread of diseases and the extinction of species.
Comments from Yahoo!:"We're already seeing large impacts all around the world — a third global coral reef bleaching event, the triggering of irreversible loss of ice from the West Antarctic ice sheet, and extraordinary storms and heat waves," said Bill Hare, the head of the Berlin-based Climate Analytics research group. "World leaders need to see this as a massive wake-up call."
The young people that have no knowledge of history or science are the
ones that are falling for this new scam. The older people that are
skeptical of the current man made global warming theory is because they
lived through the last time that a collection of con men/consensus of
scientist that claimed the man was causing the earth to cool and a new
Ice Age was coming. These latest groups of scam artists/advocates are
proposing the same kind of restrictions on personal freedoms and life
styles that they pushed back in the 1970’s. In just this year there
will be children graduating High School that have never experienced any
Global Warming in their entire lives. When you forget history you are
doomed to repeat it.
This story is the result of the writers imagination. CO2 has not increased for long periods of time since ancient times. These articles that are claiming an increase in the CO2 levels are taking samples over cities and not over remote areas of the planet. If they checked remote areas they would find out that the CO2 levels are constant in those areas as it has been for hundreds of years. The CO2 levels only change while the CO2 "which is heaver than air" is leaving an area that has larger amounts of CO2 and the plant life has not yet had a chance to absorb the valued CO2 that the plants live on. CO2 does not have a negative impact on our planet but instead, it is a necessary product required for life to thrive on the planet. If anyone says otherwise, they are just lying for the money Obama and Gore are paying them.
We now know that changes in the levels of CO2 are a product of climate change and not a driver of climate change. This blows up the whole greenhouse theory as it pertains to CO2 and human activity causing climate change. The UN is not attacking climate change, but is attacking capitalism. Without capitalism, none of us would be having this discussion on the internet.
CO2 levels are averaging 397ppm. That's like saying you had a million dollars and spent $397 so now you're broke. Then they really try too scare you by saying levels of the other two major man-made greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, also continued a unrelenting annual rise in 2014, reaching 1,833 parts per billion (ppb) and 327.1 ppb, respectively. Both rose at the fastest rate for a decade. What they aren't telling you with all this disaster happening there is record snow fall in Antarctica, the Polar Ice Cap is at record levels and average global temperatures haven't risen in 20 years. That isn't my conclusion it is from NASA. Same conclusions have come from the MET Office in England.
Climate scientists are just ignorant. (Oh, by the way, it is 97% of "climate" scientists agree, not 97% of the world's scientists) Most years since the end of the little ice age have been record years for CO2 levels as the seas warm and CO2 sequestered in the oceans by the cold is released. (Henry's Law of Partial Gas Pressure if you want to look it up) So this story is really pretty meaningless since all the comparisons are made back to the ice ages which have lasted over 2 million years. The 97% also pretty much ignore the geologic history of the planet, which shows that the atmosphere has had considerably higher CO2 levels than now through most of the last 500 million years. (Except for ice ages). Now, if you really want to talk about misery, take a look at the famine, disease and war caused by the Little Ice Age (Otherwise known as the Dark Ages). Take my word for it, warm is good for humans, cold is bad.
If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.
30 straight years of rising CO2, but 18 straight years of statistically insignificant temp changes ("the pause"). When did CO2 stop causing warming and how much longer before they stop fear mongering? Shouldn't we wait for at least one negative consequence to occur before we claim that warming is destroying the earth? I am denying that the correlation between CO2 production and the increase in temps is a statistically significant correlation. The fact that the GW models that are predicting dire consequences are constantly wrong about ice growth, storm frequency and strength, and temperatures is also troubling.
The temperatures on this planet are controlled by our sun. It is the source of 90% of the energy creating the temperatures that make life possible. The solar scientists state they can account for climate change based on solar variations. And they offer had data to back it up. All of the major climate change models ignore the variations we document daily in the solar activity. The fact that they willingly ignore the source of our energy is illogical and shows a profound breech with scientific theory. If you wish to live in fear of cooking to death, go live in the Sahara. The risk is cooling.
"Two degrees will be bad enough but it will be better than three degrees," said Jarraud. "Of course it would have been better to have 1 degree... But 1 degree is not possible any longer. It's just not feasible. Too late."
This is of course an idiot speaking. Two degrees is about what it would take to get Earth BACK TO WHERE IT WAS before the "Little Ice Age" that set record cold temperatures in human history. That cold period of about 500 years only ended around 1850-1880, a CENTURY AFTER the "pre-industrial" age ended.
WHY WOULD WE WANT TO STOP EARTH FROM WARMING BACK TO A NORMAL TEMPERATURE? EVEN IF WE COULD ???
CO2 increased slowly, every year for centuries with no correlation to warming or cooling. Only the coincidence of warming and higher levels of CO2 during a 25 year period toward the end of the last Century have given this hypothesis any legs... There is no scientific proof that the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 in theory or a laboratory has any appreciable effect on Earth's total climate when such a small amount of CO2 is involved. In 250 years it has gone from just under 3 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere, to 4 molecules per 10,000.
That's ONE molecule PER TEN THOUSAND in 250 years. Earth's "normal" level of atmospheric CO2 has been more like 5 to 10 times today's level. Mankind's small addition is not dangerous in the least and is most likely beneficial to plant life.
More than 200,00 forest fires ravaging Indonesia's rainforests, set to clear land for palm oil plantations, will likely release far more carbon dioxide this year than the entire United Kingdom.
The last time Indonesia's peat and forest fires were this bad, they produced the equivalent of 13% to 40% of global carbon emissions from fossil fuels. That was in 1997, when the region's fires were responsible for between 0.81 and 2.57 Gt of carbon emissions.
For reference, the UK emitted 0.52 gigatonnes of CO2 last year.
So it's not hard to see how we're setting new CO2 record levels- and it's not us heating our homes, or even driving our gas powered cars causing it like the UN would have you believe.
Not only do they destroy the Earth's natural carbon sink, the forest, they emit huge amounts of CO2 in the process. Multiply this by all the slash and burn done in South America and other places, and it simply dwarfs our CO2 emissions from oil and gas.
According to researchers, global forest fires are difficult to assess because fires are still poorly represented in global climate models. This is in spite of the fact that 12 years have passed since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. Forest fires globally emit more CO2 than the combined CO2 emissions of all transport systems on earth (vehicles, ships, and aircraft), yet are not considered "relevant" to climate models by the UN.
And to think, Indonesia also had the audacity to allow five volcanoes to erupt simultaneously this last July alone, spewing even more CO2 into the air.
And we'll fix it all with a carbon tax, solar panels, windmills, LED light bulbs, and electric cars?
Search "Indonesia forest fire causes" an read the resulting articles; you might just learn something.
Indonesia is tropical and drought is not an issue as it has been in the US lately. The fires are from purposeful setting by the palm oil folks, just like for the past 40 years. The Indonesian governent elites OWN the plantations, and simply ignore the laws becasue they are above them. I've lived in Indonesia for 5 years
Theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson said it best -
“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994. Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career.
Climate change, according to Freeman, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"
During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It's clear now the models are wrong."
It is obvious that the climate models are wrong.
The climate models do not take into account one of the largest CO2 emitters (forest fires), or even volcanic activity. The models assume oil/gas/coal is responsible for the CO2, while ignoring major carbon sources.
Not only are the models flawed by CO2 sources, they place way too much emphasis on the greenhouse effect due to CO2 level increases; all their past predictions have failed to come true. And the climate models can not account for the hot decade of the 1930s, nor can they account for the Little Ice Age 1200AD-1850AD.
Why should I, or anyone else, be forced to pay higher prices through carbon taxes, EPA rules, or other legislation linked to "climate change" when other countries pursue a slash and burn program? Especially when the climate models are obviously wrong?
I'm all for clean power and less pollution, but the current UN version of Climate Gate is not based in reality, and should not be the driving, or deciding factor for how/when/where such changes are made.
With all this hog wash from the WMO they don't bother to tell you that;
So far this year, nearly 110,000 fires have broken out in the island nation (as of Oct. 22), most of them in Kalimantan — the Indonesian portion of the island of Borneo — and Sumatra. Since September, these blazes, most of them in carbon-rich peatlands, “have generated emissions each day exceeding the average daily emissions from all U.S. economic activity,” according to the World Resources Institute. or
Indonesian officials are scrambling to contain fires that, one researcher estimates, have released more carbon dioxide equivalent emissions than Japan does in a year by burning fossil fuels — emissions so voluminous that on several days this year they have surpassed the daily emissions output of the entire U.S. economy. and last but not least,
Fires raging across the forests and peatlands of Indonesia are on track to pump out more carbon emissions than the UK’s entire annual output, Greenpeace has warned.
All so that they can try to get the industrial nations to send their $$$$ to them so that they can tax us some more.
Good point.
The largest emitters of carbon dioxide are volcanic eruptions, forest and wild fires, and natural decomposition of plants and animals. Thankfully, ocean water has a great propensity for absorbing this gas, and, as ice melts, it means that the oceans can take in a great deal more CO2.
1. The biggest source of CO2 emissions is volcanic eruptions. At any given time, according to agencies such as the USGS, there are about 13-17 volcanoes erupting somewhere on Earth.
2. Next in line for emissions is the natural decomposition of plant life.
3. The next biggest emitter of carbon dioxide is probably the ocean.
4. Other large emitters of carbon dioxide are forest and wild fires.
If it weren’t for carbon dioxide (CO2), the earth could well be a frozen ball in space, and life, as we know it, would probably not be able to survive.
The greatest amount of CO2 is locked up in plants, rocks and the oceans. It should not be surprising that these each contribute more CO2 emissions than any other sources. This is a good thing, since there is a relatively stable and finite amount of both oxygen and carbon on this planet.
Water vapor is the overwhelming greenhouse gas [it is 30 to 50 times more important than carbon dioxide (CO2)], and CO2 attributed to man is minuscule. Yet government-paid scientists claim HUMAN-INDUCED CO2 is the primary climate driver and must be eliminated to save the earth. Of course man is prideful enough to think he is a major player when in actuality man is an insignificant producer of CO2.
Animals and mankind breathe in oxygen and breath out CO2, and their bodies also contain CO2 and carbon, which is released when they die and decompose. Man burns fossil fuels, which release CO2 as a byproduct. Animals and mankind don’t produce nearly as much carbon dioxide as the major producers, with the possible exception of the death and decomposition of animals.
The instrument temperature records since 1850 or so (until satellite measures started in the 1970s) which are used to prove human-induced global warming (AGW) have been shown to be inaccurate, unreliable, and tainted by numerous errors. Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, suggests that since the IPCC climate models are now so far off from what is actually happening, that their projections for both this decade and century must be considered highly unreliable.
In a Geological Society of America abstract by Dr. Easterbrook, data showed we were in a global warming cycle from 1977 to 1998, at which time we entered into a new global cooling period that should last for the next three decades. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century has switched back and forth between these two modes every 25-30 years. This is known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO. In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode, and this initiated global warming from 1977 to 1998. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO in 1998, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase.
PDO typically lasts 25-30 years:
1. 1945 - 1977: PDO cool phase (27 years)
2. 1977 - 1998: PDO warm phase (21 years)
3. 1998 - 2028: PDO cool phase (30 years)
Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.
Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a networkof 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.
According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.
Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.
Global Warming - Ten Talking Points
People with advanced science degrees, most on the government dole, claim rising CO2 in the air every year will increase the average temperature,
and the number of severe weather events, year-after-year.
.
That has not been happening, but the predictions have continued for over 30 years!
.
Here are ten examples of how the warmists have been wrong:
.
(1) CO2 rose from 1940 to 1976, but the average temperature fell in those years -- there was no warming!
.
(2) CO2 rose from 1998 to 2014, but the average temperature fell in those years -- there was no warming! (accurate global weather satellite data used for 1979 to 2014).
.
(3) When raw data are smoothed to see the trend, there has been no warming in the past 18 years. (RSS weather satellite global data)
.
Note: Warmists ignore accurate weather satellite data, as if they do not exist, in favor of non-global, inaccurate surface measurements with a pro-warming bias. Surface measurements are severely biased by the local warming effect of economic growth: Cement, asphalt and bricks used to build new roads, parking lots, and buildings near suburban and urban temperature stations, absorb heat during the day and release it at night -- causing nighttime warming not measured at temperature stations properly sited in a consistent environment of grass and trees.
.
In the US, properly sited temperature stations reflect half the warming measured by improperly sited stations affected by economic growth around them (aka "urban heat island effect").
.
Over 6,000 land temperature stations were active in the mid-1960s, but over 80% of them are no longer in use today. Stations no longer in use were mainly rural, and at higher latitudes and altitudes -- dropping those stations, which tended to be in cooler locations, raises the average temperature calculations, creating a pro-global warming bias in surface data not seen in weather balloon and weather satellite data.
.
Even with those pro-warming biases, the warmists' beloved surface data still show no warming trend for over 12 years!
.
(4) Warmists claim the Earth is warming year-after-year, but temperature records from US states tell a different story:
- Only one of the contiguous 48 US states had its hottest year on record after the year 2000 -- most states had their hottest year in the 1930's, and some in 1998. If global warming is real, then why is it not reflected in the record highs of individual states? (Alaska and Hawaii don't have over 100 years of data needed to be included in this analysis).
.
(5) Southern Hemisphere sea ice area has repeatedly set new records in 2014, which is obviously caused by global cooling in that half of Earth (satellite data first collected in 1979).
.
(6) Several recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom, and continental Europe, and the 2013-2014 winter was one of the coldest and snowiest in decades for much of the United States and Canada.
.
We've been having fewer severe storms on Earth, not more:
(7) 2014 is near a 30-year low in worldwide hurricane energy (measured by “accumulated cyclone energy,” or ACE index).
.
(8) Landfalling hurricanes in the US have been in a downward trend since 1945.
.
(9) It has been 3,310 days since the last Category 3 or stronger hurricane hit the US mainland (Katrina in 2005), as of November 18, 2014 -- this is the longest stretch (by more than 1,000 days) without a strong hurricane since records began in 1900.
.
(10) This year's Atlantic hurricane season is the least active in 30 years.
. Computer game forecasts are not science -- they are inaccurate climate astrology.
.
The false predictions of a coming climate catastrophe are no science -- they are a political tool used to scare people into giving their government a lot more power ... especially the power to tax corporations for their energy use.
.
Men who claim there will be a disaster of some sort unless everyone does as they say, is a centuries-old political tool (trick) used by kings, politicians, and religious leaders to gain power and control people.
.
The claim that computer games can predict a coming climate catastrophe is the biggest scam in human history. Sadly, the truth is that more CO2 in the air greens the Earth and has little or no effect on the average temperature.
.
There have been several ice ages on Earth with more CO2 in the air than we have now.
.
The first 100 ppmv of CO2 in the air has a huge greenhouse effect.
.
But increasing CO2 from 400 ppmv (currently) to 500 ppmv will have such a small greenhouse effect that it may not be measureable.
.
Other factors, whether known or unknown, have a MUCH LARGER effect on the average temperature -- that's why the large increase of CO2 in the past 18 years (18 years per RSS satellite data -- 12 years for pro warming-bias surface data) has caused no warming of the average temperature ... nor did the large rise of CO2 from 1940 to 1976 cause any warming.
.
97% of climate model simulations predict more warming than has actually happened (warming from 1976 to 1998), and 100% of the climate models failed to predict the lack of warming in the past 18 years.
.
Scientists playing computer games are not doing science -- they are merely climate astrologers wasting the taxpayers' money
There is no scientific study that proves man-made CO2 is causing atmospheric warming. NOTE: The UN IPCC has stated only 3 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is from humans burning fossil fuels. The earth has been warming since 1640 due to natural causes that reversed the mini-Ice Age. To claim that human CO2 is the primary driver of global warming is pure nonsense. It is like blaming a leaking faucet when a storm surge in a hurricane floods your house to the second floor.
It amazes me that the AGW propagandist admit there has been an 18.5 year pause in atmospheric warming and they have not thrown out their incorrect AGW hypothesis. Decaying plant matter alone emits 60 gigatons (biilion tons) of carbon each year into the atmosphere. Humans emit a mere 8 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. Warming trend have been ongoing since 1640 when the mini-Ice Age started to warm up and reverse itself. We are still in an inter-glacial period with warming due to natural causes and NOT due primarily to humans burning fossil fuels.
To convert carbon emissions to CO2 emissions please add the weight of two oxygen atoms to each carbon atom in my figures given above. The primary reference expressed the values as gigatons (billions of tons) of carbon emitted not as gigatons of CO2 emitted.
The claim that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to 400 ppm has happened since the industrial revolution and is due to humans burning fossil fuels is bunk. If this were true the C12-C13 ratio in the atmosphere would be closer to -25%. It is only at -8.2%. See Eric Klemetti's paper in Science April 17, 2015.
Note that decaying plant matter also release CO2 with the same C12-C13 ratio as burning coal
Putting decaying plant matter with burning fossil fuels and it still does not account for the CO2 in the atmosphere. It appears ocean water is degassing CO2 because the world is warming. This was seen repeatedly in past eras over the last 800,000 years when CO2 levels from ice core samples from Volstok and the Dome, Antarctica, rose up to 800 years AFTER atmospheric warming had occurred.
This is data the AGW propagandist want to ignore.
CO2 is a weak green house gas. It was found that its effect on global warming was not large. So climate "scientists" added a fudge factor in the computer model called "positive water vapor feedback" to amplify CO2's green house effect. However, they chose to ignore the negative feedback effect of cloud formation. The end result is that computer models have over predicted temperature increase by more than a factor of three. In addition, unadjusted surface temperature data and satellite temperature showed no warming trend in the last 18 years. These are all well documented. Please look them up.
It only requires a little bit of time to realize the whole "man made Climate change", is a scam. Read history, the temperrature of the planet has fluctuated since it's creation. Around 900 ad Vikings were farming areas of Greenland, that are now under ICE. Starting around the mid 1300's the "Little Ice Age" hit, dropping global temperatures significantly. That cooling period ended approximately 1880"s Then the planet started warming again. That brings us to today. All of the arguments back and forth over percentages of CO2 and such are just chaff. The planet warms and cools on it's own schedule. The one thing to remember when the Cultists start touting this computer model or that simulation, the old Computer programmers watch word GIGO, garbage in, Garbage out! And finally look at what the Cult leaders propose as a solution. Wealth redistribution! That my friend is the end game!
Tell me how the wacko tree hugger account for all the CO2 spewing out of 8 active volcano's ... are they going to cap and trade countries that how volcano's erupting.. Climate change is all about weather changing, that is what makes up the weather cycles.. these idiots of climate change need to provide longer term evidence of more than 100 years - they need to go back 1000 years. But research grants are given to researchers who manipulate the evidence to meet the granters wishes.. or else the money dries up.
People are confusing climate change and pollution. We need to educate the public to let them know that climate change and pollution are two completely different topics. Pollution is something humans can control. Climate change is something that we cannot.
CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 levels were much higher in the past. Man's contribution to CO2 levels less than 3%
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is what every plant on earth uses (along with water) for photosynthesis.
Next these fools are going to be saying that Coal-Emissions are far worse than they were over 50-years ago. When in fact, there are no Coal-Burning Steam-Locomotives on the U.S. Railroads anymore, and almost all of the Steel-Mills in the U.S. are also gone. The Pennsylvania Railroad had 425-K4-Coal-Fired-Passenger Steam-Engines alone added to all their Freight-Steam-Engines. Then you add up all the other Railroads in the U.S, there were probably nearly 10,000 Coal-Fired-Steam-Locomotives fired-up on any given day. By the way, don't forget that Hillary is going to run on Climate-Change because she can't run on 40-million People on Food-Stamps and 60-million people out of Work.
The "science" I have read -- by a ton of very degreed and lucid individuals -- says this is one of the biggest con jobs of history. (Ever read about the tulip bulb craze in Holland centuries ago? Yes, an entire nation can go off the tracks). Let me make it clear that I am all for protecting the environment. What I find reprehensible is the thought giving trillions of dollars to the UN to spend as it deems fit on "climate change" when very scientific arguments are being made that human's effect on the environment -- especially regarding CO2 -- is vanishingly small compared to what Mother Nature does. I am not the one placing science and politics on the same table. The UN and a monster green lobby is doing so. And some of these people are scary. If you want a great example of what buffoons environmental "warmists" can look like, check out the early October Senate exchange between Ted Cruz and Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club. Mair can't even keep his "climate change" dogma straight. I have rarely seen someone get so well dissected in a public exchange. I have done my homework, and will continue to do so. And that includes reading both sides of the argument.
If I only had a dime for every failed global warming hysteria panic doomsday scenario prediction failed...
End all government grants and see how long this bandwagon persists.
Whether you're a denier or with the majority of the scientific community, sooner or later the leaders of the GOP will join the fight against climate change.
The majority of the scientific community does not say that humans are the primary cause of climate change, just that they are adding some amount - in the words of the CAGW cult, they are deniers.
NAME THE PROGRESSIVE LIE:
-YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR
-YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN
-PASS ACA YOUR HEALTH CARE FEES WILL GO DOWN $2.5K
-I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT GIRL
-I ONLY USED ONE DEVICE WHILE SECRETARY OF STATE
-WHEN BILL AND I LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE WE WERE BROKE
-I NEVER SENT OR RECEIVED CLASSIFIED CORRESPONDENCE OVER MY PRIVATE EMAIL
-A PROTEST OVER A ANTI-MUSLIM VIDEO THAT ESCALATED TO VIOLENCE WERE THE REASON FOR ATTACK ON OUR EMBASSY IN BENGHAZI
-THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO DESTROY THE PLANET
-YOU GUESSED RIGHT… ALL OF THE ABOVE
Simple math shows the inability to do anything, if there is a problem.
We emit/burn 30 billion tons per year of CO2 worldwide.
That is equivalent of the addition of 2 ppm per year in the atmosphere.
So that is 15 billion tons emitted to increase CO@ by 1 part per million.
The UN Study says we are going to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by another 468 ppm.
This is 7 trillion tons of CO2 to be emitted over the next century.
The UN Study says that this amount is going to cause 7 F of warming.
This means in order to forestall 1 degree of F warming, you have to forego the emission of 1 trillion tons of CO2.
Divide 1 trillion tons by the 30 billion tons per year we are burning.
How many years of ZERO burning of fossil fuels do we have to go to forestall 1 degree of warming?
33 YEARS !!!!! Of no burning any hydrocarbons. No cars. No electricity. No factories.
And this is just for 1 DEGREE OUT OF 7.
Here are good reasons to doubt AGW:
- the Hockey stick fiasco
- the email scandal
- the fraudulent 97%
- the quotes from IPCC, UN and others that this is to redistribute wealth
- the failure of all 73 of IPCC models
- the vitriol and hate from believers
- the admitted manipulation of data by NOAA and NASA
- IPCC admits a PAUSE
- the absolute refusal to actually discuss the science
- the numerous Firings of those who didn't agree
and that is before we get to the science....
THE IPCC WAS FORMED BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS IN 1988. And I bet I find a tie to a Billionaire at the UN/Bilderberg Group to them. Every paper must go thru the IPCC Approval Board, which is all Environmentalists. IPCC scientists can be tied to a billionaire at the UN, Just like the Hockey Stick MANN, Who is a Professor at Penn, who's net worth is 45 Million, pretty good money for a professor huh? Only thing is, he has ties to SOROS, Who, by the way, just bought out a coal plant not long ago.
You would think with all the whoopla about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that global mean temperatures would be rising. Not so, at least not for the recent decades...GMT has remained about the same for the last 15 years. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. NOAA and NASA satellite data is the most reliable. BTW, this "time out" on GMT is highly contrary to the UN International Committee on Climate Change predictions. They scared the hell out of people with dire warming predictions and continue to do so, often ignoring their own scientist's deductions.
This effort to transfer wealth from America and other developed countries is never ending. None of these alarmists ever explains what the real goal is here. They want to tax our society so they can redistribute the money to themselves/the banking cabal.
Botanist studies show that WE NEED MORE CO2 TO HAVE A GREEN EARTH. Anti-scientists (unfortunately, our president) associate CO2 with the smoke from chimneys and truck exhausts because they are totally ignorant of science. CO2 IS A CLEAR, ODORLESS, COLORLESS, TASTELESS GAS THAT COMBINES WITH SUNSHINE AND WATER IN PHOTOSYNTHESIS TO CREATE GREEN PLANTS. The carbohydrates in plants are at the base of the food chain. Less CO2 = less life on Earth. Also, warmer temperatures oxidize Earth's plant matter to increase CO2, rather than more CO2 causing warmer temperatures. Now that the Earth is cooling, on average, the scare tactics of climatologists who are on the research funding gravy train, are seen as false. Only those benefiting from such scare tactics are clinging to such absurd claims that go against the current and historical data. But such "climatologists," making money based on the fears they spread, have destroyed data that didn't fit their predictions and are selecting data from hot airport tarmacs and asphalt paving areas in cities to claim warming. IN FACT, THE EARTH OVERALL HAS BEEN COOLING SLIGHTLY SINCE 1999. Historical data show that about 2022 we will know definitely that a Maunder Minimum is setting in. North America and Europe will cool at a faster rate. MOVE SOUTH NOW AND AVOID THE RUSH (when Obama is exposed as an anti-science demagogue who has been taken by a conspiracy of "climatologists"). SCIENCE IS NOT VERBAL ARGUMENTS TO MAKE YOUR SIDE WIN A DEBATE (scientifically ignorant lawyers do that)!!!
The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago.
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
It originated by a "warmer" of dubious scientific background who personally checked a large number of research papers and "found" that 97% of them claimed global warming was a threat. Many of those researchers denied that they claimed global warming. Others who read the same papers said that most of them DID NOT support any ongoing warming of the Earth.
The Anderegg study found 472 published climate scientists that opposed the IPCC claims in writing and only 281 that supported them. The other 619 scientists in the study were added by pure assumption because the IPCC used some of their data.
Not one scientist on Earth can prove that man made C02 has ever caused the Earth to warm, not one.
And yet global temperatures have been flat since 2001. Proof that there is no cause and effect relationship between CO2 levels and average temps. What has been flat also that contributes to global average temps? Solar activity. Yes!! That has been flat for the EXACT same time period as the flat temps.
Throughout the recorded history of the earth there have been periods of above average warmth and below average cold. This is a known fact. While greenhouse gases may in fact be contributing to a period of warmth no one really knows by how much considering their are a multitude of factors they may, or may not be involved as well. Compound this with the fact that some of the world's greatest producers of these greenhouse gases have absolutely no intentions of reducing them. So what you end up with is a multi-billions of dollar boondoggle which does practically nothing to accomplish your stated goal. The last factor that I want to mention on this is what I call the vanity of Man. Does any one actually believe that nature doesn't have a bigger say in this than Man? For if you do you can take all of your junk science and throw it on the scrap heap of history. Maybe you should be looking to affect change in this area and not producing nothing but change in the pockets of already mightily stressed taxpayers.
Wait...they want to go back to pre-industrial levels and the temps that went along with them??!!! The Thames in London, Boston Harbor and the East River at Brooklyn all froze over solid in the winter. Is that the kind of harsh environment that they want people to have to deal with again? They don't even have any actual readings that are accurate before 1984 so how do they know what is "normal". What does the term "normal" mean in a cyclic system? Are we close to the top of the cycle or close to the bottom of the cycle? Are they talking 1800 or are they talking 1500. And how could they tell. That is the number one clue that we are talking about junk pseudo-science. The climate is cyclical just like the weather. It's just on a cycle that lasts thousands of years and not a few months. Go do some research. The climate has been MUCH MUCH hotter and MUCH MUCH colder all through history and without an industrial output of man to cause it. If you plot it on a graph you will see a cycle.
Everyone who believes in AGW should go live in caves for about 50 years and then we can see if the Earth returns back to being a stagnant unchanging planet. You know when the Earth never experienced a heat wave, flood, drought, melting iceberg, or land erosion. No burning fire wood since it increases CO2, no gardening, only travel by foot, and absolutely no talking. You should start immediately since we don't have much time.
Many scientists believe the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today, yet we have AGW people shouting "warmest ever" for 2015. It is simply not true.
You have been sold a pack of lies. This planet is so much more livable today than it was 50 years ago. We have cleaned up much pollution. We still have a ways to go, but to imply we are ruining this planet for your Grandchildren is a flat out ignorant lie.
Is the earth warmer in the last 150 years. YES it is and thank GOD almighty for that. The little ice age ended and the planet warmed up again. The climate of planet earth is not much different than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period.
During the Little Ice Age, glaciers all around the planet were advancing at alarming rates. Especially in Europe, Greenland, and North America. The fact is, nobody can prove if there is more ice or less ice than 1,000 years ago. The fact is they could grow grapes in places they can still not grow them today in Europe.
So if it is Expanding Glaciers, Famine, and hardship vs. Receding Glaciers, bumper crops, and prosperity, I will take the latter. You can go live during the little Ice Age where your grandchildren most likely would not have lived past the age of 1.
Go sell your Scare tactics somewhere else.
They do not use CO2 generators in Greenhouses because it keeps them warm; Greenhouses have something called Glass which reduces that heat transfer. Greenhouse owners must supply heat in the winter or their plants would freeze in many locations. Yes CO2 is a Greenhouse gas. So is Water Vapor. In fact Water Vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. As the planet has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, Oceans have warmed and water vapor has increased, all without significant help from CO2. CO2 in the atmosphere at the concentrations we are talking about (0.04%) have a minimal impact. Computer Models that Climate Science has devised are useless because they inputs are all based on theory. You can back test any theory and create a computer program that will predict what has already occurred. Climate Science has declared an all out war on the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period because these two global events don't show up in their models. It appears it is far easier to declare they never happened (which is a complete and total LIE). But they seem to have brainwashed people into believing they NEVER DID Happen.
1971 Stunner : NASA And NCAR Knew That Catastrophic Global Warming Was A Farce
In 1971, NASA and NCAR’s top climatologists knew that even a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 would produce less than 2 degrees warming.
The entire basis of the catastrophic global warming scam has been known to be a fraud from day one.
This is consistent with what radiative transfer models and satellite temperatures show.
Without NASA and NOAA data tampering, the entire scam would have collapsed a decade ago
Lots of whining and no solutions except to collect taxes.
Go to the UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS website for a good introduction to the subject.
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
FEB 13, 2013 @ 01:19 PM 259,372 VIEWS
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
So the more CO2 the better for agriculture plants like CO2. Stop the hysteria. The global warming oh I mean climate change, couldn't prove the global warming, is a ridiculous goal by the greenies to control more of our lives. Hey climate change scientist what's the weather going to be next week? When you can tell me that one with some accuracy I'll believe the catastrophic none sense about anthropogenic climate change!
1985: 30 whole years in the history of the earth! Wow. That's most of the history of the earth isn't it? Just think! A record every year of the earth's existence. Why, the dinosaurs only died out in 2000 and we killed them with our SUV's. We ended the ice age with power plants last weekend. Something must be done soon to get CO2 levels back down to zero or we are next!
CO2 levels are hovering at the lows similar to the levels at the end of the Carboniferous Period. The current climate has never been more hospitable to life.
Is a little UN grant money all it really took these greenhouse, climate "scientists" to sell their souls and lie and manipulate like this. Real scientists don't doctor the numbers, because real scientists are only interested in one thing, the truth, not grant money. People like Tesla and Einstein would have scoffed at these pseudo "grant money scientists" who already know what answer they want and are being paid to get, it's just a matter of how to juggle and hocus pocus the numbers to get it.
I really do not know how true some of these claims are. I keep looking for some place where I can see the pros and cons of all the arguments. Mostly what I see are ideologues calling people names like "denier". As if they were arguing that their opponents were members of the Flat Earth Society. If you have to shout people down with name calling then your arguments are suspect. Please show me the facts and the studies. I want legitimate facts that have been properly vetted, not just what one side wants you to hear. I really get the impression that global warming has been hijacked by political ideologues using it to further some other agenda.
The "science doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They cite computer models forgetting that computers are simply tools and are only as good as the info put into them. The computer models have been way off the mark in matching unadjusted surface temperature data and satellite temperature data. Climate modelers put fudge factors in the models to get their desired results, one of them is "positive water vapor feedback".
With all the lying by governments and the scientist wanting government grants who knows what to believe. What I know is in the 60's in large cities my skin, eyes and lungs would burn. We had thick brown clouds over these cities, half our water was unfit to swim or fish, and we had acid rain that would peal the paint off cars. We no longer have those problems. I'm not saying other nations are not where we were in the 60's. I'm saying we cleaned up our act and now our government is trying to bleed every dime they can out of us to fix something that we have done all we can to fix. If these nations as China want to clean up their act I am sure America would give them the knowledge to do so. Al Gore is not America's friend and his scare tactics if believed would make him billions. We have not been covered with water and animal life is still alive and well.
I would like to believe that many climate scientists are not deceiving us as far as excessive CO2 is concerned but maybe a couple degrees increase in temperature is not all bad. But what is to be done about it? I read a statement by an IPCC leading official that wind and solar power will in no way solve the problem and that the only way to meet the IPCC 2050 goals is a massive increase in nuclear energy. Unfortunately, this safe, clean and abundant source of energy is opposed by the self proclaimed saviors of humanity who think nuclear is evil. Until the global warming advocates start promoting nuclear with vigor, I will at least partially question their sincerity. If you believe in global warming how can you be against nuclear energy?
The alarmists set sail for Antarctica with a plan to show the world how badly alleged man-made “global warming” was wreaking havoc across the region. Instead, their Russian-flagged ship was frozen in place after sea-ice coverage hit record-high levels this year. The dozens of global warmists onboard are still stuck as multiple ice-breaking rescue vessels were unable to reach the frozen ship. Climate realists and the alternative press, meanwhile, were quick to ridicule and poke fun at the stranded and beleaguered alarmists. However, the increasingly discredited establishment media has largely failed to notice or report the irony.
"But the plans revealed so far will not curb emissions enough to meet a target agreed in 2010 to limit global warming to within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) of pre-industrial levels."
The only way this will happen is if the 3/4 of the worlds human population dies and the rest live like they did in the stone age days groveling around on the ground for grubs and grass.
Anyone who thinks that most of the billions of dollars redistributed to these third world cesspools won't be siphoned off by a handful of greedy politicians is living in a world of illusion.
Green Climate Fund: an international fund set up to take money from the poor people in a rich country and give it to the rich people of a poor country, minus the graft for the U.N. kleptocrats.
The goal of the Green Climate Fund is to raise $100 billion a year by 2020 from developed countries (note: all developed countries, not just the US) in order to assist developing countries with climate-change adaptation and mitigation. To help put this number in perspective, the entire US foreign-aid budget for 2012 was $31 billion, constituting 1.4% of the total US budget for that year.
They want to tax our society so they can redistribute the money to THEMSELVES via the The Green Climate Fund. The poor people in third-world countries will never benefit from the $100-billion global tax on the middle class. The Green Climate Fund is seeking a broad blanket of UN-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates.
Wow as the Scam summit gets closer, the whole internet will be Scare Articles!
I can't wait until the black outs start. And your electric bills triple, what fun, while all that money goes into the scammers pockets like it did last time the US gave the UN money - when asked what they did with it they said they had to use it for administration purposes; when asked what countries they had given to they said none, that they had to use the rest of it also. I assume it went into pockets!!!!!!
In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday, researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet.
They mention the word "scheme" more than once in this article. It's the perfect word for their 'redistribution of wealth/manmade global warming' plan.
Before the big money-maker scam called global warming, what did the watermelons blame famine, weather changes, storms, crop failures, diseases, glaciers melting, extinctions, wars, terrorism, and thousands of other natural changes on? For a good laugh and proof of the insanity of this clowns, search for "things caused by global warming" and look at some of the lists.
Takes them almost to the end of the story to finally tell the truth behind the BS, it is all about a carbon tax on anyone that has a car or a business and it will be a global welfare system paid for by the working people. This will help these people become part of a world wide system of control. Global warming has been reported as a lie by many of the worlds scientist today and just a ploy so governments can tax because of it.
This story is the result of the writers imagination. CO2 has not increased for long periods of time since ancient times. These articles that are claiming an increase in the CO2 levels are taking samples over cities and not over remote areas of the planet. If they checked remote areas they would find out that the CO2 levels are constant in those areas as it has been for hundreds of years. The CO2 levels only change while the CO2 "which is heaver than air" is leaving an area that has larger amounts of CO2 and the plant life has not yet had a chance to absorb the valued CO2 that the plants live on. CO2 does not have a negative impact on our planet but instead, it is a necessary product required for life to thrive on the planet. If anyone says otherwise, they are just lying for the money Obama and Gore are paying them.
We now know that changes in the levels of CO2 are a product of climate change and not a driver of climate change. This blows up the whole greenhouse theory as it pertains to CO2 and human activity causing climate change. The UN is not attacking climate change, but is attacking capitalism. Without capitalism, none of us would be having this discussion on the internet.
CO2 levels are averaging 397ppm. That's like saying you had a million dollars and spent $397 so now you're broke. Then they really try too scare you by saying levels of the other two major man-made greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, also continued a unrelenting annual rise in 2014, reaching 1,833 parts per billion (ppb) and 327.1 ppb, respectively. Both rose at the fastest rate for a decade. What they aren't telling you with all this disaster happening there is record snow fall in Antarctica, the Polar Ice Cap is at record levels and average global temperatures haven't risen in 20 years. That isn't my conclusion it is from NASA. Same conclusions have come from the MET Office in England.
Climate scientists are just ignorant. (Oh, by the way, it is 97% of "climate" scientists agree, not 97% of the world's scientists) Most years since the end of the little ice age have been record years for CO2 levels as the seas warm and CO2 sequestered in the oceans by the cold is released. (Henry's Law of Partial Gas Pressure if you want to look it up) So this story is really pretty meaningless since all the comparisons are made back to the ice ages which have lasted over 2 million years. The 97% also pretty much ignore the geologic history of the planet, which shows that the atmosphere has had considerably higher CO2 levels than now through most of the last 500 million years. (Except for ice ages). Now, if you really want to talk about misery, take a look at the famine, disease and war caused by the Little Ice Age (Otherwise known as the Dark Ages). Take my word for it, warm is good for humans, cold is bad.
If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.
30 straight years of rising CO2, but 18 straight years of statistically insignificant temp changes ("the pause"). When did CO2 stop causing warming and how much longer before they stop fear mongering? Shouldn't we wait for at least one negative consequence to occur before we claim that warming is destroying the earth? I am denying that the correlation between CO2 production and the increase in temps is a statistically significant correlation. The fact that the GW models that are predicting dire consequences are constantly wrong about ice growth, storm frequency and strength, and temperatures is also troubling.
The temperatures on this planet are controlled by our sun. It is the source of 90% of the energy creating the temperatures that make life possible. The solar scientists state they can account for climate change based on solar variations. And they offer had data to back it up. All of the major climate change models ignore the variations we document daily in the solar activity. The fact that they willingly ignore the source of our energy is illogical and shows a profound breech with scientific theory. If you wish to live in fear of cooking to death, go live in the Sahara. The risk is cooling.
"Two degrees will be bad enough but it will be better than three degrees," said Jarraud. "Of course it would have been better to have 1 degree... But 1 degree is not possible any longer. It's just not feasible. Too late."
This is of course an idiot speaking. Two degrees is about what it would take to get Earth BACK TO WHERE IT WAS before the "Little Ice Age" that set record cold temperatures in human history. That cold period of about 500 years only ended around 1850-1880, a CENTURY AFTER the "pre-industrial" age ended.
WHY WOULD WE WANT TO STOP EARTH FROM WARMING BACK TO A NORMAL TEMPERATURE? EVEN IF WE COULD ???
CO2 increased slowly, every year for centuries with no correlation to warming or cooling. Only the coincidence of warming and higher levels of CO2 during a 25 year period toward the end of the last Century have given this hypothesis any legs... There is no scientific proof that the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 in theory or a laboratory has any appreciable effect on Earth's total climate when such a small amount of CO2 is involved. In 250 years it has gone from just under 3 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere, to 4 molecules per 10,000.
That's ONE molecule PER TEN THOUSAND in 250 years. Earth's "normal" level of atmospheric CO2 has been more like 5 to 10 times today's level. Mankind's small addition is not dangerous in the least and is most likely beneficial to plant life.
More than 200,00 forest fires ravaging Indonesia's rainforests, set to clear land for palm oil plantations, will likely release far more carbon dioxide this year than the entire United Kingdom.
The last time Indonesia's peat and forest fires were this bad, they produced the equivalent of 13% to 40% of global carbon emissions from fossil fuels. That was in 1997, when the region's fires were responsible for between 0.81 and 2.57 Gt of carbon emissions.
For reference, the UK emitted 0.52 gigatonnes of CO2 last year.
So it's not hard to see how we're setting new CO2 record levels- and it's not us heating our homes, or even driving our gas powered cars causing it like the UN would have you believe.
Not only do they destroy the Earth's natural carbon sink, the forest, they emit huge amounts of CO2 in the process. Multiply this by all the slash and burn done in South America and other places, and it simply dwarfs our CO2 emissions from oil and gas.
According to researchers, global forest fires are difficult to assess because fires are still poorly represented in global climate models. This is in spite of the fact that 12 years have passed since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. Forest fires globally emit more CO2 than the combined CO2 emissions of all transport systems on earth (vehicles, ships, and aircraft), yet are not considered "relevant" to climate models by the UN.
And to think, Indonesia also had the audacity to allow five volcanoes to erupt simultaneously this last July alone, spewing even more CO2 into the air.
And we'll fix it all with a carbon tax, solar panels, windmills, LED light bulbs, and electric cars?
Search "Indonesia forest fire causes" an read the resulting articles; you might just learn something.
Indonesia is tropical and drought is not an issue as it has been in the US lately. The fires are from purposeful setting by the palm oil folks, just like for the past 40 years. The Indonesian governent elites OWN the plantations, and simply ignore the laws becasue they are above them. I've lived in Indonesia for 5 years
Theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson said it best -
“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994. Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career.
Climate change, according to Freeman, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"
During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It's clear now the models are wrong."
It is obvious that the climate models are wrong.
The climate models do not take into account one of the largest CO2 emitters (forest fires), or even volcanic activity. The models assume oil/gas/coal is responsible for the CO2, while ignoring major carbon sources.
Not only are the models flawed by CO2 sources, they place way too much emphasis on the greenhouse effect due to CO2 level increases; all their past predictions have failed to come true. And the climate models can not account for the hot decade of the 1930s, nor can they account for the Little Ice Age 1200AD-1850AD.
Why should I, or anyone else, be forced to pay higher prices through carbon taxes, EPA rules, or other legislation linked to "climate change" when other countries pursue a slash and burn program? Especially when the climate models are obviously wrong?
I'm all for clean power and less pollution, but the current UN version of Climate Gate is not based in reality, and should not be the driving, or deciding factor for how/when/where such changes are made.
With all this hog wash from the WMO they don't bother to tell you that;
So far this year, nearly 110,000 fires have broken out in the island nation (as of Oct. 22), most of them in Kalimantan — the Indonesian portion of the island of Borneo — and Sumatra. Since September, these blazes, most of them in carbon-rich peatlands, “have generated emissions each day exceeding the average daily emissions from all U.S. economic activity,” according to the World Resources Institute. or
Indonesian officials are scrambling to contain fires that, one researcher estimates, have released more carbon dioxide equivalent emissions than Japan does in a year by burning fossil fuels — emissions so voluminous that on several days this year they have surpassed the daily emissions output of the entire U.S. economy. and last but not least,
Fires raging across the forests and peatlands of Indonesia are on track to pump out more carbon emissions than the UK’s entire annual output, Greenpeace has warned.
All so that they can try to get the industrial nations to send their $$$$ to them so that they can tax us some more.
Good point.
The largest emitters of carbon dioxide are volcanic eruptions, forest and wild fires, and natural decomposition of plants and animals. Thankfully, ocean water has a great propensity for absorbing this gas, and, as ice melts, it means that the oceans can take in a great deal more CO2.
1. The biggest source of CO2 emissions is volcanic eruptions. At any given time, according to agencies such as the USGS, there are about 13-17 volcanoes erupting somewhere on Earth.
2. Next in line for emissions is the natural decomposition of plant life.
3. The next biggest emitter of carbon dioxide is probably the ocean.
4. Other large emitters of carbon dioxide are forest and wild fires.
If it weren’t for carbon dioxide (CO2), the earth could well be a frozen ball in space, and life, as we know it, would probably not be able to survive.
The greatest amount of CO2 is locked up in plants, rocks and the oceans. It should not be surprising that these each contribute more CO2 emissions than any other sources. This is a good thing, since there is a relatively stable and finite amount of both oxygen and carbon on this planet.
Water vapor is the overwhelming greenhouse gas [it is 30 to 50 times more important than carbon dioxide (CO2)], and CO2 attributed to man is minuscule. Yet government-paid scientists claim HUMAN-INDUCED CO2 is the primary climate driver and must be eliminated to save the earth. Of course man is prideful enough to think he is a major player when in actuality man is an insignificant producer of CO2.
Animals and mankind breathe in oxygen and breath out CO2, and their bodies also contain CO2 and carbon, which is released when they die and decompose. Man burns fossil fuels, which release CO2 as a byproduct. Animals and mankind don’t produce nearly as much carbon dioxide as the major producers, with the possible exception of the death and decomposition of animals.
The instrument temperature records since 1850 or so (until satellite measures started in the 1970s) which are used to prove human-induced global warming (AGW) have been shown to be inaccurate, unreliable, and tainted by numerous errors. Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, suggests that since the IPCC climate models are now so far off from what is actually happening, that their projections for both this decade and century must be considered highly unreliable.
In a Geological Society of America abstract by Dr. Easterbrook, data showed we were in a global warming cycle from 1977 to 1998, at which time we entered into a new global cooling period that should last for the next three decades. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode, and in the past century has switched back and forth between these two modes every 25-30 years. This is known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO. In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode, and this initiated global warming from 1977 to 1998. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO in 1998, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase.
PDO typically lasts 25-30 years:
1. 1945 - 1977: PDO cool phase (27 years)
2. 1977 - 1998: PDO warm phase (21 years)
3. 1998 - 2028: PDO cool phase (30 years)
Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.
Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a networkof 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.
According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.
Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.
Global Warming - Ten Talking Points
People with advanced science degrees, most on the government dole, claim rising CO2 in the air every year will increase the average temperature,
and the number of severe weather events, year-after-year.
.
That has not been happening, but the predictions have continued for over 30 years!
.
Here are ten examples of how the warmists have been wrong:
.
(1) CO2 rose from 1940 to 1976, but the average temperature fell in those years -- there was no warming!
.
(2) CO2 rose from 1998 to 2014, but the average temperature fell in those years -- there was no warming! (accurate global weather satellite data used for 1979 to 2014).
.
(3) When raw data are smoothed to see the trend, there has been no warming in the past 18 years. (RSS weather satellite global data)
.
Note: Warmists ignore accurate weather satellite data, as if they do not exist, in favor of non-global, inaccurate surface measurements with a pro-warming bias. Surface measurements are severely biased by the local warming effect of economic growth: Cement, asphalt and bricks used to build new roads, parking lots, and buildings near suburban and urban temperature stations, absorb heat during the day and release it at night -- causing nighttime warming not measured at temperature stations properly sited in a consistent environment of grass and trees.
.
In the US, properly sited temperature stations reflect half the warming measured by improperly sited stations affected by economic growth around them (aka "urban heat island effect").
.
Over 6,000 land temperature stations were active in the mid-1960s, but over 80% of them are no longer in use today. Stations no longer in use were mainly rural, and at higher latitudes and altitudes -- dropping those stations, which tended to be in cooler locations, raises the average temperature calculations, creating a pro-global warming bias in surface data not seen in weather balloon and weather satellite data.
.
Even with those pro-warming biases, the warmists' beloved surface data still show no warming trend for over 12 years!
.
(4) Warmists claim the Earth is warming year-after-year, but temperature records from US states tell a different story:
- Only one of the contiguous 48 US states had its hottest year on record after the year 2000 -- most states had their hottest year in the 1930's, and some in 1998. If global warming is real, then why is it not reflected in the record highs of individual states? (Alaska and Hawaii don't have over 100 years of data needed to be included in this analysis).
.
(5) Southern Hemisphere sea ice area has repeatedly set new records in 2014, which is obviously caused by global cooling in that half of Earth (satellite data first collected in 1979).
.
(6) Several recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom, and continental Europe, and the 2013-2014 winter was one of the coldest and snowiest in decades for much of the United States and Canada.
.
We've been having fewer severe storms on Earth, not more:
(7) 2014 is near a 30-year low in worldwide hurricane energy (measured by “accumulated cyclone energy,” or ACE index).
.
(8) Landfalling hurricanes in the US have been in a downward trend since 1945.
.
(9) It has been 3,310 days since the last Category 3 or stronger hurricane hit the US mainland (Katrina in 2005), as of November 18, 2014 -- this is the longest stretch (by more than 1,000 days) without a strong hurricane since records began in 1900.
.
(10) This year's Atlantic hurricane season is the least active in 30 years.
. Computer game forecasts are not science -- they are inaccurate climate astrology.
.
The false predictions of a coming climate catastrophe are no science -- they are a political tool used to scare people into giving their government a lot more power ... especially the power to tax corporations for their energy use.
.
Men who claim there will be a disaster of some sort unless everyone does as they say, is a centuries-old political tool (trick) used by kings, politicians, and religious leaders to gain power and control people.
.
The claim that computer games can predict a coming climate catastrophe is the biggest scam in human history. Sadly, the truth is that more CO2 in the air greens the Earth and has little or no effect on the average temperature.
.
There have been several ice ages on Earth with more CO2 in the air than we have now.
.
The first 100 ppmv of CO2 in the air has a huge greenhouse effect.
.
But increasing CO2 from 400 ppmv (currently) to 500 ppmv will have such a small greenhouse effect that it may not be measureable.
.
Other factors, whether known or unknown, have a MUCH LARGER effect on the average temperature -- that's why the large increase of CO2 in the past 18 years (18 years per RSS satellite data -- 12 years for pro warming-bias surface data) has caused no warming of the average temperature ... nor did the large rise of CO2 from 1940 to 1976 cause any warming.
.
97% of climate model simulations predict more warming than has actually happened (warming from 1976 to 1998), and 100% of the climate models failed to predict the lack of warming in the past 18 years.
.
Scientists playing computer games are not doing science -- they are merely climate astrologers wasting the taxpayers' money
There is no scientific study that proves man-made CO2 is causing atmospheric warming. NOTE: The UN IPCC has stated only 3 % of CO2 in the atmosphere is from humans burning fossil fuels. The earth has been warming since 1640 due to natural causes that reversed the mini-Ice Age. To claim that human CO2 is the primary driver of global warming is pure nonsense. It is like blaming a leaking faucet when a storm surge in a hurricane floods your house to the second floor.
It amazes me that the AGW propagandist admit there has been an 18.5 year pause in atmospheric warming and they have not thrown out their incorrect AGW hypothesis. Decaying plant matter alone emits 60 gigatons (biilion tons) of carbon each year into the atmosphere. Humans emit a mere 8 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. Warming trend have been ongoing since 1640 when the mini-Ice Age started to warm up and reverse itself. We are still in an inter-glacial period with warming due to natural causes and NOT due primarily to humans burning fossil fuels.
To convert carbon emissions to CO2 emissions please add the weight of two oxygen atoms to each carbon atom in my figures given above. The primary reference expressed the values as gigatons (billions of tons) of carbon emitted not as gigatons of CO2 emitted.
The claim that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to 400 ppm has happened since the industrial revolution and is due to humans burning fossil fuels is bunk. If this were true the C12-C13 ratio in the atmosphere would be closer to -25%. It is only at -8.2%. See Eric Klemetti's paper in Science April 17, 2015.
Note that decaying plant matter also release CO2 with the same C12-C13 ratio as burning coal
Putting decaying plant matter with burning fossil fuels and it still does not account for the CO2 in the atmosphere. It appears ocean water is degassing CO2 because the world is warming. This was seen repeatedly in past eras over the last 800,000 years when CO2 levels from ice core samples from Volstok and the Dome, Antarctica, rose up to 800 years AFTER atmospheric warming had occurred.
This is data the AGW propagandist want to ignore.
CO2 is a weak green house gas. It was found that its effect on global warming was not large. So climate "scientists" added a fudge factor in the computer model called "positive water vapor feedback" to amplify CO2's green house effect. However, they chose to ignore the negative feedback effect of cloud formation. The end result is that computer models have over predicted temperature increase by more than a factor of three. In addition, unadjusted surface temperature data and satellite temperature showed no warming trend in the last 18 years. These are all well documented. Please look them up.
It only requires a little bit of time to realize the whole "man made Climate change", is a scam. Read history, the temperrature of the planet has fluctuated since it's creation. Around 900 ad Vikings were farming areas of Greenland, that are now under ICE. Starting around the mid 1300's the "Little Ice Age" hit, dropping global temperatures significantly. That cooling period ended approximately 1880"s Then the planet started warming again. That brings us to today. All of the arguments back and forth over percentages of CO2 and such are just chaff. The planet warms and cools on it's own schedule. The one thing to remember when the Cultists start touting this computer model or that simulation, the old Computer programmers watch word GIGO, garbage in, Garbage out! And finally look at what the Cult leaders propose as a solution. Wealth redistribution! That my friend is the end game!
Tell me how the wacko tree hugger account for all the CO2 spewing out of 8 active volcano's ... are they going to cap and trade countries that how volcano's erupting.. Climate change is all about weather changing, that is what makes up the weather cycles.. these idiots of climate change need to provide longer term evidence of more than 100 years - they need to go back 1000 years. But research grants are given to researchers who manipulate the evidence to meet the granters wishes.. or else the money dries up.
People are confusing climate change and pollution. We need to educate the public to let them know that climate change and pollution are two completely different topics. Pollution is something humans can control. Climate change is something that we cannot.
CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 levels were much higher in the past. Man's contribution to CO2 levels less than 3%
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is what every plant on earth uses (along with water) for photosynthesis.
Next these fools are going to be saying that Coal-Emissions are far worse than they were over 50-years ago. When in fact, there are no Coal-Burning Steam-Locomotives on the U.S. Railroads anymore, and almost all of the Steel-Mills in the U.S. are also gone. The Pennsylvania Railroad had 425-K4-Coal-Fired-Passenger Steam-Engines alone added to all their Freight-Steam-Engines. Then you add up all the other Railroads in the U.S, there were probably nearly 10,000 Coal-Fired-Steam-Locomotives fired-up on any given day. By the way, don't forget that Hillary is going to run on Climate-Change because she can't run on 40-million People on Food-Stamps and 60-million people out of Work.
The "science" I have read -- by a ton of very degreed and lucid individuals -- says this is one of the biggest con jobs of history. (Ever read about the tulip bulb craze in Holland centuries ago? Yes, an entire nation can go off the tracks). Let me make it clear that I am all for protecting the environment. What I find reprehensible is the thought giving trillions of dollars to the UN to spend as it deems fit on "climate change" when very scientific arguments are being made that human's effect on the environment -- especially regarding CO2 -- is vanishingly small compared to what Mother Nature does. I am not the one placing science and politics on the same table. The UN and a monster green lobby is doing so. And some of these people are scary. If you want a great example of what buffoons environmental "warmists" can look like, check out the early October Senate exchange between Ted Cruz and Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club. Mair can't even keep his "climate change" dogma straight. I have rarely seen someone get so well dissected in a public exchange. I have done my homework, and will continue to do so. And that includes reading both sides of the argument.
If I only had a dime for every failed global warming hysteria panic doomsday scenario prediction failed...
End all government grants and see how long this bandwagon persists.
Whether you're a denier or with the majority of the scientific community, sooner or later the leaders of the GOP will join the fight against climate change.
The majority of the scientific community does not say that humans are the primary cause of climate change, just that they are adding some amount - in the words of the CAGW cult, they are deniers.
NAME THE PROGRESSIVE LIE:
-YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR
-YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN
-PASS ACA YOUR HEALTH CARE FEES WILL GO DOWN $2.5K
-I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT GIRL
-I ONLY USED ONE DEVICE WHILE SECRETARY OF STATE
-WHEN BILL AND I LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE WE WERE BROKE
-I NEVER SENT OR RECEIVED CLASSIFIED CORRESPONDENCE OVER MY PRIVATE EMAIL
-A PROTEST OVER A ANTI-MUSLIM VIDEO THAT ESCALATED TO VIOLENCE WERE THE REASON FOR ATTACK ON OUR EMBASSY IN BENGHAZI
-THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO DESTROY THE PLANET
-YOU GUESSED RIGHT… ALL OF THE ABOVE
Simple math shows the inability to do anything, if there is a problem.
We emit/burn 30 billion tons per year of CO2 worldwide.
That is equivalent of the addition of 2 ppm per year in the atmosphere.
So that is 15 billion tons emitted to increase CO@ by 1 part per million.
The UN Study says we are going to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by another 468 ppm.
This is 7 trillion tons of CO2 to be emitted over the next century.
The UN Study says that this amount is going to cause 7 F of warming.
This means in order to forestall 1 degree of F warming, you have to forego the emission of 1 trillion tons of CO2.
Divide 1 trillion tons by the 30 billion tons per year we are burning.
How many years of ZERO burning of fossil fuels do we have to go to forestall 1 degree of warming?
33 YEARS !!!!! Of no burning any hydrocarbons. No cars. No electricity. No factories.
And this is just for 1 DEGREE OUT OF 7.
Here are good reasons to doubt AGW:
- the Hockey stick fiasco
- the email scandal
- the fraudulent 97%
- the quotes from IPCC, UN and others that this is to redistribute wealth
- the failure of all 73 of IPCC models
- the vitriol and hate from believers
- the admitted manipulation of data by NOAA and NASA
- IPCC admits a PAUSE
- the absolute refusal to actually discuss the science
- the numerous Firings of those who didn't agree
and that is before we get to the science....
THE IPCC WAS FORMED BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS IN 1988. And I bet I find a tie to a Billionaire at the UN/Bilderberg Group to them. Every paper must go thru the IPCC Approval Board, which is all Environmentalists. IPCC scientists can be tied to a billionaire at the UN, Just like the Hockey Stick MANN, Who is a Professor at Penn, who's net worth is 45 Million, pretty good money for a professor huh? Only thing is, he has ties to SOROS, Who, by the way, just bought out a coal plant not long ago.
You would think with all the whoopla about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that global mean temperatures would be rising. Not so, at least not for the recent decades...GMT has remained about the same for the last 15 years. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. NOAA and NASA satellite data is the most reliable. BTW, this "time out" on GMT is highly contrary to the UN International Committee on Climate Change predictions. They scared the hell out of people with dire warming predictions and continue to do so, often ignoring their own scientist's deductions.
This effort to transfer wealth from America and other developed countries is never ending. None of these alarmists ever explains what the real goal is here. They want to tax our society so they can redistribute the money to themselves/the banking cabal.
Botanist studies show that WE NEED MORE CO2 TO HAVE A GREEN EARTH. Anti-scientists (unfortunately, our president) associate CO2 with the smoke from chimneys and truck exhausts because they are totally ignorant of science. CO2 IS A CLEAR, ODORLESS, COLORLESS, TASTELESS GAS THAT COMBINES WITH SUNSHINE AND WATER IN PHOTOSYNTHESIS TO CREATE GREEN PLANTS. The carbohydrates in plants are at the base of the food chain. Less CO2 = less life on Earth. Also, warmer temperatures oxidize Earth's plant matter to increase CO2, rather than more CO2 causing warmer temperatures. Now that the Earth is cooling, on average, the scare tactics of climatologists who are on the research funding gravy train, are seen as false. Only those benefiting from such scare tactics are clinging to such absurd claims that go against the current and historical data. But such "climatologists," making money based on the fears they spread, have destroyed data that didn't fit their predictions and are selecting data from hot airport tarmacs and asphalt paving areas in cities to claim warming. IN FACT, THE EARTH OVERALL HAS BEEN COOLING SLIGHTLY SINCE 1999. Historical data show that about 2022 we will know definitely that a Maunder Minimum is setting in. North America and Europe will cool at a faster rate. MOVE SOUTH NOW AND AVOID THE RUSH (when Obama is exposed as an anti-science demagogue who has been taken by a conspiracy of "climatologists"). SCIENCE IS NOT VERBAL ARGUMENTS TO MAKE YOUR SIDE WIN A DEBATE (scientifically ignorant lawyers do that)!!!
The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago.
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
It originated by a "warmer" of dubious scientific background who personally checked a large number of research papers and "found" that 97% of them claimed global warming was a threat. Many of those researchers denied that they claimed global warming. Others who read the same papers said that most of them DID NOT support any ongoing warming of the Earth.
The Anderegg study found 472 published climate scientists that opposed the IPCC claims in writing and only 281 that supported them. The other 619 scientists in the study were added by pure assumption because the IPCC used some of their data.
Not one scientist on Earth can prove that man made C02 has ever caused the Earth to warm, not one.
And yet global temperatures have been flat since 2001. Proof that there is no cause and effect relationship between CO2 levels and average temps. What has been flat also that contributes to global average temps? Solar activity. Yes!! That has been flat for the EXACT same time period as the flat temps.
Throughout the recorded history of the earth there have been periods of above average warmth and below average cold. This is a known fact. While greenhouse gases may in fact be contributing to a period of warmth no one really knows by how much considering their are a multitude of factors they may, or may not be involved as well. Compound this with the fact that some of the world's greatest producers of these greenhouse gases have absolutely no intentions of reducing them. So what you end up with is a multi-billions of dollar boondoggle which does practically nothing to accomplish your stated goal. The last factor that I want to mention on this is what I call the vanity of Man. Does any one actually believe that nature doesn't have a bigger say in this than Man? For if you do you can take all of your junk science and throw it on the scrap heap of history. Maybe you should be looking to affect change in this area and not producing nothing but change in the pockets of already mightily stressed taxpayers.
Wait...they want to go back to pre-industrial levels and the temps that went along with them??!!! The Thames in London, Boston Harbor and the East River at Brooklyn all froze over solid in the winter. Is that the kind of harsh environment that they want people to have to deal with again? They don't even have any actual readings that are accurate before 1984 so how do they know what is "normal". What does the term "normal" mean in a cyclic system? Are we close to the top of the cycle or close to the bottom of the cycle? Are they talking 1800 or are they talking 1500. And how could they tell. That is the number one clue that we are talking about junk pseudo-science. The climate is cyclical just like the weather. It's just on a cycle that lasts thousands of years and not a few months. Go do some research. The climate has been MUCH MUCH hotter and MUCH MUCH colder all through history and without an industrial output of man to cause it. If you plot it on a graph you will see a cycle.
Everyone who believes in AGW should go live in caves for about 50 years and then we can see if the Earth returns back to being a stagnant unchanging planet. You know when the Earth never experienced a heat wave, flood, drought, melting iceberg, or land erosion. No burning fire wood since it increases CO2, no gardening, only travel by foot, and absolutely no talking. You should start immediately since we don't have much time.
Many scientists believe the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today, yet we have AGW people shouting "warmest ever" for 2015. It is simply not true.
You have been sold a pack of lies. This planet is so much more livable today than it was 50 years ago. We have cleaned up much pollution. We still have a ways to go, but to imply we are ruining this planet for your Grandchildren is a flat out ignorant lie.
Is the earth warmer in the last 150 years. YES it is and thank GOD almighty for that. The little ice age ended and the planet warmed up again. The climate of planet earth is not much different than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period.
During the Little Ice Age, glaciers all around the planet were advancing at alarming rates. Especially in Europe, Greenland, and North America. The fact is, nobody can prove if there is more ice or less ice than 1,000 years ago. The fact is they could grow grapes in places they can still not grow them today in Europe.
So if it is Expanding Glaciers, Famine, and hardship vs. Receding Glaciers, bumper crops, and prosperity, I will take the latter. You can go live during the little Ice Age where your grandchildren most likely would not have lived past the age of 1.
Go sell your Scare tactics somewhere else.
They do not use CO2 generators in Greenhouses because it keeps them warm; Greenhouses have something called Glass which reduces that heat transfer. Greenhouse owners must supply heat in the winter or their plants would freeze in many locations. Yes CO2 is a Greenhouse gas. So is Water Vapor. In fact Water Vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. As the planet has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, Oceans have warmed and water vapor has increased, all without significant help from CO2. CO2 in the atmosphere at the concentrations we are talking about (0.04%) have a minimal impact. Computer Models that Climate Science has devised are useless because they inputs are all based on theory. You can back test any theory and create a computer program that will predict what has already occurred. Climate Science has declared an all out war on the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period because these two global events don't show up in their models. It appears it is far easier to declare they never happened (which is a complete and total LIE). But they seem to have brainwashed people into believing they NEVER DID Happen.
1971 Stunner : NASA And NCAR Knew That Catastrophic Global Warming Was A Farce
In 1971, NASA and NCAR’s top climatologists knew that even a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 would produce less than 2 degrees warming.
The entire basis of the catastrophic global warming scam has been known to be a fraud from day one.
This is consistent with what radiative transfer models and satellite temperatures show.
Without NASA and NOAA data tampering, the entire scam would have collapsed a decade ago
Lots of whining and no solutions except to collect taxes.
Go to the UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS website for a good introduction to the subject.
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
FEB 13, 2013 @ 01:19 PM 259,372 VIEWS
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
So the more CO2 the better for agriculture plants like CO2. Stop the hysteria. The global warming oh I mean climate change, couldn't prove the global warming, is a ridiculous goal by the greenies to control more of our lives. Hey climate change scientist what's the weather going to be next week? When you can tell me that one with some accuracy I'll believe the catastrophic none sense about anthropogenic climate change!
1985: 30 whole years in the history of the earth! Wow. That's most of the history of the earth isn't it? Just think! A record every year of the earth's existence. Why, the dinosaurs only died out in 2000 and we killed them with our SUV's. We ended the ice age with power plants last weekend. Something must be done soon to get CO2 levels back down to zero or we are next!
CO2 levels are hovering at the lows similar to the levels at the end of the Carboniferous Period. The current climate has never been more hospitable to life.
Is a little UN grant money all it really took these greenhouse, climate "scientists" to sell their souls and lie and manipulate like this. Real scientists don't doctor the numbers, because real scientists are only interested in one thing, the truth, not grant money. People like Tesla and Einstein would have scoffed at these pseudo "grant money scientists" who already know what answer they want and are being paid to get, it's just a matter of how to juggle and hocus pocus the numbers to get it.
I really do not know how true some of these claims are. I keep looking for some place where I can see the pros and cons of all the arguments. Mostly what I see are ideologues calling people names like "denier". As if they were arguing that their opponents were members of the Flat Earth Society. If you have to shout people down with name calling then your arguments are suspect. Please show me the facts and the studies. I want legitimate facts that have been properly vetted, not just what one side wants you to hear. I really get the impression that global warming has been hijacked by political ideologues using it to further some other agenda.
The "science doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They cite computer models forgetting that computers are simply tools and are only as good as the info put into them. The computer models have been way off the mark in matching unadjusted surface temperature data and satellite temperature data. Climate modelers put fudge factors in the models to get their desired results, one of them is "positive water vapor feedback".
With all the lying by governments and the scientist wanting government grants who knows what to believe. What I know is in the 60's in large cities my skin, eyes and lungs would burn. We had thick brown clouds over these cities, half our water was unfit to swim or fish, and we had acid rain that would peal the paint off cars. We no longer have those problems. I'm not saying other nations are not where we were in the 60's. I'm saying we cleaned up our act and now our government is trying to bleed every dime they can out of us to fix something that we have done all we can to fix. If these nations as China want to clean up their act I am sure America would give them the knowledge to do so. Al Gore is not America's friend and his scare tactics if believed would make him billions. We have not been covered with water and animal life is still alive and well.
I would like to believe that many climate scientists are not deceiving us as far as excessive CO2 is concerned but maybe a couple degrees increase in temperature is not all bad. But what is to be done about it? I read a statement by an IPCC leading official that wind and solar power will in no way solve the problem and that the only way to meet the IPCC 2050 goals is a massive increase in nuclear energy. Unfortunately, this safe, clean and abundant source of energy is opposed by the self proclaimed saviors of humanity who think nuclear is evil. Until the global warming advocates start promoting nuclear with vigor, I will at least partially question their sincerity. If you believe in global warming how can you be against nuclear energy?
The alarmists set sail for Antarctica with a plan to show the world how badly alleged man-made “global warming” was wreaking havoc across the region. Instead, their Russian-flagged ship was frozen in place after sea-ice coverage hit record-high levels this year. The dozens of global warmists onboard are still stuck as multiple ice-breaking rescue vessels were unable to reach the frozen ship. Climate realists and the alternative press, meanwhile, were quick to ridicule and poke fun at the stranded and beleaguered alarmists. However, the increasingly discredited establishment media has largely failed to notice or report the irony.
"But the plans revealed so far will not curb emissions enough to meet a target agreed in 2010 to limit global warming to within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) of pre-industrial levels."
The only way this will happen is if the 3/4 of the worlds human population dies and the rest live like they did in the stone age days groveling around on the ground for grubs and grass.
Anyone who thinks that most of the billions of dollars redistributed to these third world cesspools won't be siphoned off by a handful of greedy politicians is living in a world of illusion.
Green Climate Fund: an international fund set up to take money from the poor people in a rich country and give it to the rich people of a poor country, minus the graft for the U.N. kleptocrats.
The goal of the Green Climate Fund is to raise $100 billion a year by 2020 from developed countries (note: all developed countries, not just the US) in order to assist developing countries with climate-change adaptation and mitigation. To help put this number in perspective, the entire US foreign-aid budget for 2012 was $31 billion, constituting 1.4% of the total US budget for that year.
They want to tax our society so they can redistribute the money to THEMSELVES via the The Green Climate Fund. The poor people in third-world countries will never benefit from the $100-billion global tax on the middle class. The Green Climate Fund is seeking a broad blanket of UN-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates.
Wow as the Scam summit gets closer, the whole internet will be Scare Articles!
I can't wait until the black outs start. And your electric bills triple, what fun, while all that money goes into the scammers pockets like it did last time the US gave the UN money - when asked what they did with it they said they had to use it for administration purposes; when asked what countries they had given to they said none, that they had to use the rest of it also. I assume it went into pockets!!!!!!
In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday, researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet.
They mention the word "scheme" more than once in this article. It's the perfect word for their 'redistribution of wealth/manmade global warming' plan.
Before the big money-maker scam called global warming, what did the watermelons blame famine, weather changes, storms, crop failures, diseases, glaciers melting, extinctions, wars, terrorism, and thousands of other natural changes on? For a good laugh and proof of the insanity of this clowns, search for "things caused by global warming" and look at some of the lists.
Takes them almost to the end of the story to finally tell the truth behind the BS, it is all about a carbon tax on anyone that has a car or a business and it will be a global welfare system paid for by the working people. This will help these people become part of a world wide system of control. Global warming has been reported as a lie by many of the worlds scientist today and just a ploy so governments can tax because of it.
Climate change is all about the money. Think about this, carbon credits
are something created from nothing that these people think can be sold
for a profit. Have you forgot about the carbon exchange market in
Chicago that was set up by Obama and his buddies that quickly went away
when it was revealed during his first run for the WH. It's like printing
money and it will be tried again.
The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.” Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself—the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist.
So the solution to climate change is Communism?
The propaganda machine keeps on rolling.
Last month, the White House’s Social and Behavioral Science Team published its first annual report on the effectiveness of behavioral science to achieve policy change. President Obama has been an advocate of using behavioral psychology on citizens for the purposes of policymaking, despite criticisms from notable individuals such as Bill Shughart, professor of public choice at Utah State University, who argue that the behaviorists “are saying that you, consumer, are stupid.” And despite the use of taxpayer dollars to fund this unconstitutional and downright frightening team, the findings were not exactly monumental.
Politico reports that the president officially adopted the notion of using behavioral psychology in policymaking when he launched the White House Social and Behavioral Science Team (SBST) last year. However, his affinity for the use of this science to influence the American people was clear long before that in his selection of Cass Sunstein as his regulatory czar. Sunstein authored a book on the subject, entitled, Nudge — Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Sunstein’s book provides a variety of behavioral psychology measures that can be taken to "nudge” Americans toward healthier lifestyles while causing them to think that in fact they are making the decisions themselves.
Last month, the White House’s Social and Behavioral Science Team published its first annual report on the effectiveness of behavioral science to achieve policy change. President Obama has been an advocate of using behavioral psychology on citizens for the purposes of policymaking, despite criticisms from notable individuals such as Bill Shughart, professor of public choice at Utah State University, who argue that the behaviorists “are saying that you, consumer, are stupid.” And despite the use of taxpayer dollars to fund this unconstitutional and downright frightening team, the findings were not exactly monumental.
Politico reports that the president officially adopted the notion of using behavioral psychology in policymaking when he launched the White House Social and Behavioral Science Team (SBST) last year. However, his affinity for the use of this science to influence the American people was clear long before that in his selection of Cass Sunstein as his regulatory czar. Sunstein authored a book on the subject, entitled, Nudge — Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Sunstein’s book provides a variety of behavioral psychology measures that can be taken to "nudge” Americans toward healthier lifestyles while causing them to think that in fact they are making the decisions themselves.
The 1500's "The earth is the center of the universe" - The Vatican and 97% of the scientists
The 1960's "Beware the coming ice age"
The 1970's "The world will run out of fossil fuel in the next decade" Jimmy Carter
The 1980's "Everyone will die of skin cancer because of the hole in the ozone layer"
The 1990's "At the turn of the millennium, all the computers in the world will fail and send the world into chaos"
2000's "Beware global warming".
2010"s "Climate change will create monster storms and weather anomalies that will destroy the world".
1880's "There is a sucker born every minute." P.T. Barnum
The 1960's "Beware the coming ice age"
The 1970's "The world will run out of fossil fuel in the next decade" Jimmy Carter
The 1980's "Everyone will die of skin cancer because of the hole in the ozone layer"
The 1990's "At the turn of the millennium, all the computers in the world will fail and send the world into chaos"
2000's "Beware global warming".
2010"s "Climate change will create monster storms and weather anomalies that will destroy the world".
1880's "There is a sucker born every minute." P.T. Barnum
We exhale 4,000 ppm CO2 in every breath. The earth has had CO2 levels as high as 2000 ppm in the past. The US Navy allows 9,000 ppm Co2 in submarines and it does not hurt humans. In additional the earth was warmer than it has been Life did not end. The implication that 400 ppm is some kind of apocalyptic threshold is pure sensationalism. Since only 3 % or so of atmospheric CO2 is manmade, and the rest is caused by natural events, it is absurd to claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the PRIMARY case of atmospheric warming.
It is similar to blaming a leaking faucett in your bathroom for water up to you second story windows is a hurricane storm surge.
People relax. Species are not going extinct due to global warming. In fact there has been no additional atmospheric warming now for 18.5 years despite CO2 stil rising and above 400 ppm. This shows that the AGW hypothesis is wrong and it is about time for climate change pundits to admit climate pseudoscience is a religion and not a science. It is not settled and they hardly can predict the climate over ten years let alone in 2100.
The UN really wants the carbon tax and redistribution of wealth to destroy capitalism and the USA. Rajendra Pachauri, former head of the UN IPCC, and Christianna Figueres of the UN have both said a carbon tax probably will not change climate but it will destroy capitalism and create a global socialistic system that all these Marxist have longed for and want to redistribute our money after taking out their operating costs. It is time we tell the UN ,"No taxation without representation." We did nt elect any of the Marxists in the UN and they have no right to pass taxes and laws to govern us.
A far more urgent problem threatens the health and longevity of poor people around the world is corrupt government.
Look at the countries with the least productive farming communities, worst economies, and highest rates of poverty and starvation. The common circumstance is government corruption. Sometimes, when government is bad enough, there are violent protests and even armed conflict. None of these contributes to economic prosperity and agricultural production.
As for the World Bank's position on international support for local disasters, most of these corrupt governments siphon off some of what is sent to help victims of disasters.
The solution is to trade directly with the populations of other nations. Our government giving other governments money only serves to escalate the corruption.
Look at the countries with the least productive farming communities, worst economies, and highest rates of poverty and starvation. The common circumstance is government corruption. Sometimes, when government is bad enough, there are violent protests and even armed conflict. None of these contributes to economic prosperity and agricultural production.
As for the World Bank's position on international support for local disasters, most of these corrupt governments siphon off some of what is sent to help victims of disasters.
The solution is to trade directly with the populations of other nations. Our government giving other governments money only serves to escalate the corruption.
"To rein in the longer-term impacts on poverty, immediate policies are needed that bring emissions to zero by the end of this century, the World Bank said."
ZERO emissions? In other words, no human life.
If this is true, then the World Bank needs to contact these countries identified and be forced to no longer have children. But even the global warming extremists have acknowledged that their push is to redistribute global wealth. So, this little propaganda is nothing more than that, propaganda. And it's not surprising they've gotten scientists from around the world to go along with it. It's their revenge. For decades, called nerds and losers. Getting wedgies and swirlies. Well, who'll have the last laugh now? The scientists, as they grab world dominion.
The World Bankers are more interested in how much money their scare tactics on climate change will add to their private bank accounts.
Hey world bank robbers....you want to reduce poverty, then pass out birth control. And how about you give out the trillions you have to actually help the poor rather than exploit them!
According to NOAA data, the amount of total CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately three one-hundredths of 1 percent, or .0003 percent of the total atmosphere. And the man-made contribution to that total amount of CO2 is only .0004 of that number.
The Models say that paying more Taxes is the only way to avert the DISASTERS!
Likely that the redistribution of wealth resulting from the climate change scam will impoverish millions in the developed world who's governments tax them into oblivion in order to line the pockets of the chosen ones.
They see once instance of a flood, drought, or famine and blame Climate Change. But they always ignore thousands of years of floods, droughts, and famines as if they are a new thing only happening since the industrial revolution.
It can't be blamed on dysfunctional governments because that would point fingers at the UN and the tyrants and corrupt rulers who run most of the countries in that failed organization.
Message to US tax payers....Send more money!
To anyone interested in the truth:
Warning, this is R rated stuff for the children who believe in man made global warming.
Google The Great Global Warming Swindle to see what real scientists think about man made global warming and the greenhouse effect.
To anyone interested in the truth:
Warning, this is R rated stuff for the children who believe in man made global warming.
Google The Great Global Warming Swindle to see what real scientists think about man made global warming and the greenhouse effect.
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Michael Crichton graduated Magna cum laude from Harvard. He graduated with a degree in anthropology and was interested in the impact of climate change on the development of man. He also wrote Jurassic Park, wrote and produced ER. His mortal sin against the religion of global warming was that he did not believe that human activity had any impact on climate change. What made his sin worse was that he was a successful Hollywood type, and Hollywood types are all supposed to be dedicated the church of man made global warming. The documentary was criticized by the church of man made global warming because it exposed the man made global warming church as a sham.
Making policy based upon 30 years of data on a planet that is 4,500,000,000 years old isn't very smart, or scientifically sound. Aren't AGW con men relying on less than 100 years of actual measured data on a planet of more than 4,500,000,000 years?
Someone please take a picture of these alarmist. When they start walking or riding their bikes to work, then and only then will I be concerned. Please post these pictures to facebook. All is see is they're spending billions in fuel flying around the world pushing their global warming agenda.
Even if we stopped ALL additional CO2 production, we are ALREADY 'on tap' for a global temperature increase in excess of the 2C they had hoped to restrict us to. The only reason we are not ALREADY experiencing temperatures and conditions like that of the mid-Pliocene, is simply a matter of 'planetary thermal inertia.' But that WILL change.
Cement production and blacktop? Guess we better stop spending billions on our infrastructure, and go back to dirt roads and covered wagons. I say the Elites at the UN should be a example of cutting carbon, NO MORE FLYING AROUND THE GLOBE every year promoting this SCAM, NO MORE LIMO RIDES, Sell their mansions and summer homes and rent a studio apartments instead. Anyone think they would?
Let me guess.. "The 100 million poor" are mostly minority women and
children and only by raising taxes and empowering government more can
the problem be solved.
Nice try, but this is almost comical at this point.
If anything, free enterprise and inexpensive energy are the only forces that will lift people out of poverty, not making goods they need to survive needlessly expensive. . It works for the US, and we do it with less and less damage to the environment.
Nice try, but this is almost comical at this point.
If anything, free enterprise and inexpensive energy are the only forces that will lift people out of poverty, not making goods they need to survive needlessly expensive. . It works for the US, and we do it with less and less damage to the environment.
Really?? Now we can blame everything from toothaches to poverty, to
diabetes, cancer, ingrown toe nails, paint peeling, cloths shrinking in
my closet, bad breath, plane crashes, car crashes and most of all stupid
liberals! Everything and anything we now can blame on the global
warming scam no matter where your at or who you are! Just think people,
if your late for work you can even tell your boss that do to "climate
Change" your clock is out of wack or your car pollutes to much and the
cop pulled you over! Isn't it wonderful to know now that no matter what
happens in your life, you will always have global warming to fall back
on!!!!
The Daily Caller, Jul 7, 2015 - Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Says Obama Is 'Dead Wrong' On Global ... Giaever argued that there's been no global warming for the last 17 years
Feb 5, 2015 - There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.” ... Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society
Poverty is created by policies created by politicians enforced by brute force if necessary.
The world bank is a major cause of poverty. They are predatory lenders. Never trust politicians, bankers or insurers.
Every UN Climate Summit Hailed as ‘Last Chance’ To Stop ‘Global Warming’ Before It’s Too Late. Search it. Read it.
Capitalism has delivered more people around the world out of poverty than any government program FACT.
Climate change is a lie .it's about control and scare tactics .every bit of it is b/s and they know it.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth. - Vladimir Lenin
Haven't we heard enough of this "climate change" BS or "global warming" BS from those who want to line THEIR pockets with OUR $$$?
Ever notice how the warmers are always getting grants and the doom is always way way down the road?
Man is not making earth warmer .... Period.
This is all about giving more money from the people to the government (the banking cabal).
"For example, savings from eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could be reinvested in assistance schemes to help poor families cope with higher fuel costs."
I think they used the right word..."scheme ".
Are the Environmentalists creating the Hunger Games?!
More fear mongering by eco-religious zealots.
I'm almost ready to give these bull#$%$ my life savings just to get them to shut up already.
This scam is designed to strip every nickel from the middle class and give it to the rich so they may rule us.
Is the UN moving? Its right across the street from the sea. How about you? The idea that politicians could or even would do anything to affect the climate if we gave them more power and more tax dollars is utterly preposterous. All they would do is ask for more power and higher taxes because we didn’t give them enough to fix the problem in the first place.
Anymore global warming and the ice caps may engulf the whole planet.
I see the hysterical chicken little liberals are out preaching their hysteria again!
All those folks who believe in anthropogenic global warming should put their money where their mouths are and stop driving, stop using electricity, stop using modern medicine, move into a mud hut, and live like they are back in the stone age. Come on, warmists... lead by example or shut up. Everyone is sick of your hypocritical idiocy.
Want more proof the USA ranks at the bottom of the developed world list for science #32 and math #34 ------ simple read all the comments that global warming due to man-made CO2 is a hoax. Hey, at least we are #1 for self esteem, we are the best of the best at everything, just ask us how great we are, answer #1. You can thank the "progressives" that control education in the U.S., for the lack of it.
Today, students are indoctrinated by a massive education system largely run by liberals, leftists and Marxists promoting their agenda through the union — misrepresenting their intentions, rewriting history through the textbooks, and gravitating toward the radicals. Collective Utopian-promises replaced God in the classroom, and we sat by, silent. Students should learn life's lessons through trial, failure and success. Individualism, the driving force that made America great, has to be shown to our young people. Good teachers who agree are shackled by the state. The others are protected by the union. If this president is not a destroyer, he's been greatly misinformed by this educational system. - James A. Skeldon, Leftist public schools indoctrinate students, Watertown Daily Times, May 17, 2011
"Both the Republican National Committee and the White House resorted to stopping me from continuing this investigation in the direction Carroll Reece had personally asked me to go. That direction was to utilize this investigation to uncover the fact that this country had been the victim of a conspiracy. That was Mr. Reece's conviction. I eventually agreed to carry out that direction.
"I explained to Mr. Reece that his own Counsel wouldn't go in that direction. He gave me permission to disregard our own Counsel and to set up an aspect of the investigation outside of our office — more or less secretly. The Republican National Committee got wind of what I was doing, and they did everything they could to stop me. They appealed to Counsel to stop me. Finally, they resorted to the White House.
"[Their] objection was, as they put it, my devotion to what they called "anti-Semitism." That was a cooked-up idea. In other words, it wasn't true at all. But, any way, that's the way they expressed it. Then they made it stick. They had to have something in the way of a rationalization of their decision to do everything they could to stop completion of this investigation, given the direction that it was moving. That direction would have been exposure of this Carnegie Endowment story, and the Ford Foundation, and the Guggenheim, and the Rockefeller Foundation — all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States."
- Norman Dodd, Chief Investigator in 1953 for the Reece Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations
Funny how the Earth was the greenest and lushest is ever has back during the Carboniferous Period when CO2 levels were much higher than today. No tipping point, no end of the world.
In recent times we have survived the coming ice age in the 70s and the hole in the ozone in the 90s that were going to have catastrophic effects. Both of which provided large grants and money to the highly esteemed scientists. Do you think any of those people are now working in the climate change field? I would think, just like protestors on the left that change what they are outraged over daily, they go from one to the next new thing that pops up...
The US can stop all CO2 OUTPUT TODAY, and it won't change climate, Giving the UN 100 BILLION A YEAR will NOT CHANGE CLIMATE, STOP THE BS
Peer reviewed scientific papers promoting the settled science of global warming published in prestigious journals were discredited left and right.
The global warming believers relied on computer models to project future climate. They use algorithms which attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the factors which the algorithm creators estimate will represent how all the Earth will be in decades and centuries from now.
How accurate are these computer models?
All I can say about this is that the computer models used in the daily weather reports are better than sticking a finger in the air.
I would assume that the alarmist cultists believe their respective scientists within every Gov't in world has looked at the climate data regarding AGW. If they have and proclaimed a catastrophe is right around the corner then why is the EU which will steal over 22 billion this year in "carbon taxing" stating that member nations which collect these "taxes" are under NO REQUIREMENT to spend one dime on Green Energy projects to combat the increase in co2's. What does that tell you?
The government is just taking the taxpayers for a ride, paying more for vehicle, collecting fees from smog checks, and registration to curb CO2 emissions.
"greenhouse gas emissions - which come mainly from burning fossil fuels and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation."
These are the things we need to build homes and feed ourselves. I think most of these "warmers" would prefer we go back to living in mud huts and hunting for our sustenance.
The two biggest spewers of this false emergency are India and China, and yet they will not be affected by whatever Obama does to push the UN Socialist agenda. The American people will be forced to enrich third world countries with their wealth while this countries develop their countries pouring forth far more CO2. The next to last paragraph says it all "to limit global warming to within 2 degrees Celcius (3.6 Fahrenheit) of pre-industrial levels" There hasn't been global warming in almost 2 decades. Lots of scientists are predicting ice age. What I'm trying to say it's the end of Capitalism and welcome back Fuedalism
The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming "the economic development model" because she's really never seen it work. "If you look at Ms. Figueres' Wikipedia page," notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3r59Na9tU
This is serious, you're bound to witness a rise in Co2, especially when the glacier ice that has melted over this last summer released the Co2 that has been trapped with in that ice for thousands of years,? I watched Journey to 10,000 BC. very interesting facts about climate change before the industrial age, One big ice age, & a couple hundred small ice ages, as well as the same number of dry periods, dust storms, drought, then floods, etc,etc,etc,,? Funny thing about life back then, they did not have billions of dollars to throw at this problem,? They were smart enough to adapt, & wait until the climate changed back to normal,? How gullible can humans be,? Like the warming of the Pacific Ocean,! That can`t possibly be because of that Volcano that popped up near Japan, or the Pacific having more volcanic activity under its ocean floor,! The trees & vegetation needs Co2 in order to thrive & grow, your bound to have a little more Co2 in the Earth`s atmosphere during the fall & winter that will fall back to the ground being trapped in the snow & ice, but yet the pine trees are still green thriving on that Co2,! Man can limit the pollution that`s emitted with in the Earth`s atmosphere, But it would take an act from God, {"A Miracle"} in order for man to stop the Earth`s climate from changing, But most of you that believe in this farce of man made climate change / global warming & believe man can stop the climate from changing & warming don`t tend to believe in God anyway,? Read the Book Of Enoch, then watch Journey to 10,000 BC, filmed in "2008", God Bless America, Military & Police Forces,! A~Men
California CARB only indulges kleptocracy without resolving any environmental issues. No emissions cap, only auctioning permits for profit without any concern for resolving pollution & supposed climate issues. Appropriations are not provided details. Funds are going to boondoggles & hoarded.Look at how much is diverted to the fast train to nowhere. There is the purpose, for indulging their own self interests & filling their own coffers. Corruption to the core.
ALL plants love CO2. It makes them grow big and strong and they use CO2 to create oxygen, which we all must have. Oxygen cannot be created without CO2.
They won't be satisfied until we're all on foot, living in the dark and cold. Just as the people of Cambodia were a few decades ago. The rich and affluent will continue their lifestyle unabated.
Lib party=no logical thought process. It's all about feelings.. They feel global warming, although satellite data shows none lately. Then they fudge that data and proclaim TEOTWAWKI to get the grant money flowing. Follow the money.
Most of the government agencies have a dog in his hunt, AKA GRANT MONEY. The satellite data shows no warming lately, an incovenient fact, so now the government entities are trying to fudge the data again to keep the grants coming. bottom line there is no way to "fix" it even if you think it should be "fixed". I don't see any sea level rise in Florida, and the ice in many places is growing. 15 years ago it was an ozone hole and we were all going to die. The Dupont Co came up with a new freon at about 5 to 10 times the price of old freon formula which was never a factor as far as ozone at that altitude. They made a ton of money from the changover, and it occurred as the patent ran out on the old freon. Ozone hole fluctuates on it's own'
I have a solution. Everyone who believes in AGW should go live in caves. Give up your cell phones (huge carbon polluter), only walk, no traveling by fossil fueled vehicles motor, air, or rail. Only eat what the earth provides so no growing your own foods since it might increase CO2 levels. Do this for 50 years so we can all see if this will roll back the oceans, stop the ice bergs from melting, and bring back a Stagnant Earth where we never experienced a hurricane, drought, flood, or heat wave. A time when the earth enjoyed a constant 72 degrees F, and it only rained when it was suppose to and the sun shined most of the time. I would suggest the Climate Cultists begin as soon as possible. According to the Church of Climate Change, we don't have much time.
This is an out and out lie, there have been times when the CO2 levels were 1000 times higher than they are now, and not a man resided on the planet, and the dirty little secret is, it was a lot colder too! There is NO correlation between CO2 and temperature, now the sun, that is a different matter, but alas, even the filthy left know they can't fool their voting base that they can control the sun too.
The media has done their very best to confuse the public. There is pollution and there is plant food/carbon dioxide which the media likes to call greenhouse gas in order to scare you.
You could come here to China where I have lived continuously since 2009 and I could help you better understand that pollution is a really bad thing. Just standing at a bus station can be really uncomfortable.
Yet the goal of the left is to end capitalism now, Of course the dirty little secret is that if you allow Socialist countries like China to produce all your products, the impact on the planet's environment will be 2X, 3X or worse than having a high tech American factory do the same thing. But "to make an omelet, you have to crack a few eggs."
And it's weird how so many Bush appointees are liberal "warmists," huh?
Thomas Fingar, former chairman of President Bush's National Intelligence Council: "We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years ... We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests."
Brig. General Steven Anderson, USA (Ret.), former Chief of Logistics under General Petraeus and a self-described "conservative Republican": "Our oil addiction, I believe, is our greatest threat to our national security. Not just foreign oil but oil in general. Because I believe that in CO2 emissions and climate change and the instability that that all drives, I think that that increases the likelihood there will be conflicts in which American soldiers are going to have to fight and die somewhere."
Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense: "[T]he area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security: rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief."
Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense: "Over the next 20 years and more, certain pressures-population, energy, climate, economic, environmental-could combine with rapid cultural, social, and technological change to produce new sources of deprivation, rage, and instability."
General Gordon Sullivan, USA (Ret.), former Army chief of staff: "Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world."
Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret.): "If the destabilizing effects of climate change go unchecked, we can expect more frequent, widespread, and intense failed state scenarios creating large scale humanitarian disasters and higher potential for conflict and terrorism ... The Department of Defense and national intelligence communities recognize this clear link between climate change, national security, and instability and have begun strategic plans and programs to both mitigate and adapt to the most likely and serious effects in key areas around the globe."
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command and special envoy to Israel and Palestine under President George W. Bush: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."
Admiral Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.): "Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror."
General Chuck Wald, USAF (Ret.), former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command under President George W. Bush: "People can say what they want to about whether they think climate change is manmade or not, but there's a problem there and the military is going to be a part of the solution. It's a national security issue because it affects the stability of certain places in the world."
Brig. General Bob Barnes, USA (Ret.): "While most people associate global warming with droughts, rising sea levels, declining food production, species extinction and habitat destruction, fewer connect these impacts to increasing instability around the globe and the resulting threats to our national security. But the connection - and the threat it poses - is real and growing."
Vice Admiral Richard Truly, USN (Ret.), former NASA administrator: "The stresses that climate change will put on our national security will be different than any we've dealt with in the past."
General Paul Kern, USA (Ret.), Commander of the United States Army Materiel Command under President George W. Bush: "Military planning should view climate change as a threat to the balance of energy access, water supplies, and a healthy environment, and it should require a response.'
Lt. General Lawrence Farrell, USAF (Ret.): "The planning we do that goes into organizing, training, and equipping our military considers all the risks that we may face. And one of the risks we see right now is climate change."
Admiral John Nathman, USN (Ret.), former Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command under President George W. Bush: "There are serious risks to doing nothing about climate change. We can pay now or we're going to pay a whole lot later. The U.S. has a unique opportunity to become energy independent, protect our national security and boost our economy while reducing our carbon footprint. We've been a model of success for the rest of the world in the past and now we must lead the way on climate change."
Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.): "The national security community is rightly worried about climate change because of the magnitude of its expected impacts around the globe, even in our own country ... Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America. But if we respond appropriately, I believe we will enhance our security, not simply by averting the worst climate change impacts, but by spurring a new energy revolution."
Both parties want a carbon tax. If we had a Republican president, he'd be pushing for climate legislation too. Politicians on both sides are owned by the banking cabal.
And England began the CO2 tax in the early 60s when they were under coal burning smog. It has since been cleared up but the tax continues. Just to review. Any global government requires the ability to tax. The UN / globalists have eyed a CO2 tax for years to provide the means of funding and global control. And what was our fight for independence about in the 1700s. Taxes. And all the governments of the world have always awaited the demise of the U.S. to join the rest of the taxed / yoked peoples of the world so we re under one control.
Search "97% Of Climate Scientists Base Their Research On Fraudulent Data From NASA And NOAA"
What wonderful unbiased journalism! CO2 is a trace gas which is colorless and oder less and they show a picture of an exhaust pipe showing what CO2? Uh No It's not CO2. Co2 is not a pollutant, is not dangerous and is beneficial to life on the earth. Science has proven no cause and effect to increased Co2 levels and temperature rises. The nearly 19 year plateau in temperature proves there is correlation between rises in Co2 levels temperatures and therefore no causation. It's the Sun stupid.
400 parts per billion sounds big and scary, but that translates into a minuscule 0.04% of our atmosphere, or, 4 one-hundreths of 1 percent. 100% of Earth's heat comes from the Sun, and 99.96% of that heat is trapped in our lower atmosphere by...drum roll please...Oxygen (02) and Water Vapor (H2O).
An average global temperature just doesn’t make sense, it’s meaningless. Some places are warming, some places are cooling, and some places aren’t doing much of anything temperature wise. Based on current satellite data a large part of the earth is in the “not doing much of anything” scenario. In between ice ages the general trend is to warm and we are in between ice ages.
NASA satellite data was supposed to prove that the AGW alarmist theory of “rapidly increasing temps” but they did not. Those satellites actually showed there hasn't been any appreciable warming in almost 18 years. That is why the AGW alarmists ignore the satellite data.
They ignore data, manipulate data, and cherry pick data to support their AGW theory. These scientists are working for governments and as long as they keep saying what the governments want they will get their grant money. AGW is about government control and $$$. Through regulation governments are now in control of utilities and energy.
Yet, you think taxing people is the answer. Those speaking out the loudest know the ONLY solution to "man made" Climate Change is to tell 4 billion people that they have to leave. Taking more of the working stiffs few remaining dollars won't fix anything.
The article starts out, "This year is on track to be a record 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than the 19th-century average,"
Since at least half of the 18th century was a part of the last mini ice age, I would hope temperatures would average warmer. I believe that warmer temperatures are the definition of "leaving an ice age".
Wow, Possibly 1.8 degrees F more than the average in the 1800s. Tell me, what satellites were in use back then? And weren't we just coming out of a little ice age? Somehow, I am not impressed.
Wait....the 18th century was when we started warming up from the anomaly known as the "Little Ice Age" in the 16th and 17th centuries that was significantly colder than the preceding centuries. There is NO basis to say that is a valid benchmark to use in measuring climate averages.
Antarctica's ice paradox has yet another puzzling layer. Not only is the amount of sea ice increasing each year, but an underwater robot now shows the ice is also much thicker than was previously thought, a new study reports. The discovery adds to the ongoing mystery of Antarctica's expanding sea ice. According to climate models, the region's sea ice should be shrinking each year because of global warming. Instead, satellite observations show the ice is expanding, and the continent's sea ice has set new records for the past three winters
I personally have developed some very complex mathematical models and will tell you that I can make those models say pretty much anything I want. Models must always be validated with real world data. If a model can't take historical measured conditions and "predict" what has already happened under those conditions, it is useless for predicting a much more uncertain future.
When I was a business forecaster, I came up with a forecast that said growth was going to be 11%. Management asked me to make it 20%. No problem. I SLIGHTLY changed a few variables, nothing outside of what was acceptable for an assumption, and made it 20%. People who do forecasting for a living know how easy this is to do. If these climate scientists wanted to say an ice age was coming, it would be only a slight change to their model on some assumption that would be very reasonable. Since there's so much politics involved, I simply don't trust anything these idiots are saying ever since it was proved the hockey stick forecast was fixed to say what Mann wanted it to say.
The Daily Caller, Jul 7, 2015 - Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Says Obama Is 'Dead Wrong' On Global ... Giaever argued that there's been no global warming for the last 17 years
Feb 5, 2015 - There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.” ... Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society
Poverty is created by policies created by politicians enforced by brute force if necessary.
The world bank is a major cause of poverty. They are predatory lenders. Never trust politicians, bankers or insurers.
Every UN Climate Summit Hailed as ‘Last Chance’ To Stop ‘Global Warming’ Before It’s Too Late. Search it. Read it.
Capitalism has delivered more people around the world out of poverty than any government program FACT.
Climate change is a lie .it's about control and scare tactics .every bit of it is b/s and they know it.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth. - Vladimir Lenin
Haven't we heard enough of this "climate change" BS or "global warming" BS from those who want to line THEIR pockets with OUR $$$?
Ever notice how the warmers are always getting grants and the doom is always way way down the road?
Man is not making earth warmer .... Period.
This is all about giving more money from the people to the government (the banking cabal).
"For example, savings from eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could be reinvested in assistance schemes to help poor families cope with higher fuel costs."
I think they used the right word..."scheme ".
Are the Environmentalists creating the Hunger Games?!
More fear mongering by eco-religious zealots.
I'm almost ready to give these bull#$%$ my life savings just to get them to shut up already.
This scam is designed to strip every nickel from the middle class and give it to the rich so they may rule us.
Is the UN moving? Its right across the street from the sea. How about you? The idea that politicians could or even would do anything to affect the climate if we gave them more power and more tax dollars is utterly preposterous. All they would do is ask for more power and higher taxes because we didn’t give them enough to fix the problem in the first place.
Anymore global warming and the ice caps may engulf the whole planet.
I see the hysterical chicken little liberals are out preaching their hysteria again!
All those folks who believe in anthropogenic global warming should put their money where their mouths are and stop driving, stop using electricity, stop using modern medicine, move into a mud hut, and live like they are back in the stone age. Come on, warmists... lead by example or shut up. Everyone is sick of your hypocritical idiocy.
Want more proof the USA ranks at the bottom of the developed world list for science #32 and math #34 ------ simple read all the comments that global warming due to man-made CO2 is a hoax. Hey, at least we are #1 for self esteem, we are the best of the best at everything, just ask us how great we are, answer #1. You can thank the "progressives" that control education in the U.S., for the lack of it.
Today, students are indoctrinated by a massive education system largely run by liberals, leftists and Marxists promoting their agenda through the union — misrepresenting their intentions, rewriting history through the textbooks, and gravitating toward the radicals. Collective Utopian-promises replaced God in the classroom, and we sat by, silent. Students should learn life's lessons through trial, failure and success. Individualism, the driving force that made America great, has to be shown to our young people. Good teachers who agree are shackled by the state. The others are protected by the union. If this president is not a destroyer, he's been greatly misinformed by this educational system. - James A. Skeldon, Leftist public schools indoctrinate students, Watertown Daily Times, May 17, 2011
"Both the Republican National Committee and the White House resorted to stopping me from continuing this investigation in the direction Carroll Reece had personally asked me to go. That direction was to utilize this investigation to uncover the fact that this country had been the victim of a conspiracy. That was Mr. Reece's conviction. I eventually agreed to carry out that direction.
"I explained to Mr. Reece that his own Counsel wouldn't go in that direction. He gave me permission to disregard our own Counsel and to set up an aspect of the investigation outside of our office — more or less secretly. The Republican National Committee got wind of what I was doing, and they did everything they could to stop me. They appealed to Counsel to stop me. Finally, they resorted to the White House.
"[Their] objection was, as they put it, my devotion to what they called "anti-Semitism." That was a cooked-up idea. In other words, it wasn't true at all. But, any way, that's the way they expressed it. Then they made it stick. They had to have something in the way of a rationalization of their decision to do everything they could to stop completion of this investigation, given the direction that it was moving. That direction would have been exposure of this Carnegie Endowment story, and the Ford Foundation, and the Guggenheim, and the Rockefeller Foundation — all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States."
- Norman Dodd, Chief Investigator in 1953 for the Reece Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations
Funny how the Earth was the greenest and lushest is ever has back during the Carboniferous Period when CO2 levels were much higher than today. No tipping point, no end of the world.
In recent times we have survived the coming ice age in the 70s and the hole in the ozone in the 90s that were going to have catastrophic effects. Both of which provided large grants and money to the highly esteemed scientists. Do you think any of those people are now working in the climate change field? I would think, just like protestors on the left that change what they are outraged over daily, they go from one to the next new thing that pops up...
The US can stop all CO2 OUTPUT TODAY, and it won't change climate, Giving the UN 100 BILLION A YEAR will NOT CHANGE CLIMATE, STOP THE BS
Peer reviewed scientific papers promoting the settled science of global warming published in prestigious journals were discredited left and right.
The global warming believers relied on computer models to project future climate. They use algorithms which attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the factors which the algorithm creators estimate will represent how all the Earth will be in decades and centuries from now.
How accurate are these computer models?
All I can say about this is that the computer models used in the daily weather reports are better than sticking a finger in the air.
I would assume that the alarmist cultists believe their respective scientists within every Gov't in world has looked at the climate data regarding AGW. If they have and proclaimed a catastrophe is right around the corner then why is the EU which will steal over 22 billion this year in "carbon taxing" stating that member nations which collect these "taxes" are under NO REQUIREMENT to spend one dime on Green Energy projects to combat the increase in co2's. What does that tell you?
The government is just taking the taxpayers for a ride, paying more for vehicle, collecting fees from smog checks, and registration to curb CO2 emissions.
"greenhouse gas emissions - which come mainly from burning fossil fuels and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation."
These are the things we need to build homes and feed ourselves. I think most of these "warmers" would prefer we go back to living in mud huts and hunting for our sustenance.
The two biggest spewers of this false emergency are India and China, and yet they will not be affected by whatever Obama does to push the UN Socialist agenda. The American people will be forced to enrich third world countries with their wealth while this countries develop their countries pouring forth far more CO2. The next to last paragraph says it all "to limit global warming to within 2 degrees Celcius (3.6 Fahrenheit) of pre-industrial levels" There hasn't been global warming in almost 2 decades. Lots of scientists are predicting ice age. What I'm trying to say it's the end of Capitalism and welcome back Fuedalism
The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming "the economic development model" because she's really never seen it work. "If you look at Ms. Figueres' Wikipedia page," notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3r59Na9tU
This is serious, you're bound to witness a rise in Co2, especially when the glacier ice that has melted over this last summer released the Co2 that has been trapped with in that ice for thousands of years,? I watched Journey to 10,000 BC. very interesting facts about climate change before the industrial age, One big ice age, & a couple hundred small ice ages, as well as the same number of dry periods, dust storms, drought, then floods, etc,etc,etc,,? Funny thing about life back then, they did not have billions of dollars to throw at this problem,? They were smart enough to adapt, & wait until the climate changed back to normal,? How gullible can humans be,? Like the warming of the Pacific Ocean,! That can`t possibly be because of that Volcano that popped up near Japan, or the Pacific having more volcanic activity under its ocean floor,! The trees & vegetation needs Co2 in order to thrive & grow, your bound to have a little more Co2 in the Earth`s atmosphere during the fall & winter that will fall back to the ground being trapped in the snow & ice, but yet the pine trees are still green thriving on that Co2,! Man can limit the pollution that`s emitted with in the Earth`s atmosphere, But it would take an act from God, {"A Miracle"} in order for man to stop the Earth`s climate from changing, But most of you that believe in this farce of man made climate change / global warming & believe man can stop the climate from changing & warming don`t tend to believe in God anyway,? Read the Book Of Enoch, then watch Journey to 10,000 BC, filmed in "2008", God Bless America, Military & Police Forces,! A~Men
California CARB only indulges kleptocracy without resolving any environmental issues. No emissions cap, only auctioning permits for profit without any concern for resolving pollution & supposed climate issues. Appropriations are not provided details. Funds are going to boondoggles & hoarded.Look at how much is diverted to the fast train to nowhere. There is the purpose, for indulging their own self interests & filling their own coffers. Corruption to the core.
ALL plants love CO2. It makes them grow big and strong and they use CO2 to create oxygen, which we all must have. Oxygen cannot be created without CO2.
They won't be satisfied until we're all on foot, living in the dark and cold. Just as the people of Cambodia were a few decades ago. The rich and affluent will continue their lifestyle unabated.
Lib party=no logical thought process. It's all about feelings.. They feel global warming, although satellite data shows none lately. Then they fudge that data and proclaim TEOTWAWKI to get the grant money flowing. Follow the money.
Most of the government agencies have a dog in his hunt, AKA GRANT MONEY. The satellite data shows no warming lately, an incovenient fact, so now the government entities are trying to fudge the data again to keep the grants coming. bottom line there is no way to "fix" it even if you think it should be "fixed". I don't see any sea level rise in Florida, and the ice in many places is growing. 15 years ago it was an ozone hole and we were all going to die. The Dupont Co came up with a new freon at about 5 to 10 times the price of old freon formula which was never a factor as far as ozone at that altitude. They made a ton of money from the changover, and it occurred as the patent ran out on the old freon. Ozone hole fluctuates on it's own'
I have a solution. Everyone who believes in AGW should go live in caves. Give up your cell phones (huge carbon polluter), only walk, no traveling by fossil fueled vehicles motor, air, or rail. Only eat what the earth provides so no growing your own foods since it might increase CO2 levels. Do this for 50 years so we can all see if this will roll back the oceans, stop the ice bergs from melting, and bring back a Stagnant Earth where we never experienced a hurricane, drought, flood, or heat wave. A time when the earth enjoyed a constant 72 degrees F, and it only rained when it was suppose to and the sun shined most of the time. I would suggest the Climate Cultists begin as soon as possible. According to the Church of Climate Change, we don't have much time.
This is an out and out lie, there have been times when the CO2 levels were 1000 times higher than they are now, and not a man resided on the planet, and the dirty little secret is, it was a lot colder too! There is NO correlation between CO2 and temperature, now the sun, that is a different matter, but alas, even the filthy left know they can't fool their voting base that they can control the sun too.
The media has done their very best to confuse the public. There is pollution and there is plant food/carbon dioxide which the media likes to call greenhouse gas in order to scare you.
You could come here to China where I have lived continuously since 2009 and I could help you better understand that pollution is a really bad thing. Just standing at a bus station can be really uncomfortable.
Yet the goal of the left is to end capitalism now, Of course the dirty little secret is that if you allow Socialist countries like China to produce all your products, the impact on the planet's environment will be 2X, 3X or worse than having a high tech American factory do the same thing. But "to make an omelet, you have to crack a few eggs."
And it's weird how so many Bush appointees are liberal "warmists," huh?
Thomas Fingar, former chairman of President Bush's National Intelligence Council: "We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years ... We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests."
Brig. General Steven Anderson, USA (Ret.), former Chief of Logistics under General Petraeus and a self-described "conservative Republican": "Our oil addiction, I believe, is our greatest threat to our national security. Not just foreign oil but oil in general. Because I believe that in CO2 emissions and climate change and the instability that that all drives, I think that that increases the likelihood there will be conflicts in which American soldiers are going to have to fight and die somewhere."
Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense: "[T]he area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security: rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief."
Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense: "Over the next 20 years and more, certain pressures-population, energy, climate, economic, environmental-could combine with rapid cultural, social, and technological change to produce new sources of deprivation, rage, and instability."
General Gordon Sullivan, USA (Ret.), former Army chief of staff: "Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world."
Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret.): "If the destabilizing effects of climate change go unchecked, we can expect more frequent, widespread, and intense failed state scenarios creating large scale humanitarian disasters and higher potential for conflict and terrorism ... The Department of Defense and national intelligence communities recognize this clear link between climate change, national security, and instability and have begun strategic plans and programs to both mitigate and adapt to the most likely and serious effects in key areas around the globe."
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command and special envoy to Israel and Palestine under President George W. Bush: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."
Admiral Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.): "Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror."
General Chuck Wald, USAF (Ret.), former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command under President George W. Bush: "People can say what they want to about whether they think climate change is manmade or not, but there's a problem there and the military is going to be a part of the solution. It's a national security issue because it affects the stability of certain places in the world."
Brig. General Bob Barnes, USA (Ret.): "While most people associate global warming with droughts, rising sea levels, declining food production, species extinction and habitat destruction, fewer connect these impacts to increasing instability around the globe and the resulting threats to our national security. But the connection - and the threat it poses - is real and growing."
Vice Admiral Richard Truly, USN (Ret.), former NASA administrator: "The stresses that climate change will put on our national security will be different than any we've dealt with in the past."
General Paul Kern, USA (Ret.), Commander of the United States Army Materiel Command under President George W. Bush: "Military planning should view climate change as a threat to the balance of energy access, water supplies, and a healthy environment, and it should require a response.'
Lt. General Lawrence Farrell, USAF (Ret.): "The planning we do that goes into organizing, training, and equipping our military considers all the risks that we may face. And one of the risks we see right now is climate change."
Admiral John Nathman, USN (Ret.), former Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command under President George W. Bush: "There are serious risks to doing nothing about climate change. We can pay now or we're going to pay a whole lot later. The U.S. has a unique opportunity to become energy independent, protect our national security and boost our economy while reducing our carbon footprint. We've been a model of success for the rest of the world in the past and now we must lead the way on climate change."
Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.): "The national security community is rightly worried about climate change because of the magnitude of its expected impacts around the globe, even in our own country ... Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America. But if we respond appropriately, I believe we will enhance our security, not simply by averting the worst climate change impacts, but by spurring a new energy revolution."
Both parties want a carbon tax. If we had a Republican president, he'd be pushing for climate legislation too. Politicians on both sides are owned by the banking cabal.
And England began the CO2 tax in the early 60s when they were under coal burning smog. It has since been cleared up but the tax continues. Just to review. Any global government requires the ability to tax. The UN / globalists have eyed a CO2 tax for years to provide the means of funding and global control. And what was our fight for independence about in the 1700s. Taxes. And all the governments of the world have always awaited the demise of the U.S. to join the rest of the taxed / yoked peoples of the world so we re under one control.
Search "97% Of Climate Scientists Base Their Research On Fraudulent Data From NASA And NOAA"
What wonderful unbiased journalism! CO2 is a trace gas which is colorless and oder less and they show a picture of an exhaust pipe showing what CO2? Uh No It's not CO2. Co2 is not a pollutant, is not dangerous and is beneficial to life on the earth. Science has proven no cause and effect to increased Co2 levels and temperature rises. The nearly 19 year plateau in temperature proves there is correlation between rises in Co2 levels temperatures and therefore no causation. It's the Sun stupid.
400 parts per billion sounds big and scary, but that translates into a minuscule 0.04% of our atmosphere, or, 4 one-hundreths of 1 percent. 100% of Earth's heat comes from the Sun, and 99.96% of that heat is trapped in our lower atmosphere by...drum roll please...Oxygen (02) and Water Vapor (H2O).
An average global temperature just doesn’t make sense, it’s meaningless. Some places are warming, some places are cooling, and some places aren’t doing much of anything temperature wise. Based on current satellite data a large part of the earth is in the “not doing much of anything” scenario. In between ice ages the general trend is to warm and we are in between ice ages.
NASA satellite data was supposed to prove that the AGW alarmist theory of “rapidly increasing temps” but they did not. Those satellites actually showed there hasn't been any appreciable warming in almost 18 years. That is why the AGW alarmists ignore the satellite data.
They ignore data, manipulate data, and cherry pick data to support their AGW theory. These scientists are working for governments and as long as they keep saying what the governments want they will get their grant money. AGW is about government control and $$$. Through regulation governments are now in control of utilities and energy.
Yet, you think taxing people is the answer. Those speaking out the loudest know the ONLY solution to "man made" Climate Change is to tell 4 billion people that they have to leave. Taking more of the working stiffs few remaining dollars won't fix anything.
The article starts out, "This year is on track to be a record 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than the 19th-century average,"
Since at least half of the 18th century was a part of the last mini ice age, I would hope temperatures would average warmer. I believe that warmer temperatures are the definition of "leaving an ice age".
Wow, Possibly 1.8 degrees F more than the average in the 1800s. Tell me, what satellites were in use back then? And weren't we just coming out of a little ice age? Somehow, I am not impressed.
Wait....the 18th century was when we started warming up from the anomaly known as the "Little Ice Age" in the 16th and 17th centuries that was significantly colder than the preceding centuries. There is NO basis to say that is a valid benchmark to use in measuring climate averages.
Antarctica's ice paradox has yet another puzzling layer. Not only is the amount of sea ice increasing each year, but an underwater robot now shows the ice is also much thicker than was previously thought, a new study reports. The discovery adds to the ongoing mystery of Antarctica's expanding sea ice. According to climate models, the region's sea ice should be shrinking each year because of global warming. Instead, satellite observations show the ice is expanding, and the continent's sea ice has set new records for the past three winters
I personally have developed some very complex mathematical models and will tell you that I can make those models say pretty much anything I want. Models must always be validated with real world data. If a model can't take historical measured conditions and "predict" what has already happened under those conditions, it is useless for predicting a much more uncertain future.
When I was a business forecaster, I came up with a forecast that said growth was going to be 11%. Management asked me to make it 20%. No problem. I SLIGHTLY changed a few variables, nothing outside of what was acceptable for an assumption, and made it 20%. People who do forecasting for a living know how easy this is to do. If these climate scientists wanted to say an ice age was coming, it would be only a slight change to their model on some assumption that would be very reasonable. Since there's so much politics involved, I simply don't trust anything these idiots are saying ever since it was proved the hockey stick forecast was fixed to say what Mann wanted it to say.
All these 'horror stories' of CC on the net... have to conclude that a
lot of it is just propaganda because If we are in fact warming ever so
slowly, why are we hung up on all the negatives?... Real science gives
both sides of a story.
Tropical /subtropical rain forests by far exceed all other climates for biodiversity. Warming increases ocean evaporation, more clouds, higher humidity... balmy is better!. That old formula... "Molecular activity is directly proportional to temperature"... is what drives all plant and animal tissues to absorb nutrients, exchange gases, multiply and proliferate. A colder climate reduces that activity decreasing biodiversity... just a simple fact.
Rising sea level… is more liquid water (versus ice) enhancing biomass productivity, the basis of our food chain... the essence of our ecosystem. And ironically, excess CO2 is exactly what adds to the benefits of warming by providing all plant species across the planet a huge shot in the arm, it's called the 'fertilizer effect’
Increases in TEMPERATURE AND CO2 drive this ‘explosion’ of phytoplankton and algal blooms of vast dimension known to be the great CO2 SINKS of our oceans. This colossal spike in biomass, in turn, begins absorbing excess CO2 reducing it in our oceans, then eventually in our atmosphere by gas exchange at the ocean’s surface. This process is always happening… back and forth… and is in fact a large part of the ‘Carbon Equilibrium’. This chemical equilibrium has well-managed peaks and valleys of Earth’s CO2 in much higher concentrations than we see today… actually since time began.
‘Ocean acidification’ is another fundamental part of this equilibrium, releasing nutrients back into the system allowing biomass expansion. This equilibrium works within other equilibriums, and cycles within cycles like the current maximum tilt of our planet’s axis to the sun. This can fully account for melting ice at the North Pole, and ice accumulation in Antarctica. (Google: NEW NASA DATA Antarctic ice)
So, It’s hard to fool Mother Nature, but for the rest of us…? Is it possible most of CC 'science' and fortune telling is hype? We should at least consider to what extent do warming promoters in government suppress/manipulate the 'science' for political gain, to create revenue streams like carbon taxes, to control populations, to easily side step our Constitution. There is now plenty of evidence to support that. Since we find it is primarily socialists, UN types and elitists exploiting the occasion for personal profit who push the evils of CC, could it be a power play for more control, perhaps a one-world go
Tropical /subtropical rain forests by far exceed all other climates for biodiversity. Warming increases ocean evaporation, more clouds, higher humidity... balmy is better!. That old formula... "Molecular activity is directly proportional to temperature"... is what drives all plant and animal tissues to absorb nutrients, exchange gases, multiply and proliferate. A colder climate reduces that activity decreasing biodiversity... just a simple fact.
Rising sea level… is more liquid water (versus ice) enhancing biomass productivity, the basis of our food chain... the essence of our ecosystem. And ironically, excess CO2 is exactly what adds to the benefits of warming by providing all plant species across the planet a huge shot in the arm, it's called the 'fertilizer effect’
Increases in TEMPERATURE AND CO2 drive this ‘explosion’ of phytoplankton and algal blooms of vast dimension known to be the great CO2 SINKS of our oceans. This colossal spike in biomass, in turn, begins absorbing excess CO2 reducing it in our oceans, then eventually in our atmosphere by gas exchange at the ocean’s surface. This process is always happening… back and forth… and is in fact a large part of the ‘Carbon Equilibrium’. This chemical equilibrium has well-managed peaks and valleys of Earth’s CO2 in much higher concentrations than we see today… actually since time began.
‘Ocean acidification’ is another fundamental part of this equilibrium, releasing nutrients back into the system allowing biomass expansion. This equilibrium works within other equilibriums, and cycles within cycles like the current maximum tilt of our planet’s axis to the sun. This can fully account for melting ice at the North Pole, and ice accumulation in Antarctica. (Google: NEW NASA DATA Antarctic ice)
So, It’s hard to fool Mother Nature, but for the rest of us…? Is it possible most of CC 'science' and fortune telling is hype? We should at least consider to what extent do warming promoters in government suppress/manipulate the 'science' for political gain, to create revenue streams like carbon taxes, to control populations, to easily side step our Constitution. There is now plenty of evidence to support that. Since we find it is primarily socialists, UN types and elitists exploiting the occasion for personal profit who push the evils of CC, could it be a power play for more control, perhaps a one-world go
It still isn't warmer than the medieval warm period or the roman warm
period of which both were a time of plenty and prosperity for humankind
with bumper harvests and grape vines growing as far north as Maine and
northern England, bring it on!
I don't understand why anyone other than the banking cabal would support
a carbon tax. The UN/banking cabal wants to severely restrict our
movement and lower our standard of living, solely for their twisted
benefit.
Energy poverty. Nearly 11% of the EU's population is in a situation
where their households are not able to adequately heat their homes at an
affordable cost. This situation is estimated to affect around 54
million people in Europe (2012 figures). The scale of the problem is due
to rising energy prices across the EU.
The whole Global warming started with the fall of the Berlin wall and
communism went extinct. The old commie guard missing the old days
created global warming to attack capitalism. Global warming is BS just
like communism is BS
Another article stated the CO2 levels at this level were 800,000 years
ago. They have yet to explain how man caused that. They conveniently
chose 1850-1900, why? This SCAM continues with them regurgitating the
same sky is falling rhetoric they were using in 1970.
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:
1."Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
2."We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
3."Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial
4."Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
5."Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich
6."It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
7."Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
8."In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine
9."At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
10."Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich
11."By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
12."[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine
13."The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:
1."Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
2."We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
3."Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial
4."Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
5."Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich
6."It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
7."Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
8."In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine
9."At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
10."Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich
11."By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
12."[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine
13."The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is."
Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner,
senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the
University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20,
2000.
They are really pushing the propaganda hard right now before their giant
scam meeting in France where "wealthy" countries like the U.S. are
about to get handed annual bills for tens of billions of dollars to
finance this socialist fraud.
Climate Change is a UN Sponsored TAX SCAM to destroy Capitalism, destroy
the middle class around the world and give the Criminal Elite power and
control. Proof of the PROPAGANDA is the stupid picture at the top of this article
labeled as "smoke streams from the chimneys ". That is NOT "smoke".
That is WATER VAPOR(steam) from the scrubbers that clean the emissions.
If you research the Carbon levels of the Earth they were far higher in
other periods and without coal or cars! Again people who will gain
financially and politically are pushing this never ending saga of the
worlds ending. Months or years latter we will find that the reports
were exaggerated in order to drum up support or force nations to join
this money grabbing scheme.
We have all kinds of global warming scam articles right before the UN summit. More money, more money.
Actually Cabon dioxide represents a little over 3% of the total
atmosphere and methane is much less than that. Of that 3% mankind
contributes about 3%. 95% of the carbon dioxide that enters the
atmosphere every year is due to natural sources not mankind.
Temperatures have gone up and down since the industrial revolution about
150 years ago. In fact It was hotter in the 1930s than it is now.
Mankind did not contribute significant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere
until after WWII. Immediately after WWII there was a cooling period
through the early '70s, Scientists thought an ice age may have been
beginning. Then temperatures rose from the late 70s to the late 90s.
Scientists and politicians then thought this must me global warming.
Finally there has been a plateau in temperatures of the last 19 years.
If there is no correlation between temperatures and increasing CO2, this
is evidence that there is no correlation. It is known that there is
correlation between sun cycles and temperatures for thousands, if not
millions of years, however IPCC scientists do not understand why this
is, so they ignore it. I think if there is a correlation for millennia
with sun cycle and there is no correlation with increased CO2. These
"scientists" should maybe try to figure out why. It is clear Carbon
dioxide is not a problem and will be beneficial because increased plant
growth will be essential to feed a growing population.
There seem to be many people who believe that a terrible thing is
happening which is an existential threat to the existence of earth.
The earth's climate is changing.... And they intend to stop it.
But first, they have to figure out how to silence non-believing heretics. I mean it is awfully difficult to save the world if there are people running around who use mere facts and science to refute your belief.
If they did that — if they rebut the belief that the true believers know how to stop the climate from changing — then that would mean that the climate change believers are "the crazy ones.
At least one thing is all agreed upon: the climate changes. Even the president has acknowledged "the debate is settled, climate change is a fact." Unfortunately, he thinks that climate change can be stopped by using new sources of energy.
AlGore says that denying global warming would carry repercussions. To AlGore, Global Warming is accepted science and officials who deny it should pay a price. In the meantime, AlGore makes millions of dollars in a plethora of businesses as a global warming climate change huckster.
But what do we know are actual facts involving the climate, weather and related aspects of Mother Nature?
The climate is always changing.
Global warming believers became stymied because the Earth is not warming but cooling.
Hence, the shift to arguing the ambiguous term climate change as the code word replacing global warming.
The earth's climate is changing.... And they intend to stop it.
But first, they have to figure out how to silence non-believing heretics. I mean it is awfully difficult to save the world if there are people running around who use mere facts and science to refute your belief.
If they did that — if they rebut the belief that the true believers know how to stop the climate from changing — then that would mean that the climate change believers are "the crazy ones.
At least one thing is all agreed upon: the climate changes. Even the president has acknowledged "the debate is settled, climate change is a fact." Unfortunately, he thinks that climate change can be stopped by using new sources of energy.
AlGore says that denying global warming would carry repercussions. To AlGore, Global Warming is accepted science and officials who deny it should pay a price. In the meantime, AlGore makes millions of dollars in a plethora of businesses as a global warming climate change huckster.
But what do we know are actual facts involving the climate, weather and related aspects of Mother Nature?
The climate is always changing.
Global warming believers became stymied because the Earth is not warming but cooling.
Hence, the shift to arguing the ambiguous term climate change as the code word replacing global warming.
Hitler used Darwins theory to justify his Aryan race and extermination of lower races.
IF you believe in "Man made climate change" then the solution is obvious. Reduce human population. Taxing carbon will just fund corrupt governments. History is full of genocide, erasing 500 million carbon footprints should save the Earth. Run the models. Man made climate change is a perfect excuse to cleanse the planet. We need a virus! Remember to vote for the National Socialist Workers Party!
IF you believe in "Man made climate change" then the solution is obvious. Reduce human population. Taxing carbon will just fund corrupt governments. History is full of genocide, erasing 500 million carbon footprints should save the Earth. Run the models. Man made climate change is a perfect excuse to cleanse the planet. We need a virus! Remember to vote for the National Socialist Workers Party!
I will go with the scientists who’s conclusions are based on independent
research based on what is evident. Why would any person capable of
independent thought support that small group of scientists who are paid
shills for the corporate establishment?
More and more BS; only some scientists (largely those funded by
governments make the claim that fossil fuel combustion is causing global
warming). Land based gauges are not equally distributed, have a
precision of no more than +/- 0.5 deg C, don't cover the oceans.
Satellite data (UAH and RSS sets) shows no temp change in 18 years 9
months. And...the arctic ice level has just hit an 11 year high in
spite of the pronouncement by Al Gore that the arctic ice would have
disappeared in 2013.
The UK's Met Office is full of kr@p. Pre-industrial era mercury
thermometers could not achieve an accuracy of +/- 1.0 degrees C. Right
now, the most commonly utilized cost effectively accurate temperature
sensors, the platinum resistance temperature device (P RTD) can only get
a precision of +/-0.60 degrees Celsius. There are temp sensors that can
achieve much higher accuracies, but are not cost effective to use on a
mass scale where statistically sampled models are required.
Why they don't show the statistics for the 100 years of the 19th
century. The article infers that temperatures for the 100 years are
virtually constant . Perhaps the 95 percentile average for a given year
of the 19th century may be much higher higher than the 1 degree C . . .
and probably was. Besides, read about he history of thermometer
technology, and you will learn there may have been many highly
inaccurate thermometers in use back then.
READER'S NOTE: This story is part of a series focusing on the false
science, imagined problems, politically-oppressive pseudo-solutions,
exhorbitant unnecessary costs and daily reality purging of intelligent
approaches to natural cycles of climate change around the world ahead of
the spurious and misguided climate negotiations in Paris
Consider the billions of dollars, the amount of debate, the hysteria of
the left and the influence on who leads our country BECAUSE our temps
have risen 1.8 degrees in 150 years, maybe.
So, the gov't can't balance its' budget, pay off its' more than $19
trillion in debt, and 1/3 of the US population isn't working, but Obama
believes that we can control the climate 100 years from now? And we're
the "idiots"?
The UN are a gang of criminals. Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and America 2050
are all United Nations plans to circumvent the US government and
Constitution to create a global oligarchy ruling a world population of
serfs.
US CAN CUT CARBON TO ZERO TODAY, It will NOT CHANGE CLIMATE.
We can give the UN TRILLIONS A YEAR, IT WON'T CHANGE CLIMATE
We can give the UN TRILLIONS A YEAR, IT WON'T CHANGE CLIMATE
I was watching a PBS show about Mars. They believe the water there
dried up because of the CLIMATE on MARS changing. Now there is an
interesting concept: Climate change with zero input from man.
EVERY argument provided by warmists is a "could," "might be," "possibly"
or some other non-deterministic modifier based on FAILED models.
In 1st, global temps average could be 1 degree C higher........It also could not.
Start by exterminating all liberals.. that should ease the CO2 output
considerably along with the hot air coming out of their pie holes.
If we have had 5 ice ages and they found seeds and grasses under the ice
at the pole doesn't that mean the earth has heated and cooled in cycles
over the millennia ? We have only accurate records for just over 100
years , at that time every house factory train burned coal , government
scaremongering , too many people including governments and scientists
are making too much money out of it .Its a CON. Overpaid government financed scaremongers so governments can screw us
for more tax to pay for the incompetence and wages of politicians
IPCC Director: How is it going Jerry?
IPCC Scientist: Not well Howard. The satellite data isn't showing what we want it to. I tried Mike's nature trick of adding the real temperatures back in to hide the decline. You know I was trained as an economist. I am having to learn this stuff as I go.
IPCC Director: That's not good news. You're a smart guy and you understand the politics, that is why I hand picked you for this project. Can't you have them adjust the raw data like we did with the NOAA and NASA datasets and then lose the original data?
IPCC Scientist: Not now that they are wise to that. The deniers are archiving the raw data now. We have to be subtle. We don't want another hockey stick fiasco.
IPCC Director: How's your daughter doing Jerry? You know it would be tough to pay for the kind of health insurance you need for her condition if you are unemployed.
IPCC Scientist: Is that a threat?
IPCC Director: It's no threat Jerry, it is reality. We will all be unemployed if we don't get our funding. We have to give them a sense of urgency. What if we say the models were slightly off because the oceans absorbed some of the CO2?
IPCC Scientist: That's not bad. We could say the oceans are near capacity now and the world will still end, just 20 years later than we were predicting before.
IPCC Scientist: Not well Howard. The satellite data isn't showing what we want it to. I tried Mike's nature trick of adding the real temperatures back in to hide the decline. You know I was trained as an economist. I am having to learn this stuff as I go.
IPCC Director: That's not good news. You're a smart guy and you understand the politics, that is why I hand picked you for this project. Can't you have them adjust the raw data like we did with the NOAA and NASA datasets and then lose the original data?
IPCC Scientist: Not now that they are wise to that. The deniers are archiving the raw data now. We have to be subtle. We don't want another hockey stick fiasco.
IPCC Director: How's your daughter doing Jerry? You know it would be tough to pay for the kind of health insurance you need for her condition if you are unemployed.
IPCC Scientist: Is that a threat?
IPCC Director: It's no threat Jerry, it is reality. We will all be unemployed if we don't get our funding. We have to give them a sense of urgency. What if we say the models were slightly off because the oceans absorbed some of the CO2?
IPCC Scientist: That's not bad. We could say the oceans are near capacity now and the world will still end, just 20 years later than we were predicting before.
No comments:
Post a Comment