Global Warming is Science Fiction, and Future Climate Billionaire and Investor in the Chicago Climate Exchange, Al Gore, is Full of Carbon Gas
Research grants are given to researchers who manipulate the evidence to meet the granters wishes.. or else the money dries up. Sierra Club president Aaron Mair says the "science is settled" because federally-funded scientists, the infamous "97% of scientists," claim that human activity is the primary cause of global warming (by the way, it is 97% of "climate scientists," not 97% of the world's scientists). NASA is constantly altering its historical data to create the appearance of a non-existent warming trend. The NASA graphs are useful for politicians who want to raise taxes and for "private investors" like Gates, Zuckerberg, etc. to receive those taxes in the form of tax-free federal grants for "clean energy technology research," but are worse than useless for scientists who actually want to understand the climate. They show the exact opposite of what is happening to the climate. Search "97% Of Climate Scientists Base Their Research on Fraudulent Data from NASA and NOAA."
Obama has called climate change a great threat to future generations. At a news conference on December 2, 2015, before leaving the U.N. climate summit in Paris, he likened global warming to the threat posed by terrorism and Islamic State and said both problems can be addressed by applying steady pressure and new ideas. He continued with his fear mongering and lying, saying: "Here's what we know: 99.5 percent of scientists in the world say this is a really urgent problem. Political parties around the world. The only people who are still disputing it are either some Republicans in Congress or — folks on the campaign trail." What!? So now we are to believe that 99.5% of all the scientists throughout the entire world believe global warming is a "really urgent problem."
Don't Fear Global Warming, It Won't Be Here For A While, If At All
December 3, 2015Investor's Business Daily - Anyone who is interested in which major cities will be uninhabitable by 2100 due to global warming can go to this link. Those interested in something less apocalyptic can go here.
Readers can decide for themselves, but we prefer the latter link, where a Scientific American article tells us, "Climate change will not be dangerous for a long time." It's the "lukewarm" position between two views:
1) man's carbon dioxide emissions are going to kill us, and
2) the entire global warming scare is a fraud or hoax.
But in a sense, both articles are saying the same thing. In Scientific American, author Matt Ridley writes, "Dangerous warming ... is about a century away," while the Yahoo article names some cities that the author believes will be uninhabitable because they will be too hot or under water in 2100 — about a century from now.
The difference, though, is the Yahoo article, brimming with alarm and an intent to frighten, insists that radical steps must be taken right away. The author wants to the see the current United Nations climate talks in Paris produce "a universal, legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the globe in the hope of keeping average temperature increases below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit before 2100."
The Scientific American article is more measured — more rational. Ridley suggests,
"We should spend the coming decades" before the warming arrives "stepping up research and development of new energy technologies."There simply is no reason, Ridley says, "to rush into subsidizing inefficient and land-hungry technologies, such as wind and solar, or risk depriving poor people access to the beneficial effects of cheap electricity via fossil fuels."
"Many people," he said, "may reply that we don't have time to wait for that to bear fruit, but given the latest lukewarm science of climate change, I think we probably do."
Ridley's article differs from the Yahoo article in another way as well. It acknowledges that the models used to predict global warming have been wrong and says that the most recent U.N. climate report "included a table debunking many worries about 'tipping points' to abrupt climate change." The Yahoo article doesn't yield a micrometer from its contention that human activity is dangerously warming the planet.
Of course there is also a third possibility — nothing happens, there is no man-made global warming whatsoever, not now nor a century from now. There's just too much that's still unknown about the climate to guess how things will be in 85 to 100 years. But that's not an interesting story. People would rather read about the science fiction of roasting and flooded cities.
Humanity must change to avert climate disaster: Al Gore
December 3, 2015AFP - Al Gore said at the Paris climate summit on Thursday that humanity must change how it lives, travels and grows food in order to avert global warming catastrophe.
"Do we really have to change the energy and transportation and agriculture and forestry systems in the world and shift to a low-carbon pattern?" the former US vice president asked in a speech.
"The answer is 'Yes'... because now the answer is coming from nature itself," he said.
Gore pointed to a string of extreme droughts, record-breaking downpours and high tides, along with melting Arctic ice as evidence of climate change.
"The television news every evening is like a nature hike through the Book of Revelations," said Gore, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on climate change.He added that the scientific community is "virtually unanimous" on the existence of man-made climate change and the evidence is "just as clear as it is for the existence of gravity."
Gore is in the French capital for the global climate conference, which kicked off Monday with 150 world leaders in attendance and aims to craft a world agreement to cut emissions in order to curb global warming.
"Hopefully there will be no doubt that we are going to solve the climate crisis," Gore said during a separate press appearance on Thursday.
"One hundred and fifty heads of state, the largest number ever gathered in history, are in the same place on the same day, and not a single word of climate denial."
Gore also
sounded a hopeful note about humanity's ability to end its reliance on
fossil fuels and shift to green energy sources. He said the amount of
electricity provided by wind has grown exponentially and the cost of
solar power has plummeted.
"Business community, investors... and others have brought the technologies of solar photovoltaics, wind power and efficiency... to the point where these new approaches are extremely competitive," he said.
A
slideshow put together by Gore about the dangers of climate change was
the basis of the popular 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," which
won two Academy Awards.
Negotiators in Paris will aim to strike a bargain that limits global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times by limiting greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.
The UN / globalists have eyed a CO2 tax for years to provide the means of funding and global control.
ReplyDeleteWhen 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 government.
They conveniently chose 1850-1900, why? This SCAM continues with them regurgitating the same sky is falling rhetoric they were using in 1970.
ReplyDeleteBehold 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
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.
ReplyDeleteThere 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.
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!
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.
ReplyDeleteClimate 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. 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.
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).
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
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. Global temps average could be 1 degree C higher........It also could not.
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
This is all about giving more money from the people to the government (the banking cabal).
The World Bankers are more interested in how much money their scare tactics on climate change will add to their private bank accounts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteClimate 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.
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.
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.
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 taxes which go directly to the ruling elite.
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.
Computer game forecasts are not science -- they are inaccurate climate astrology. The false predictions of a coming climate catastrophe are not science -- they are a political tool used to scare people into giving their government a lot more power. 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 measurable. 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.
ReplyDeletehttp://magiclougie.blogspot.com/2015/11/pentagon-world-bank-world.html
Just last week a German scientist, not a hack politician like the UN wack jobs, documented that temperature data had been altered since 2010 to create the illusion of warming temps. GW is a religion, not science. It is designed to steal more money from the working world to feed more failed Liberal spending schemes and to transfer wealth from the developed world to the thugs, despots and dictators who sit in the UN and rape their countries for their own personal gain. That is why the UN is so enthusiastic about altering data and telling lies; because they benefit directly. Fllow the money and do not believe anything the crooks in the UN say and any of their cronies.
ReplyDeleteThe “97% of scientists” claim has been refuted time and time again, yet Obama and the global socialists keep dragging it out as if it was Gospel over and over again. It doesn’t float well in this country because the media is not 100% run by the government (yet) like it is in other countries around the world. Eventually, all will know of the effort to grab all of the world’s wealth so that the elite can govern where it goes and to whom. When it all boils down to it, it will never be redistributed to the poor, it will however destroy the middle class and leave only the ultra-rich and the rest of us.
You know, it was in the 60's when we had a pollution problem (and I guess we still do) and scientists & activists then were calling for immediate actions. That made sense, but I'll be damned if I understand "global warming". Way back in B.C. years, we had an Ice Age that then turned into the Meltdown. Now can someone tell me how that was human fault? Sounds like Mother Nature to me. Mother Nature has changed the shape of this world time and time again and there isn't a damn thing Obama can do to change what has and will happen by her. Don't get me wrong, I believe in being conservative, not polluting and doing anything we can to make life more coexist-able between us and the planet, but only when common sense says so
Shouldn't we have a nationally televised series of debates among really real scientists, not the bow tied Science Guy vs a congresswoman? Let's get solar physicists, space physicists, atmospheric physicists... together with their counterpart chemists... thermodynamacists, mathematicians, computer modelers and Al Gore, all in the same room and let it fly. Aren't we sick of the lack of integrity yet?
In the '70s, it was global cooling that was going to end the world. That didn't happen, so then they started saying that global warming was going to end the world. That didn't happen either, so now they've changed it to climate change, and they want to tax you for it. All global warming / climate change is, is simply a religion that tries to make you feel good about paying a carbon tax in the guise of saving the environment.
The ones who will receive money from climate change. The Rothschild, Rockefeller, Al Gore, Clintons. These are the people who will control the future. The gullible will allow the government to take ALL of our money and give it to the rich, liberal, connected, elitists. These Godless, evil, criminal, liberal, socialist, government and media, and people of their ilk, are the greatest threat to the world.
The proponents of climate change - Gore, Obama, Soros, et. al., are the biggest con men in history. At what point does this fraud finally get called out for what it is?
The problem with Obama is that he lies about everything. So, it's impossible to believe anything he says. He lost his credibility long ago. Climate change is still a mixed bag in the scientific community. Evidence of global warming is weak at best...and there is still disagreement as to whether the warming, if any, is man made or a normal process of nature that occurs every several thousand years or so.
99.5%!?! Does Obama actually believe the American people are stupid enough and gullible enough to believe such a lie - simply because he says it?! To state that 95% of scientists in the world believe climate change is a very urgent problem - is a total fabrication! NOAA, NASA and even the IPCC don't even state that climate change is an urgent problem. Nobody disputes that climate change exists. The primary objection is that climate change has been occurring since the beginning of time. 95% of carbon emissions occur in the world naturally - meaning we can't make a noticeable impact on climate by carbon emissions - even if we tried. Obama doesn't care about climate change. He is simply using that as an excuse to hurt America. Obama is a terrorist and unfortunately - has been the most effective terrorist that America has ever faced.
ReplyDeleteCan we tax our way to a better planet? This is all about CONTROL! The government will control all life on the planet using falsified science data and ignorant hearts and minds ready to give up freedom and prosperity for a government controlled 'environment'. because LIFE is the evil on the planet...it must be regulated!
Having just returned from Paris I can state the general sentiment of most Parisians and Europeans is best summed up in the following...
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” - Vaclav Klaus (former Premier of the Czech Republic)
And now a multitude of fools will get Hillary elected. You can find those fools on stage at the Republican debates. How do you think Obama won? Because he's a political genius? No--it's because we saw what happened when the even bigger fools were in office. And no, we can't vote in someone who isn't a fool. Anyone in politics who is smart - well, they just don't share our party's hardline stand on [insert topic here] so they are weak. After all, how could anyone possibly vote for someone who wants to outlaw some pretty ordinary guns, or ordinary ammo for these guns? And how could anyone possibly vote for anyone who says "enforce the laws and keep the mentally ill from getting guns" and follows up with the practical equivalent of "and we will never allow the government any possible way at all to accomplish that goal." But if you aren't willing to take one of those positions, and similar positions on other topics that are even further from the middle, then you are far too non-foolish to win an election.
Uh, Obama's still the dumb one. He sounds like a third grader with his "99.5 percent" of all scientists agree statement. He should be doing a Dentyne commercial. Fact is, 99.5 percent of all scientists don't agree that man-made global warming is a reality, but it is true that 99.5 percent of liberals don't even want an honest debate on the topic.
The biggest climate myth ever is the absurd notion that it will ever be stable. It never has been stable. It will never be stable. This is just another money grab by Goldman Sachs who stand to make hundreds of billions on these ridiculous carbon trading schemes.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the scientists that the politicians keep reciting are nearly all employed by government agencies. It is undoubtedly in their own self interest to endorse global warming orthodoxy. Whether they are true believers, cynical opportunist or closet doubters, none are going to cross the highly politicized governmental appointees that sign their paychecks...not with Barack Obama in office.
No, 99.5% of POLITICALLY PAID scientists say climate change is a huge problem... including a large number who don't even know a damned thing about climatology.
The earth warmed substantially after the ice age Agree? And what was that global warming caused by? There was no mass humanity. No cars, no coal burning plants, no oil drilling. Heck, there weren't even any blow hard politicians spewing hot air. Obama should butt out of science and do his job as commander-in-chief.
99.5 percent of scientists (paid by the government to study climate change) agree it's a problem. Now where's their next grant?
99.5% ot the world scientists DO NOT support the global warming theory. If they did, there wouldn't be so much opposition to these computer models they rely upon. There is no real science there, just computer predictions.
Professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University noted that 32,000 American scientists have signed a statement that there’s no correlation between climate change and carbon dioxide levels. “I am absolutely dumbfounded by the totally absurd and stupid things said every day by people who are purportedly scientists that make absolutely no sense whatsoever…. These people are simply ignoring real-time data that has been substantiated and can be replicated and are simply making up stuff.” Driven by a quest for money and power, “what they’re doing in the U.S. is using CO2 to impose all kinds of restrictions to push a socialist government.
Top Scientist Resigns from Post, Admits Global Warming is a Scam
ReplyDeleteICECAP.us - The following letter to the American Physical Society was released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence - it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an American Physical Society Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.
http://magiclougie.blogspot.com/2015/11/large-global-enterprises-and.html
Dec 01, 2015
ReplyDeleteThe fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
By Christopher Booker
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records - on which the entire panic ultimately rested - were systematically ‘adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world - one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
[...]
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
More at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Paris Climate Talks Are Doomed Because China Knows ‘Climate Change’ Is A Hoax
ReplyDeleteby James Delingpole
2 Dec 2015
“The fact of the matter is that there’s a reason why you have the largest gathering of world leaders probably in world history here in Paris. Everyone else is taking climate change seriously.” Barack Obama.
Like a lot of the president’s statements on climate change this isn’t actually true. In fact there are lots and lots of people in the world who know it’s a hoax. And among them, unfortunately, happen to be the ruling elite of the most significant carbon emitting nation of them all: China.
We know this because of a devastating report, released today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by one of the West’s leading experts on the Chinese environmental economy, Patricia Adams.
Adams, an economist, executive director of Toronto-based Probe International, who has been working with the Chinese environmental movement since the mid-Eighties, is under absolutely no illusions about China’s real position on “climate change.”
China sees it as a brilliant opportunity to fleece the gullible gwailo for as much money as it can, to burnish its international image by making all the right green noises, and to blackmail the West into providing it with free technology.
But it has no intention whatsoever of sacrificing economic growth by reducing its carbon dioxide emissions.
China knows this. The West either knows this or strongly suspects this. So any agreement reached next week which pretends otherwise will either be a fudge, a lie, or an outright capitulation by Western negotiators – because China knows what it wants and it isn’t budging, no sirree.
Here’s how Adams puts it:
China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, is under intense international pressure to reduce its use of fossil fuels. Although China’s leaders aim to reduce the country’s fossil-fuel consumption to 80% of its energy mix by 2030, they will not forsake national economic growth for the supposed global good. This is because China’s Communist Party knows that to stay in power – its highest priority – it must maintain the economic growth rates that have raised the incomes of much of its population and kept opposition at bay. China’s leaders know that GDP growth is tied to fossil- fuel use.
So far so disastrous for the COP21 negotiations. But worse is to come, far worse.
Obama and other Western leaders like to pretend that China’s appalling air pollution – the “airpocalypse” afflicting major cities which kills at least half a million a year – gives it a strong incentive to reduce its CO2 levels. But in fact the opposite is true.
That’s because China understands – as the West pretends not to – that CO2 and “pollution” are very different things.
Not only do the goals of reducing carbon emissions and air pollution not reinforce each other, they conflict. Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas that does not harm health. Efforts to reduce it rely on un-proven abatement technologies, and are prohibitively expensive. In contrast, abating air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide rely on proven technologies and are relatively inexpensive.
In fact many greenies in the West secretly welcome China’s pollution because it makes the Chinese population more restive and environmentally conscious. But this is a delusion: even ordinary Chinese know that CO2 is not pollution.
The West’s climate change establishment is worried that if Beijing focuses ‘narrowly’ on eliminating the air pollutants that worry the general population, China will entrench cleaner-burning fossil fuels in its economy, costing the West its leverage over China’s energy policies. Yet the Chinese public is unlikely to tolerate a ‘carbon- first’ abatement strategy while it continues to breathe noxious air.
More at: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/02/paris-climate-talks-doomed-china-knows-climate-change-hoax/