The Government is Hiding the Fact That There Has Been No Global Warming for 58 Years

No Global Warming For 58 Years: What The Government Is Hiding

Investor's Business Daily
March 8, 2016

Junk Science: NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seemed eager in January to declare that 2015 was the hottest year on record. But they left out data that tell a somewhat different story.

When comparing temperatures, it would seem instructive to include a lengthy timeline. That’s not what happened, though, when NASA and NOAA came together to scare the public with their announcement, according to a skeptical website.

“In their ‘hottest year ever’ press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58-year-long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph,” says Real Science.

Why would NOAA do such a thing? Because the fuller story contradicts the man-made global warming narrative. The government was “hiding the rest of the data,” says Real Science, which “showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.”

Indeed, when temperature data going back to 1957 are attached to the front of the 1979-2015 trend line, a different story materializes. Temperatures fall from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, then rise and fall throughout the next half century.

So, what does all this indicate?

One, federal agencies have a strong interest in keeping the climate change scare alive. It means more budget and research dollars for them, and it also increases Washington’s power, as the solutions offered to stop global warming are always based on handing more authority to government.

Two, it’s really impossible to say what the real global temperature is year to year, given the many different ways to measure it, the problems created by heat islands and the poor placements of weather stations. And there is also the data tampering by government functionaries and academics who are obsessed with proving something that can never be proved.

NOAA is not the only government outfit that appears to be trying to conceal the larger truth. It was researchers at Britain’s Climate Research Unit who wanted to “hide the decline” in temperature data, and NASA has been involved, as well, in making “adjustments” to the raw data which might, or might not be, trustworthy. Best to bet on the latter.

“This pattern of NASA making the past cooler and the present warmer has occurred repeatedly since NASA became chartered with proving global warming. The past keeps getting colder,” says Real Science.

Meanwhile, no one knows what the future will bring, especially those who have tried to alter or cover up the past.

Obama's "Clean Power Plan" is Closing Down Coal-fired Power Plants, Which Will Cause Electricity Rates to "Necessarily Skyrocket"

On the Clean Power Plan, former Obama Administration Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell said at best it will reduce global temperature by only one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.

From a review recently completed by the CO2 Coalition (CO2Coalition.org), a new independent, nonpartisan scientific-educational group... (nonpartisans means no one involved has or shows an agenda):

"Carbon dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions."

"We support the cost-effective control of real pollutants associated with the use of fossil fuels — for example, fly ash, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur or smog-forming volatile hydrocarbons. But CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and there’s no reason to control it."

"Warming” from CO2 has been much less than predicted by the climate models the Administration bases his policies on. For 20 years, the temperature has been virtually unchanged, in stark contrast to model predictions."

City officials working to keep DTE Energy Trenton Channel Power Plant open

February 24, 2016

The News-Herald - Despite DTE Energy’s announcement in September of plans to close 25 power plants in Michigan by 2020, Trenton officials remain hopeful the Trenton Channel Power Plant will remain open if it is selected for conversion from coal fueled to natural gas.

Under the administration of President Barack Obama, the Clean Power Plan -- a policy aimed at combating pollutants causing climate change -- was proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in June 2014.

Under terms of the plan, Michigan must reduce its carbon emission rate by 39 percent by 2030. With the expected plant closures, Michigan would be at a 17 percent reduction by 2020.

The transition to natural gas plants is expected to cut carbon dioxide in the air by 50 percent to 60 percent over using coal, according to the plan.

Dating to 2014, the announcement of two of three units slated to close at the Trenton facility left residents wondering about the plant’s future.

At the time, DTE Energy spokeswoman Randi Berris said Unit 9, the largest generating unit at the Trenton Channel, was expected to be the only section open. She said it would continue to provide “reliable, affordable” power for DTE Energy customers.

Despite the Trenton Channel being on the list of plants expected to close between 2020 and 2022, City Administrator Jim Wagner said he is “optimistic that something will be done and DTE Energy’s Trenton Channel Plant will be saved.”

Wagner, council members and other city staff plan to meet with DTE Energy representatives to seek options to keep the facility open.

Closing the plant would impact city services by about 25 percent as it is the municipality’s largest current taxpayer, Wagner said.

Not only would plant workers lose their jobs, but a reduction in firefighters, police officers and sanitary engineers also would have to be made, he said.

“If the Trenton Channel Plant closes, it will leave a much greater impact farther than the city of Trenton,” Wagner said. “… Coal producers will see layoffs in their business from the production standpoint. Rail company profits will reduce because there will be less coal being transported.

“There are many ramifications from closing the plants. … We can only assume that with the reduction of these DTE Energy plants, electricity rates will also go up.”

The Judicial Branch Struck Back Against Obama's Overreach, But Because Justice Scalia's Death Invalidates His Opinions in Pending Cases, Everything is Now Tipped in Obama's Favor

Justice Scalia heard and potentially already cast votes in several high-profile cases. Scalia’s votes in those cases will be invalidated, sending the justices back to the drawing board to renegotiate those decisions. His death will likely also lead to 4-4 splits on some key issues, with the remaining four liberals and four conservatives facing off against each other. When the court splits down the middle on a case, it does not create a binding legal precedent for the country. Whatever the lower court decided is affirmed, and that ruling only applies to their circuit — leaving legal conflicts among circuits unresolved. Or the court can put the case over for re-argument, essentially telling both parties to try again when the court is back to a full bench.


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia poses with his family in his chambers before court ceremonies on Sept. 26, 1986, in Washington. Pictured are, front row, from left: Margaret Jane; Justice Scalia, Christopher and Mary. In the back are, from left: Maureen Scalia, Ann Forrest, Catherine, Matthew, Eugene, John and Paul. (Bob Daugherty/Associated Press)

Justice Antonin Scalia’s son spoke of his father's influence on his family at his funeral Feb. 20. Rev. Paul Scalia said "God blessed dad with a love for his family." Click here for video. 

The legislative and judicial branches strike back against Obama’s overreach

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” - Newton’s Third Law of Motion 

By George F. Will, Opinion Writer at The Washington Post

February 19, 2016

  

Notice the Newtonian physics of America’s Madisonian system. Barack Obama’s Wilsonian hostility to the separation of powers, expressed in his executive authoritarianism, is provoking equal and opposite reactions from the judicial and legislative branches.

The Supreme Court has inflicted on Obama a defeat accurately described as the court’s most severe rebuke of a president since it rejected Harry Truman’s claim that inherent presidential powers legitimated his seizure of the steel industry during the Korean War. The court has blocked Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which rests on the rickety premise that the Clean Air Act somehow, in a way unsuspected for four decades, empowers the Environmental Protection Agency to annihilate the right of states to regulate power generation.

It is unprecedented for the Supreme Court to stop a regulatory regime before a lower court has ruled on its merits. This is condign punishment for the EPA’s arrogance last year after the court held that it had no authority for a rule regulating fossil fuel-fired power plants in Michigan. The EPA snidely responded with a gloating statement that the court’s decision came too late to prevent it from imposing almost $10 billion in costs under the illegal rule.

The legislative branch, too, is retaliating against executive overreach. Consider the lethal letter Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) sent to the Education Department concerning its Office for Civil Rights.

Obama Vetoes Two Measures That Would Have Stopped His Plans to Implement Carbon Policies

Notice that the establishment media is now calling CO2 "carbon pollution." 

CO2 is Carbon Dioxide: A heavy odorless colorless gas formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances; absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis.

CO is Carbon Monoxide: An odorless very poisonous gas that is a product of incomplete combustion of carbon (the burning of Gasoline, Kerosene, Propane, Fuel Oil for Trucks and also home heating, and wood burning).

It is CO emissions which need to be reduced and eventually eliminated to the lowest limits possible, not CO2 which is what all animals exhale and all plants, flowers and trees absorb and convert to Oxygen. 

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)!!! [Source]

Once everyone thinks of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, the fight is over. Republicans should just roll over and let the Democrats destroy the country. 

Obama vetoes anti-climate change measures passed by Congress

December 19, 2015

AP - President Barack Obama has vetoed two measures that would have blocked steps that his administration is taking to address climate change.

One would have nullified carbon pollution standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The second would have voided a set of national standards designed to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas pollution from existing power plants.

In a letter notifying Congress of his decision, Obama says climate change is a "profound threat" that must be addressed.

Some Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates scoff at the climate science [man is not the cause of climate change].

Obama has made addressing climate change a priority. He recently praised a new international climate agreement reached at a Paris conference and credited his administration as being a driving force behind the deal.

He rejected the measures through a rare "pocket veto," intended to be used when Congress has adjourned, as it did Friday for the year. A pocket vote essentially takes effect when the president fails to sign a bill within 10 days.

Nearly 200 Nations Adopt Climate Agreement at COP21 Talks in Paris; UN Deal Requires $16.5 Trillion in Spending on Renewable Energy Through 2030; Carbon Policies Through "Markets or Taxes" Will Be Needed, Says Chief Economist

In what supporters are calling a historic achievement, 196 nations attending the COP21 climate meetings outside Paris voted to adopt an agreement Saturday that covers both developed and developing countries. Their respective governments will now need to adopt the deal. The agreement sets the goal of limiting the world's rise in average temperature to "well below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius." Reporting on details of the deal, NPR's Christopher Joyce says, "To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year."
He adds that the 1.5-degree cap was sought by island nations. Under the agreement, the Obama administration says that for the first time, all countries will be required to report on "national inventories of emissions by source" and also to report on their mitigation efforts. President Obama spoke on the agreement late Saturday afternoon, saying the agreement was a strong one, showing what is possible when the world stands as one. [Source, December 12, 2015]

Climate Deal Requires $16.5 Trillion Investment to Cut Pollution

December 13, 2015

Bloomberg - The deal struck at United Nations climate talks requires an overhaul of historic proportions for energy policies worldwide and a huge investment in cleaning up the pollution now damaging the Earth’s atmosphere.

Targets outlined in the agreement on Saturday, involving 195 countries, will require $16.5 trillion of spending on renewables and efficiency through 2030, according to the International Energy Agency.

To accomplish that, governments will have to offer incentives for clean energy production, scale back support for fossil fuels like oil, make emissions more costly, and reduce deforestation. The changes will touch industries from transport to construction, and encourage people to change their behavior.

“The strength of the agreement is that it allows a thousand policy flowers to bloom,” Paul Bledsoe, a climate aide during U.S. President Bill Clinton’s administration, said in an interview in Paris, where the deal was sealed. “This sends a powerful economic signal that fossil fuels will be saddled with financial and legal premiums to remain part of the energy mix, and clean energy will enjoy subsidies.”

The deal aims to limit the global temperature increase since the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), while calling on nations to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees.” That more ambitious goal implies vast cuts to emissions from burning fossil fuels.

“Politically as well as technologically, this is no walk in the park,” said Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Institute near Berlin, and a lead author of the UN’s most rigorous assessment of climate economics. The target may trigger “a fundamental shift of investments towards renewables, energy efficiency, and carbon capture and storage,” he said.

Tree Planting

Policies such as carbon pricing through markets or taxes, and planting trees while burning biomass rather than fossil fuels, will also be needed, and in a 1.5-degree scenario, they’ll need to be stepped up, Edenhofer said.

Rockefeller-owned ExxonMobil Predicts Global Warming Catastrophe

We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.

Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.

The Rockefeller family built Standard Oil of New York, which later became Mobil, a predecessor to Exxon/Mobil. On December 6, 2015, the Zionist-controlled Washington Post reported on Exxon's position on the man-made global warming scam:

"During a visit to The Post last week, Exxon experts told us that with no government action, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible."

The Rockefeller family has held a very special interest in environmental matters for decades. Population control and reduction is a central directive of many Rockefeller initiatives. The recent focus on global warming scam is no different. Steven Rockefeller's Earth Charter is an example.

The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians, and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else.

There are countless real environmental issues, such as genetically-engineered organisms being released into the environment causing unknown mutations, consuming potentially dangerous cloned-animal products, mass honey-bee die offs, etc. However, global warming was identified by the Club of Rome in their 1991 report, The First Global Revolution, as a unifier to funnel the energy of citizens and businesses alike into supporting globalist initiatives. The report states:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."