Tags Posts tagged with "Climate Change"

Climate Change

0 26
Climate Apocalypse
Nuclear power is a promising source of clean energy - which is why you won't hear a word of support for it from the Climate Fanatics...

We’ve been hearing the dire warnings for decades now, scientists and politicians issuing calls to action for us to fight the imminent threat that is Global Warming. Even just a couple of days ago, you had respected scholar Stephen Hawking saying,

“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible…”

Or how about 10 years ago, when blockbuster documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” tells us,

“Today, we are hearing and seeing dire warnings of the worst potential catastrophe in the history of human civilization: a global climate crisis that is deepening and rapidly becoming more dangerous than anything we have ever faced.”

Let’s go even further back to 2001, when the IPCC released this sobering statement,

“Projected climate changes during the 21st century have the potential to lead to future large-scale and possibly irreversible changes in Earth systems resulting in impacts at continental and global scales.”

Yet here we are in 2017, still waiting for the crisis to hit. So is it any wonder that Americans are having a hard time buying the facts and figures being peddled by these so-called experts?

In fact, a recent Yale Study concluded that only 40% of Americans believe that climate change could affect them personally.

It’s difficult to deny that its getting hotter isn’t it? Those of you living in Arizona or parts of California can attest to the scorching conditions, temperatures hit 125 F in Death Valley and 121 F in Palm Springs last summer. Record breaking heat caused grounded airplanes in Phoenix and had burn centers warning us against enclosed spaces, we definitely know something’s going on right?

Maybe not, according to the latest research conducted by the NOAA, NASA, and EPA’s record keeping on climate trends. Three well respected institutions have concluded that adjustments being made to figures on global warming are, “Totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

How are they getting this data you might ask? Well there seems to be some creative accounting going on with the recorded temperatures they’re publishing. The shocking report states that the findings we’re given are, “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

With the kind of shaky methodology being used by these supposedly impartial government bodies our report ends by saying, it is impossible to conclude from the three published Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.”

In fact, this report is just the latest in a line of research promoting a healthy sense of skepticism regarding climate change.

Where do we go for real news in times like this? What do you do when it’s proving impossible to reach across the aisle and have a rational discussion with your attempts met by warnings about an impending apocalypse?

New head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, seems to have an idea that will take on all viewpoints, announcing a “red team – blue team” exercise to put the theory of climate change caused by humans to a real test. Pruitt made the announcement saying, “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.”

The discussion in question will involve a red team of scientists skeptical of climate change examining major climate reports providing necessary criticism. These reports then be defended by a blue team of scientists in favor of the climate change theory.

Former undersecretary for Energy under the Obama Administration, Steven Koonin – has championed this idea writing that it, “would produce a traceable public record that would allow the public and decision makers a better understanding of certainties and uncertainties.”

Unsurprisingly there are those arguing against this reasoned approach, with some saying that with peer reviews in place such a back and forth would only give credence to dangerous views. With one A&M University professor even referring to it as, “a fundamentally dumb idea”.

As dumb as it may seem to some, this idea is going forward. Most Americans will surely look forward to science being put under some real scrutiny for once.

0 19
Paris Climate Pullout
The Left's climate hysteria is reaching a fever pitch

Quite a number of states and municipalities have started to stand up against President Trump, on his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The non-federal governments are noted as willing to work with foreign bodies in efforts to reduce emissions. The Democrats, on the other hand, are seen introducing more aggressive climate action plans that weren’t even likely to be considered, had the president decided on staying with the Pairs agreement.

While, Nick Loris a member of the Heritage Foundation, who had in fact pushed for the president to exit the Paris agreement went on to argue, “States and cities committing to climate plans that regulate affordable, dependable power sources out of existence or subsidize uncompetitive energy technologies is a harmful to families, businesses and taxpayers in those respective areas.”

“States are laboratories of democracy. As expensive and ineffective as the regulations may be, it’s their right to do it,” he said. “Voters and businesses suffering the consequences of these policies will ultimately determine the fate of the politicians championing these policies.”

Bloomberg following his meeting with the French President Emmanuel Macron and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, said “Americans don’t need Washington to meet our Paris commitments, and Americans are not going to let Washington stand in the way of fulfilling it,” “I want the world to know that the U.S. will meet its Paris commitments and that through partnerships among cities, states and businesses we will seek to remain part of the Paris agreement process,” Bloomberg stated.

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) was noted visiting Chine, days after president Trump announced his decision. It was during this trip; Brown stressed upon California’s independence on climate change.

“President Trump’s announced withdrawal [from the accord] has heightened the focus on this fundamental existential threat called global warming, called habitat destruction, called species extinction,” Brown said in a speech. “We have to wake up our countrymen — in fact, the world,” he added.

0 24

In a recent episode of his Netflix show “Bill Nye Saves the World,” popular TV personality Bill Nye asked guests on his show if, in order to counter climate change, policies to penalize families with “extra kids” should be introduced.

During one segment of the show, Dr. Travis Rieder of the John Hopkins University said that “the average Nigerian emits 0.1 metric tons of carbon annually. How many does the average American emit? Sixteen metric tons.” He furthered his argument, saying that when it comes to climate change, “our two kids are way more problematic” than larger families in developing nations.

Nye asked, “So should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?”

“I do think that we should at least consider it,” Rieder responded.

“At least consider it’ is, like, ‘Do it!’ ” Nye said.

“One of the things that we could do that is kind of least policy-ish is to encourage our culture and our norms to change,” Rieder said.

Neither of the two elaborated what they meant by “extra kids” though.

Dr. Rachel Snow, another guest on the show, and chief of population development at the United Nations Population Fund, responded by saying, “I would take issue with the idea that we do anything to incentivize fewer children or more children.”

“People should have the number of children they want, the timing of children — and if some families have five or six children, God bless them,” she said. “That’s fine. But most people end up with fewer.”

Dr. Nerys Benfield, director of Family Planning at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, N.Y., also remarked that such policies will inexplicably impact minority and poor women.

The Washington Free Beacon has also noted that Rieder has tried to convince students to not have any children in order to prevent climate change and save the planet.

“Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” he said during remarks at James Madison University last year, according to NPR.

 

 

0 18
You can't make this stuff up . . . but they can.

Climate-change doomsters have a good idea that most American’s don’t take their constant warnings about the looming doom caused by man-made global warming very seriously. Hence, researchers and advocates of climate-change research are now looking for other ways to motivate the public to “go green.” The emerging strategy is reportedly turning out to be quite disturbing.

In an article written for Vox, a left-wing website, Andy Murdock of the University of California asks, “how do you get people to adopt new behaviors to begin with?”

“In terms of behavioral change, we need two things,” said Magali Delmas, a professor at the Institute of Environment and Sustainability at the University of California at Los Angeles and the Anderson School of Management, in response to Murdock’s question. “We need first to increase awareness, and then second, we need to find the right motivations for people to change their behavior.”

A study co-authored by Delmas, “Nonprice Incentives and Energy Conservation,” is cited in the article on Vox. The study seeks to discover how climate-change believers can influence the rest of the society to actively participate in helping them change the behavior and actions of people.

In the extract of the study, co-author Omar Asensio and Delmas write under the subject, “Significance,” “We investigate the effectiveness of nonprice incentives to motivate conservation behavior. … In a randomized controlled trial with real-time appliance-level energy metering over 8 mo, we find that environment and health-based information strategies outperform monetary savings information to drive energy conservation. Environment and health-based messages, which communicate the environmental and public health externalities of electricity production—such as pounds of pollutants, childhood asthma, and cancer—motivated 8% energy savings versus control. … However, we do not study the persistence of these behavioral changes after the conclusion of the study.”

In simple words, Delmas discussed with Vox that according to her study’s findings, “the right motivations for people to change their behavior” is to scare people by telling them that “electricity production” negatively affects children with asthma and also causes cancer.

“This strategy was particularly effective on families with children, who achieved 19% energy savings,” found Delmas and Asensio.

While fear isn’t a new tactic for climate-change advocates, Delmas’ study shows that fear actually works when combined with scientific data.

0 28

If you don’t think that man is ruining our earth and causing the world to heat up at record rates until the polar ice caps melt and flood us all, then you are a climate denier. One who denies “proven facts” about the damage humans are doing to our planet.

Climate deniers are regarded in the liberal’s mind as dwelling somewhere in the depths of hell above a white supremacist but worse than a homophobe. How can anyone deny science?

Easy… the science that is being peddled now as fact that our earth is warming and we are the cause of it is turning out it could inaccurate. Again.

Thanks to a brave whistleblower, John Bates, we have learned that a landmark scientific paper about our globe warming since 2000 is filled with un-proven data. The same report that world leaders used to justify signing the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Lamar Smith, Congress member from Texas is calling for Congress to take a deeper look into the controversial paper and the new information released by the whistleblower. Smith is also the chair of the House of Representatives’ science committee.

NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provide more global climate data than any other source. If they are publishing false or unverified data, what can we really trust?

Climate Change is inevitable, regardless of what anyone says. Just the name speaks the ever evolving weather and climate patterns of our earth, but they are completely natural.

Global Warming is attributed to pollution’s effect on our climate that says humanity’s waste is causing the world to heat up and we are causing our own destruction.

The truth is, the data that the world leaders trusted to sign the Paris Agreement could be false and the world might not be warming at all. The agreement applies incredible burdens on countries to reduce pollution and it will effect every household in the United States. Everything in the agreement was based on scientific data that not be accurate. That should make us all a little skeptical.

Of course we should take the best steps possible to reduce our pollution and dependence on oil, but we shouldn’t restrict countries the way the Paris Agreement was written. The agreement may not even be needed anymore.

We don’t know what to believe, but at this point, anyone who isn’t a “climate skeptic” is kidding himself or herself. There is not enough data, regardless of how many movies Al Gore makes, that can prove that we are causing the earth to warm up. We don’t even know if our earth is warming up.

Who can trust fake data? Until NOAA or any other organization can provide accurate information on Global Warming and proven science that has been peer reviewed, we must remain skeptical. That is how science works.

Then again, if someone asks you if you believe in climate change, say, “Yes”. There is a 100% chance the climate will change before you go to bed tonight, but that doesn’t mean that it was man made.

Are you skeptical about Global Warming? Let us know in the comments below.

0 256
newspeak

In George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, “Newspeak,”the cognitively-repressive language of the totalitarian regime included words such as “bellyfeel,”“blackwhite,”and “duckspeak.” Today, America’s Left employs its own“Newspeak,” which includes words such as“triggering,”“climate change,”and “social justice.” While the words may be different from Orwell’s fictional language, the penalties for violating the “truth” as defined by the ruling regime’s vernacular, is frighteningly similar — ridicule, ostracism and, eventually, criminal punishment.

This was demonstrated most recently by a joint investigation of ExxonMobile by the New York Attorney General and a Democratic U.S. Congressman. This probe inquires into whether the oil company misled investors by refusing to mimic the Left’s narrative on global warming. The abusive probe orchestrated by New York’s left-wing Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is loosely, almost humorously justified as “consumer protection.” In reality, it is a thinly-veiled government assault on a private company that has done nothing other than to maintain a position on “climate change” that is at odds with that held by the Obama Administration and other leftist officials at the state level.

The goal of Schneiderman’s attack on ExxonMobile? To use the threat of criminal sanctions to bring the company into line with the politically correct position that “climate change” is a dire threat that must be recognized publicly by the company, and to pressure the company to expend corporate assets to fight it.

Not to be outdone by a state attorney general and a member of Congress in election-year pandering to special interest groups, the Obama Administration doubled-down on the“Climate Change”Newspeak last week; officially killing the Keystone XL Pipeline proposal. According to Obama, he simply did not believe the pipeline had economic merit; a conclusion that was years in the making. More to the point, the President stated that approving such a project “would have undercut”America’s “global leadership” on global warming — as if under this President our country has led on anything.

The power of the Left’s Orwellian language code was on display also in Columbia, Missouri; where the President of the Show-Me State’s flagship university was forced to resign in the face of an assault by the “social justice” police on that campus. Similar to the motives and bullying tactics evident in the investigation of ExxonMobile, radicalized student protesters at “Mizzou” claimed that former President Timothy Wolfe failed to respond appropriately to their allegations of “racism”on campus (evidenced by such “serious”offenses as the ignorant ramblings of a drunk white student in front of a black student group). Rather than stand up to the student rabble-rousers and prima donna football players, the University threw the President under the bus; and for good measure, the Chancellor after him.

It is clear, however, that the Missouri students were less concerned with genuine change, than with the desire to shame and destroy anyone in the way of their radical but ill-defined agenda. This explains why the “list of demands,”which actually had elicited a public apology from Wolfe, was met not by a willingness to talk, but by demands for his resignation. The students did not want cooperation from Wolfe, who apologized but initially had not succumbed to the wave of demands for “social justice” sweeping the nation. The students wanted, and got, his head on a silver platter. His resignation now becomes a warning to his successor, and to other heads of institutions of higher education, that they stand up to campus radicals at their own peril; especially considering that many boards of regents — like Missouri’s — probably are more concerned with losing football dollars than protecting academic integrity.

The ruthlessness of these tactics illustrates the true nature of our enemy. We are not dealing with a bunch of petulant college kids or idealistic government do-gooders. We face an organized and determined movement of classroom Leninists determined to destroy any value, individual, or institution that stands in their way.

The fact that these pseudo-terrorists are actually accomplishing their goals should genuinely frighten every American who shares any appreciation for the value of civilized discourse and fact-based debate.

As we now move into the heat of the 2016 campaign, we will see these radicals emboldened. That is what makes statements like those from Ben Carson, who recently suggested naively that he favors using the Department of Education to “monitor”political bias on college campuses, both irresponsible and potentially dangerous. If conservatives want to stop or at least slow the neo-Trotskyism running rampant through the progressive movement today, we cannot be seen to lend it credibility by suggesting it is okay to use the same tactics as theirs but for the “right” reasons.

0 546
obama-crying

A Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Ivar Giaever–who used to be an ardent supporter of Barack Obama–now claims that the liberal President is “dead wrong” when it comes to global warming and climate change.

This represents a huge break for Dr. Giaever, who won his Nobel Prize in 1973 in physics.

Just seven years ago, he joined with 70 other climate scientists to endorse Barack Obama. Now, he’s speaking out on what he sees as global warming hysteria.

“[Obama’s recent statement that no] challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change’ is a ridiculous statement,” Dr. Giaever said. “That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement, I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.”

But Giaever doesn’t just take on Obama–he takes on the entire liberal Left’s climate change hysteria.

Giaever stated: “I resigned from [the American Physical Society because of their stance on global warming] in 2011. First: nothing in science is incontrovertible… The maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago. When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?”

While scientists have been largely alarmist about global warming–even, in some cases, going so far as to falsify scientific data to make sure it lined up with their hysteria–this represents some of the first cracks forming in their ranks.

Giaever, being such a respected scientist, is now one of the most high-profile of the so-called climate “deniers”–and, considering the data that backs his statement that the earth is not (or, at least, is no longer) getting warmer is pretty airtight, it’s only a matter of time before more scientists turn on the liberal Left’s radical climate agenda.

Social Media