Rand Paul did his homework. Very well done. 
If only it had been Obama or Gore on a bigger stage, we could put this nonsense to bed once and for all.
Hey, let's fight "climate change" by de-industrializing the West and transferring all that wealth to the third world.
hno:
These climate Chicken Littles make the central planners in Venezuela look brilliant. Thank GOD Trump won!
If only it had been Obama or Gore on a bigger stage, we could put this nonsense to bed once and for all.
Hey, let's fight "climate change" by de-industrializing the West and transferring all that wealth to the third world.
hno:These climate Chicken Littles make the central planners in Venezuela look brilliant. Thank GOD Trump won!
awesome video Zit
more proof that everything is about who's controlling the message, and we know it's the criminal colluding uniformed and ignorant democratic media
they even seek to shut up every descending voice, they miss the good ole days when only libtards were on the airwaves
vile disgusting people, their souls will rot in hell (no, I'm not talking about the sheep they spoon feed, I'm talking about the source of fake news and fake science and the fake hysteria they display)
more proof that everything is about who's controlling the message, and we know it's the criminal colluding uniformed and ignorant democratic media
they even seek to shut up every descending voice, they miss the good ole days when only libtards were on the airwaves
vile disgusting people, their souls will rot in hell (no, I'm not talking about the sheep they spoon feed, I'm talking about the source of fake news and fake science and the fake hysteria they display)
7 Reasons Trump is Right to Scrap the Paris Climate Deal
Reuters reports that President Donald Trump is set to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.
Jon Miltimore | May 31, 2017
Reuters reports that President Donald Trump is set to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. And writers are apoplectic.
Todd Stern at The Atlantic says such a move would be “indefensible.” At Slate, David McKean and David Wade said pulling out would be a huge mistake “because our planet is currently on a collision course with Mother Nature.” At the Washington Post, Greg Sargent complains that Trump’s rationale is “based on lies.”
You can read for yourself the claims of these authors, but here are a few facts you are unlikely to find.
1. THE SENATE NEVER SIGNED THE AGREEMENT
This is kind of a big deal in a democratic republic. At least America’s Founders thought so.
The U.S. Constitution states that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2).
When the deal was completed in 2015, President Obama never sent it to the Senate to be ratified. (“Visionary thinkers like Obama cannot be bound by normal constitutional strictures,” Charles Krauthammer dryly observed at the time.)
2. EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS ARE NOT BINDING
Then Secretary of State John Kerry made this fact quite plain. Reporting is mandatory, but actual reductions in fossil fuel emissions are not. Why? Because most nations are not interested in actually reducing their carbon footprints.
“[If] there had been a penalty, we wouldn't have been able to get an agreement,” Kerry bluntly said. “So we did the best we could…”
This is precisely why climate activists, such as former NASA scientist James Hansen, called the agreement “a fraud”: “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’”
3. IT COSTS ROUGHLY $100 BILLION (ANNUALLY)
You’ll not find this fact in many of the stories you read. But as the Wall Street Journal reported at the time, “developed countries have to help provide at least $100 billion annually from a variety of sources after 2020 to help developing countries cut their emissions.” (As a point of reference, Trump’s wall was projected to cost about $33 billion less than this.)
Anyone have a guess who will be picking up the bulk of the check on this one?
4. THE (NON-BINDING) TARGETS ARE TOTALLY ARBITRARY
The emission targets are not just non-binding; they are self-made. As John Cassidy of the New Yorker gloomily pointed out at the time, nations can select their own emission targets.
“Not only is the accord voluntary but countries got to set their own targets for carbon emissions. As I noted a couple of weeks ago, the Paris talks were a bit like a potluck dinner, where guests bring what they can.”
5. THE AGREEMENT RELIES ON SELF-REPORTING
The teeth of the agreement comes in mandatory reporting. But what if you can’t trust it?
It was only a few years ago, after all, that China was caught fudging underreporting its coal burning by a whopping 14 percent.
While there is talk of one day creating an independent body to monitor and verify pollution levels, no such body is in place, and the New York Times reports that it just might be staying that way, since “several countries, including China and India, are expected to push for a more lenient system that is reliant on self-reporting.”
6. THE U.S. WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT MEET ITS TARGET—AND THAT COULD HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT
Everyone knows the U.S. will not meet the ambitious carbon reduction targets laid out by the Obama administration. As the Washington Post reports, “it’s clear that the Trump administration will fail to meet the climate goals that the Obama administration established under the agreement — namely, a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 levels by the year 2025.”
This could be problematic, assuming some nations actually do take the targets seriously.
“A great power that willfully misses its target could provide political cover for other laggards and weaken the soft power of process,” said Luke Kemp, a climate and environmental policy expert at Australian National University
And it’s not just the U.S. The New York Times reported that “Russia put forth a plan that is essentially business as usual, requiring no new domestic policies.”
7. THE JURY ON CARBON DIOXIDE IS STILL OUT
Like most of the people reading this article, I don’t have a degree in climate science. But there are people unafraid to point out an obvious fact: Our climate models over the last decade were way off.
The question is: Why?
Believe it or not, there is a community of scientists who contend that the dangers of CO2 emissions have been grossly exaggerated. In fact, some research suggests that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually helps the environment more that it hurts it.
Among these scholars is Indur Goklany, a U.S. delegate to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and an IPCC reviewer, who in 2015 published a paper titled “Carbon Dioxide: The Good News”.
In his paper, Goklany concludes that many climate impact assessments suffer from three primary flaws.
“Firstly, they rely on climate models that have failed the reality test. Secondly, they do not fully account for the benefits of carbon dioxide. Thirdly, they implicitly assume that the world of 2100 will not be much different from that of the present – except that we will be emitting more greenhouse gases and the climate will be much warmer.”
None of this says the move away from an international climate agreement must be permanent. Proactive action may be required as we glean new evidence.
But the Paris deal was poorly devised and passed without proper constitutional consent. It's better left behind. In the meantime, perhaps we'll learn more about the alleged dangers of climate change.
“developed countries have to help provide at least $100 billion annually from a variety of sources after 2020 to help developing countries cut their emissions.”
And that money goes into Swiss bank accounts of corrupt politicians in developed countries. Just the same way as Foreign aid goes.
And that money goes into Swiss bank accounts of corrupt politicians in developed countries. Just the same way as Foreign aid goes.
[h=1]Anchors v EPA administrator Scott Pruitt over leaving Paris agreement[/h]
Multiple anchors, including Wallace and ABC's George Stephanopoulos, pointed out that the Trump team was misinterpreting data from a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study. Pruitt said the scientists have "short memories," and attempted to discredit the MIT author's comments.
"It's very fishy to me that MIT updated their results after we started citing it," Pruitt told Wallace.
Multiple anchors, including Wallace and ABC's George Stephanopoulos, pointed out that the Trump team was misinterpreting data from a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study. Pruitt said the scientists have "short memories," and attempted to discredit the MIT author's comments.
"It's very fishy to me that MIT updated their results after we started citing it," Pruitt told Wallace.
[h=1]Anchors v EPA administrator Scott Pruitt over leaving Paris agreement[/h]
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace aggressively pushed back against the Trump administration's assertion that China and India were not seriously committed to reducing emissions, saying "the reality is different from what the president said."
"Mr. Pruitt, aren't you focusing on the wrong thing?" Wallace asked, pointing out that the solar industry employed twice as many people as the coal industry, one of the beneficiaries of Trump's decision.
"Aren't you and the president protecting the horse and buggy business just as cars go online?"
Pruitt dismissed the question, saying the US needs coal and solid hydrocarbons to address high demand for electricity as well as "attacks on our grid, attacks on our infrastructure."
"If we have peak demand needs you want a diversity of fuels that generate electricity," Pruitt said.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace aggressively pushed back against the Trump administration's assertion that China and India were not seriously committed to reducing emissions, saying "the reality is different from what the president said."
"Mr. Pruitt, aren't you focusing on the wrong thing?" Wallace asked, pointing out that the solar industry employed twice as many people as the coal industry, one of the beneficiaries of Trump's decision.
"Aren't you and the president protecting the horse and buggy business just as cars go online?"
Pruitt dismissed the question, saying the US needs coal and solid hydrocarbons to address high demand for electricity as well as "attacks on our grid, attacks on our infrastructure."
"If we have peak demand needs you want a diversity of fuels that generate electricity," Pruitt said.
[h=1]Anchors v EPA administrator Scott Pruitt over leaving Paris agreement[/h]
"Meet The Press" host Chuck Todd pressed Pruitt on whether he still believes that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of climate change, a belief directly at-odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus.
"You don't believe that CO2 is the primary cause?" Todd asked.
"No, I didn't say that. I said it's a cause," Pruitt replied.
"Primary?" Todd asked.
"It's a cause of many," Pruitt said. "It's a cause like methane, and water vapor, and the rest."
"Meet The Press" host Chuck Todd pressed Pruitt on whether he still believes that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of climate change, a belief directly at-odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus.
"You don't believe that CO2 is the primary cause?" Todd asked.
"No, I didn't say that. I said it's a cause," Pruitt replied.
"Primary?" Todd asked.
"It's a cause of many," Pruitt said. "It's a cause like methane, and water vapor, and the rest."
In 50 years the earth temperature has risen 1 degree. Research it for yourself. When you discover that I am correct you will wonder what is causing this climate change that is definitely happening. The answer to that is not complicated, like measuring the melting rate of a glaciers at the Poles. It is not about the carbon emissions that come from our cars and buses. It's not about bovine flatulence.
It's about Extreme Weather Modification.
It's about the idea that we could prevent, for example, a tornado's deadly path, prevent monsoon like rains to areas hard hit by floods. Or prevent recurrent drought of areas that annually record several incidents. The idea was to save lives- and also a massive response expense of course. I like to think of this as at least the original idea that birthed this movement by scientists who were at heart good men with good hearts and much love for their fellow man.
So this idea involves seeding the atmosphere,not just clouds- the entire atmosphere you breathe- with certain compounds to achieve the success of such an idea. Chemicals which are considered non-toxic if used sparingly. People for the most part can accept this. Save the earth is a noble idea. Greenpeace was all good.
That was then. Things have definitely changed since those early years of liberal idealism.
Now these chemicals are not used sparingly. They are being used quite excessively in fact. Some of these weather modification compounds, whether they are being used for a helpful reasons or not are having a deleterious effect on our climate. At this time of year flowers should be blooming., bees sholud be pollinating, flies buzzing around, butterflies flitting by, the sounds of summer beginning. Instead there is a mysterious lack of plant and animal life as it usually is for this time of year. Whereas overcast used to be the once in a while , now it's the most of the time.
If you haven't already agreed with me or noticed for yourself, the sky is mostly an ugly dead looking greyish overcast soup these days. The problem is some of the most lethal chemicals you could put into the air. Barium and aluminum are this type. For the sake of "weather-modification" being drenched in a mist of things like cuprc acid which can make skies turn pink - or green,is the norm.
The problem is, the adverse health effects it has on people doesn't seem to matter in the least of those who engineer these directives. People in areas hit hardest by these weather modification activities are frankly getting sick and tired of it- literally.being diagnosed with lung cancers when they have never smoked a day in their life. Coughing spells, asthma attacks, flu-like illnesses that never go away, an entire array of congestive conditions that go with this.
What I am telling you is this entire thread is a waste of your intellects' -it fails to properly address the cause of what you believe is a Global warming Truth or Hoax.
So go on bitching about CO2 emissions but remember this - you are simply regurgitating the banal circular argument that can never be won because each side is actually employing the Straw-man Argument.
Seriously, look up once and a while. Keep looking at the sky and you will have the answer.
who's bitching about CO2? not me, I'm just pointing out that the vast majority of CO2 is not man made which tends to mitigate the biggest variable in the man made global warming argument
Since I don't believe man can alter climate change, neither to I believe stuff about efforts being secretly done to manage the climate, that's just impossible to pull off and is venturing into absurdity. No, I don't believe in the NWO. I don't believe scientists have now joined the NWO and all these worldwide events are being micro managed by the powers that be.
I believe mother earth plays a huge roll, with stuff like volcanoes and El Nino's and La Nina's and wind currents and the tides and the gulf stream. The Sun may even play a larger roll with something called SUN SPOTS
Since I don't believe man can alter climate change, neither to I believe stuff about efforts being secretly done to manage the climate, that's just impossible to pull off and is venturing into absurdity. No, I don't believe in the NWO. I don't believe scientists have now joined the NWO and all these worldwide events are being micro managed by the powers that be.
I believe mother earth plays a huge roll, with stuff like volcanoes and El Nino's and La Nina's and wind currents and the tides and the gulf stream. The Sun may even play a larger roll with something called SUN SPOTS
[h=1]DELINGPOLE: ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017[/h] 3732
29
Annette Bernhardt/Flickr
by James Delingpole6 Jun 20176,595
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
[h=2]“Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.[/h] In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.
By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.
Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.
What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.
Late 20th century and early 21st century global warming, they show, is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor scary.
Here, as collated by Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone, are just some of the charts to prove it.
Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today
Abrantes et al (below) confirms the traditional view — which Michael Mann tried to dismiss with his discredited Hockey Stick chart — that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than anything we have experienced in our own era.
Here’s one from Li et al showing that China was much warmer 8,000 years ago
Here’s an unusual one from Guillet et al suggesting that there’s nothing new about wildly early or late grape harvests through the centuries:
And on and on it goes — there are 80 graphs in all, each showing in its different way why the scare about global warming has been horribly overdone because the evidence just doesn’t support its being unusual or a problem. Several of the papers note that the primary influence on warming appears to be solar activity. Few, if any, entertain the notion that carbon dioxide levels have much to do with it.
The intellectually corrupt and mendacious alarmist science establishment — I’m thinking, for example, of my personal bete noir, the left-wing political activist and Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, former president of the Royal Society — would have us believe that climate skepticism is a minority activity, the preserve of a few cranks, championed only by people who don’t do the science. But this is just ugly propaganda.
Here are dozens of reputable scientists from around the world with no axe to grind collaborating on studies which all corroborate, independently and rigorously, the increasingly respectable view that “man-made global warming” just isn’t a thing.
Not that it ever was a thing, really. This debate — as I argue at some length in Watermelons — was always about left-wing ideology, quasi-religious hysteria, and “follow the money” corruption, never about “science.”
Still, it’s always a comfort to know that “the science” is on our side too.
They do so hate that fact, the Greenies.
29
by James Delingpole6 Jun 20176,595
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
[h=2]“Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.[/h] In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.
By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.
Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.
What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.
Late 20th century and early 21st century global warming, they show, is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor scary.
Here, as collated by Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone, are just some of the charts to prove it.
Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today
Abrantes et al (below) confirms the traditional view — which Michael Mann tried to dismiss with his discredited Hockey Stick chart — that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than anything we have experienced in our own era.
Here’s one from Li et al showing that China was much warmer 8,000 years ago
Here’s an unusual one from Guillet et al suggesting that there’s nothing new about wildly early or late grape harvests through the centuries:
And on and on it goes — there are 80 graphs in all, each showing in its different way why the scare about global warming has been horribly overdone because the evidence just doesn’t support its being unusual or a problem. Several of the papers note that the primary influence on warming appears to be solar activity. Few, if any, entertain the notion that carbon dioxide levels have much to do with it.
The intellectually corrupt and mendacious alarmist science establishment — I’m thinking, for example, of my personal bete noir, the left-wing political activist and Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, former president of the Royal Society — would have us believe that climate skepticism is a minority activity, the preserve of a few cranks, championed only by people who don’t do the science. But this is just ugly propaganda.
Here are dozens of reputable scientists from around the world with no axe to grind collaborating on studies which all corroborate, independently and rigorously, the increasingly respectable view that “man-made global warming” just isn’t a thing.
Not that it ever was a thing, really. This debate — as I argue at some length in Watermelons — was always about left-wing ideology, quasi-religious hysteria, and “follow the money” corruption, never about “science.”
Still, it’s always a comfort to know that “the science” is on our side too.
They do so hate that fact, the Greenies.
