‘Academic climate fraudsters know they can say whatever lies they want with impunity.’https://rumble.com/vk7est-the-untouchables.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tonyheller&ep=2
‘Discussing the bottom line of the climate lies and fraud from the press politicians and government agencies.’
The following story is going to be true for nations that worship at the altar of Climate Change!
‘An NBC story headlined “California warned to brace for another summer of energy blackouts” to which the head of the state’s power grid operator added “Guarded optimism is a reasonable way to state it.” Another way might be: Why is it that the richest state in the union can’t provide its people with reliable electricity? Dare we suggest because it’s also the greenest? But that possibility isn’t stopping the lineup of would-be copycats. For instance President Biden with his pledge to cut US GHG emissions by half from 2005 levels by 2030, that famously distant date now under nine years away. As Somini Sengupta put it with considerable understatement in the New York Times’ “Climate Fwd.” after Biden’s virtual climate summit, “Now comes the hard part.” Unfortunately, causing soaring energy prices while missing climate targets doesn’t seem hard at all to the political class.
As for the possibility that unwise investments in unicorn power are to blame for blackouts, perish the thought “’Achieving 100 percent clean electricity by 2045 is not only a bold pursuit, but a wise one,’ Marybel Batjer, president of the California Public Utility Commission, said in a statement. ‘Such action is required to avoid the worst impacts and costs of climate change and to ensure the delivery of safe, affordable, reliable and clean power to all Californians.’” Uh didn’t you just say it was going off? Yes but see “as the most populous state races toward a sustainable future, officials remain concerned that California’s aging infrastructure is not up to the task.”
Nor is their mental infrastructure, at least according to Francis Menton who argues that they didn’t grasp the difference between GW and GWH. Also known as “Either these people do not understand the basic units used for these calculations, or they cannot do basic arithmetic, or both.” We’re going with both.
As we are with regard to the Canadian government, which of course maintains a sunny insistence that it will meet all its targets despite never having done so yet. But as Lorrie Goldstein recently wrote in the Toronto Sun, such “political rhetoric has become increasingly divorced from reality.” He quoted Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson that “We will see year-on-year reductions — absolute reductions — starting in 2020, through to 2030. We have high confidence that’s actually going to be the case.” But Goldstein says, we may see a reduction in 2020 because of the pandemic, when they lope around to releasing the figures in 2022 (though probably not, his paper editorialized, by enough to meet even that year’s target). But “Since the Trudeau government was elected in 2015, Canada’s emissions have gone up from 723 million tonnes annually to 730 million tonnes in 2019 — the last year for which government data is available. Now it’s promising to cut our annual emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 — meaning a cut of between 287 million tonnes and 324 million tonnes annually. A 324-million tonne cut would require Canada to shut down the equivalent of our entire oil and gas sector (191 million tonnes annually ), entire agriculture sector (73 million tonnes annually) and entire electricity sector (61 million tonnes annually) in less than a decade. That would total 325-million tonnes, giving Wilkinson one million tonnes to spare. That’s some fairy dust he must have.”
Across the pond the British government is tossing more than £30 million at research into ways to get large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. And maybe they’ll get lucky though, as we have already observed, this plan is more than a little risky if it turns out CO2 really drives the temperature, because then sucking it back to a “natural” 280 ppm would not only risk making the world colder as well as browner in the short run, but triggering a trend taking us back to the Little Ice Age with its foul weather and crop failures. On the plus side, this initiative shows that they are serious. Though back on the minus, they’re a bit late. What ever happened to figuring out how to do something before promising to do it?
Make-believe remains popular. But nuclear is the real main option, and the hostility of many greens to the one form of power than can reliably supply energy to normal people without a lot of GHGs has raised suspicions in some quarters about their real goals. But taking the high road, we ask that as the other options come up short, they reconsider. Because other options are coming up short. Way short.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/06/02/more-money-than-brains/
‘Or rather storms. Beginning in mid-December, it was as clear as it ever is with weather forecasting that something nasty was coming. Something cold, and cold kills more people than heat. Something that would make us very glad we had reliable energy sources, scrambling to find some if we could or, as Ronald Stein warned and Germans learned, very sorry we did not. It hit, and hit again, with another massive storm in January, possibly the worst in 30 years in the United States and unusually tenacious as well, plunging oil-rich Texas into energy crisis as windmills froze. It seems children know what snow is after all. Even in Seattle.
On February 12 the Weather Network warned “Canada set to endure the most widespread cold this century” and by February 13 it gasped that “2021 threatens the unheard of – Canada’s capitals all plunge below freezing”. In the UK, as cold hammered the entire Northern Hemisphere for weeks in a regional blip, they had the coldest temperature in 25 long hot years (in Braemar, a.k.a. my winter coat’s in the Highlands) or possibly in 70, while Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir had and Dallas braced for its lowest in 30. And Alberta set or tied no fewer than 53 all-time cold records.
If these were record highs, you know what they’d say: proof of climate change. Any idiot can see it. Shut up and do as you’re told by “science”. But since they’re record lows instead, you know what they say: nothing. Bupkis. Or that it’s proof of climate change. Or never mind your own eyes, children soon won’t know what snow is. And yes, even the story we mentioned last week about record cold in Thailand, with elephants being given sweaters, was predictably blamed on warming.
Meanwhile the UN showed its seriousness by distributing a survey via games like Angry Birds to show that vox populi vox climate change. On which subject the Guardian included the patronising woke comment that “The reason why more men and boys said there was a climate emergency than women and girls in countries such as Nigeria and Vietnam may be because girls have less access to education in those places.”
The alarmists shout down critics, cancel skeptics and, when that doesn’t work, they cheat, for instance changing the results of the famous 2007 debate between skeptics Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott against alarmists Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard Somerville. Meanwhile out the window there’s a raging snowstorm not a boiling hurricane. And if it doesn’t matter to them, it matters to the people affected by it.’ https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/02/17/so-about-that-storm/
The climate scammers have been droning on for over thirty or more years now! If a preacher or any religious person had predicted Jesus’ coming again as many times as these prophets of climate change have they would be laughed out of town! Oh, but the climate change scam is SCIENCE and we trust the EXPERTS! When will this nonsense cease? When will politicians wake up and see it for what it is; a SCAM! This is why they want President Trump out! If 2021 sees Biden/Harris in the WH be sure these lies will be told more and more until the younger generation will not know the truth and all weather history will be rewritten to fit their lies!!
Don’t bother me with the facts! That seems to be what the political elite seem to be saying. However, ‘Using a new observational approach to an old but most important question, CLINTEL President Guus Berkhout finds that about 62% of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to natural sources, not human emissions. The study then looks at the implications for drastic CO2 reduction measures, finding that these measures will not stop the atmospheric increase. Actually, they will have very limited effect. Hence the title of the report is “Managing the Carbon Dioxide Content in the Earth’s Atmosphere“.
Professor Berkhout’s approach is based on proven technology in geophysical imaging. He calls his method spectral ‘fingerprint detection (FPD)’, because it looks at the relationship between fine-grained details of the atmospheric CO2 increase and anthropogenic emissions over time by computing auto and cross correlation functions.
Note that in the spectral FPD approach knowledge about the existence of different CO2 isotopes (C12 and C13) is not required. This is consistent with the current decarbonization practice, where minimization of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is the target, whatever the isotopic composition.
Note also that spectral FPD reveals that a lot of information is hidden in the variability of observations. Therefore, spectral FPD starts with decomposing observations into trends and changes along the trends.
The study puts it this way:
“The fine-grained variability of the anthropogenic emission represents the ‘fingerprintof the human CO2-source, telling us that most of the anthropogenic CO2-emission is absorbed by the land-ocean reservoir (fingerprint detection). It also reveals the existence of internal oscillations between the atmosphere and the land-ocean reservoir.”
There is a lot of math here, including least-squares minimization, but the results are clear. An estimated 62% of the increased CO2 concentration is entirely natural.
The study then applies these findings to determine the impact of four different emission reduction scenarios, as follows:
“Four policy scenarios for decarbonization purposes have been built: ‘Business as Usual’, ‘Stabilizing the Emission’, ‘Reducing the emission’ and ‘Making use of CCS’. A big impact conclusion for policy making is that zero anthropogenic emission – being a major achievement– does not mean at all that the atmospheric accumulation becomes zero.”
The analysis comes with a warning:
“Each scenario has its own phase diagram, showing the relationship between atmospheric concentration and anthropogenic emission. It is advised that decarbonization policies are designed such that the transition path in the phase diagram is technically, economically and socially feasible.” (Emphasis added)
Given that even the most stringent (and hugely expensive) scenario does not stop the natural CO2 increase, their rationale is greatly diminished. Also, given that most of the past increase is natural, we can stop blaming ourselves for it.
Professor Berkhout says this is just the first step in applying spectral FPD to the science of climate change:
“By considering spectral fingerprint detection on any source variability, there will be a lot of applications. Apart from CO2 variability, we will look at solar-irradiation variability, cloudiness variability, etc. to determine their individual influence on atmospheric temperature. It leads to a multidimensional causality determination. Again, without any theoretical assumptions. It is all based on observations.”
In science new methods often yield surprising results. I look forward to this multidimensional causality determination with great interest. In the meantime, the climate science and policy communities need to rethink the contribution of human emission to the atmospheric CO2 increase, especially with regard to the potentially destructive mitigation actions.
Combining this conclusion with the evidence that more CO2 will make our planet greener, what the h… are politicians up to? Are they racing to see who can enact the worst policies?’https://papundits.wordpress.com/2020/12/20/clintel-study-finds-most-of-the-co2-increase-is-natural/
Isn’t it ironic that school truant Greta Thunberg carries so much weight in this climate scam industry? Here is a girl with no science degree telling world leaders how to save the world from a future climate catastrophe and at the same time the skeptics are told to ‘“Listen to the science!” shouts the Left.
Are they ready to put their money where their mouths are?
No less a scientific expert than Greta Thunberg appeared at a House of Representatives committee hearing and used those very words. Greta came wielding the latest report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Little did she know this very report debunks some of the Left’s favorite global warming talking points — such as those related to storm intensity, sea level rise and extreme weather.
CFACT senior policy analyst Jay Lehr lives to educate the public on science. Jay holds a degree in geology from Princeton and a Ph.D. in groundwater hydrology from the University of Arizona. He is an accomplished scientist. Dr. Lehr has been posting a series of important science articles at CFACT.org, often partnering with Tom Harris and Terrigi Ciccone (who themselves are outstanding engineers). Their work is first rate and much needed.
In 2014, John Oliver devoted an entire episode of his HBO comedy series Last Week Tonight to climate change. Oliver put up a clip of CFACT’s Marc Morano and then brought out Bill Nye the Science Guy. Unfortunately he then had an actor play the role of Morano, instead of inviting Marc himself. Oliver then did something outrageous. He had 96 extras in white lab coats flood the stage to illustrate the phony “96% consensus” trope team warming constantly puts out. This is a straw man argument. Their definition of “consensus,” namely that humans have an impact on climate, includes everyone at CFACT and Marc himself! By the way, just why does Oliver think climate computer modelers would wear white coats? To avoid getting toner on their clothing when they print out a simulation that runs too hot?
Dr. Lehr and his colleagues, on the other hand, are fearlessly laying out the hard science team warming wants to shout down.
CFACT’s challenge to the Left — We fearlessly “listen to the science.”
Watched a little of the morning news on Sky and the little bit I saw was a big shot from the ANZ Bank talking about the state of the bank. The only thing I realy took away from what he said was the ANZ bank will cease putting money in coal by 2030. Now I say that because many if not most of these financial institutions are cultural warriors appeasing the Leftists as Leftist/Communist China continues to consume more and more coal! Now this hatred of coal is supposedly to save the planet because of CLIMATE CHANGE! Now, have you noticed that these climate change scare mongers are predicting what will occur in ten or twenty years unless something is done NOW BUT the simple weatherman cannot guarantee what the weather will be the next day! That brings me to Part One of the article WEATHER MADE (sort of) UNDERSTANDABLE. This is a long article so just in case you don’t take time to read the entire article this sentence pretty much sums it up and that is ‘AS YOU LEARN MORE ABOUT WEATHER IT WILL BE COME CLEAR TO YOU HOW PREPOSTEROUS IT IS THAT PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN PREDICT AND CONTROL WEATHER A CENTURY FROM NOW.’
‘We shall start at the beginning with possibly a shocking exclamation. Weather is nothing more and nothing less than nature trying to equilibrate the balance of all energy transmitted to the Earth by the sun. It is a never ending multilevel show of physics trying to overcome imbalances and irregularities too numerous to accurately quantify and yet we try hour after hour day after day all across the Earth.
Climate is simply the trends of weather over a long period. We never stop talking about it. It’s too hot. It’s too cold. I’m tired of the rain. I wish this spring would last forever. Don’t worry, there’s plenty of snow at the top of the mountain. This is the weather. We talk about it, we complain about it, we wish about it, but nobody can do anything about it.
With the help of technology in recent decades, like satellites, Doppler radar, telemetry, etc., we are getting pretty good at predicting how the weather is most likely to change over the next SEVERAL days. In Florida and Hawaii, it’s so easy, we don’t even need weather persons. At other locations, say, near tall mountains or along the coastlines, predicting the weather is harder, and forecasts are less reliable.
Wind is simply the movement of air. Its action is caused by temperature differences and atmospheric pressure differences from one place to another. Some differences are the result of the sun heating the earth in one area and not another. It also happens where a portion of the land that’s heated is a mountain, and another part is a valley. Along the coast, the earth is warmed faster than the ocean or if half of the sky is cloudy and half is not. Warm air is lighter than cold air, so it climbs into the sky, and then colder air rushes in to fill the void created by the warm air rising. Nature doesn’t like imbalances of any kind.
Near a warm and sunny beach in the early afternoon, we will get a gentle, cooling summer breeze coming in from the ocean to replace the rising warm air which heated up faster than the water. As shown in Fig 1 at night, the process generally reverses, because the water is now warmer than the land.
At other locations and circumstances, it can be a wild ride, like a jet stream. These are fast-moving rivers of air at the boundaries of massive weather fronts. Here one is hot and the other cold. They flow west to east in the opposite direction in response to the sun’s warming rotation from east to west. At the jet stream core, which is about ten to fifteen kilometers high, the airspeeds can reach several hundreds of miles per hour and move in serpentine paths over continents. These fast-moving core winds drag the adjacent air, forming a velocity gradient that’s very -very fast near the center and keeps slowing down and down until it reaches near-zero speeds some hundreds of Kilometers away. Naturally, if mountains or tall buildings get in the way, the wind changes directions and speed in many turbulent and unpredictable ways.
This is the weight of the volume of air on top of you. At sunrise, if you are at the beach at sea level, and the temperature is 15° C, (69 F) there’s a column of air on top of you going all the way up into outer space. The weight of that air pressing down on you has a force of about 14.7 PSI (pounds per square inch) on your body. If you then go to the rooftop restaurant for brunch at 250 feet high, the pressure on you decreases from 14.7 to 14.3 PSI. Meanwhile, if you have a friend, who is mountain climbing at 2,400 feet, the pressure on him is only about 10.9 PSI. Now the heaviest air, meaning the densest air, is at sea level, and as we go up, it progressively gets less and less dense until near outer space, it’s about zero PSI. Figure 2 illustrators the impact of changing atmospheric pressure on a sealed bottle of water moving from 14,000 feet elevation down to 1000 feet.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP
Back at the beach the sun has been warming it up for about five hours. It’s the hottest time of the day when the sun is directly overhead, about noon. Now you might say, “But wait. Why does it usually feel warmer an hour or two into the afternoon, when the sun is no longer at its highest position (called the apex). That’s because an hour or two after the apex, while you’re getting a little less energy from the sun on your head, the earth you are standing on has already been heated by the sun and some of that stored heat in the ground starts radiating and convecting up to you. You are now heated on the top by the sun and from the bottom by the warm ground.
If you are a football fan you will remember Deflate-Gate where Tom Brady was accused of deflating footballs to his liking.Maybe he didn’t. It was noon at Indianapolis’ Lucus Oil Stadium, and the footballs are brought to the field for practice and then for play. The balls came out of a toasty locker room at 75° (Fahrenheit ), and the footballs and the air inside the footballs are also at 75° F, and the PSI is 13.0. Where the NFL likes them. But on the playing field, it’s a chilly 25° F. The footballs and the air inside starts to immediately cool down until the balls, and the air inside, reach 25° F. The question is – what’s happened to the balls? The simple answer is that the pressure in the balls decreased to 11 PSI the way Brady likes them.
Michael place picture of footballs Here
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE AND SPECIFIC VOLUME
Let’s now put together these three measures, pressure, temperature, and volume and see how they generate wind. If we decrease the air temperature, the air density will increase, and the volume will decrease. Alternatively, if we reduce the pressure, the air volume will increase, and temperature will rise. So, we will need to specify two of these variables to see what it does to the third. But, you may ask, if hot air rises, why is it colder at the top of the mountain than at the base? The answer is that on top of the mountain, the air is less dense because of the lower barometric pressure. Another example of this relationship is that at sea level, water boils/turns to steam at 100° C. But if you are at the top of Mount Kilimanjaro at 20,000 feet, it will start boiling at 81° C. Or if you’re below sea level, like in parts of Death Valley California, the boiling point is about 103° C.
THE WEATHER VEHICLE
We have laid out our crazy cartoon model weather machine, in Fig 3. The sun is the engine, and it provides nearly 100 percent of the power to drive it, which we’ll call “temperature.” The transmission, is the way, the heat from the sun is distributed geographically in one part of the world and not in the other. It’s like a transmission that sends different speeds to each wheel, resulting in erratic motion. We’ll call this “specific volume.”
We then have barometric pressure, which regulates how much air enters the engine. Does it all seem if not crazy, awfully complex. That is because it is.
How does the earth receive the sun’s energy. Let’s turn on the engine and see what happens. We have sunlight arriving on the planet and spreading out like a three-dimensional bell curve as shown in Fig 4. The top-center of the bell is precisely on the equator, and it’s at the highest point on the bell. That means that the energy density there is the maximum. At the bottom of the bell are the north and south polar regions. The amount of energy received from the sun is almost the same, but it’s now spread over a vastly larger area.
On earth, where we have land, oceans, and air, they are all set in motion to eliminate these temperature and pressure imbalances. It does so in the atmosphere primarily by the wind. In the seas by water movements like the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic and in the Pacific with the “Pacific Oscillator” and “El Niño Nino/La Niña. On land, it does it primarily by radiation, convection mostly to the air. On the earth, some of this heat is also conducted deeper in the ground, which is essential for plants to grow. It warms up and dries out the soil in the spring, allowing plant roots to grow. Some of the heat in the warmed earth is radiated and convected back up into the air, creating vertical wind streams that help gliders fly around without engines, and birds without flapping their wings.
But along the way, the winds have to overcome many obstacles posed by obstructions like mountain ranges and narrow canyons, plus human-made buildings and cars, trucks, planes, and wind turbines. In rare cases, it can also be caused independently of the effects of the sun. For example, the low temperatures mass of the Antarctic ice will always be much colder than the sea and air temperatures of the southern temperate regions. Thus, like the jet stream in the north, it forms a planetary sub-weather system, which we call a “polar vortex.”
As you learn more about weather it will be come clear to you how preposterous it is that people think they can predict and control weather a century from now‘https://www.cfact.org/2020/12/10/weather-made-sort-of-understandable-part-one/
Climate change is a religion to many and they will go to any length to dispose of those who do not agree.
‘Five years ago, I said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) behaves like Torquemada, using Inquisition-like tactics to harass “manmade climate crisis” skeptics, and threatening to prosecute them for racketeering. Tomas de Torquemada was the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition that interrogated, tortured, imprisoned and executed thousands for religious heresy.
The senator took great umbrage, and denounced me in Senate chambers where I once worked. But he didn’t change his ways. If anything, he has become more intolerant and vindictive.
He recently said Democrat control of the Senate would enable him and his colleagues to launch investigations, haul climate realists before committees (for star-chamber show trials), and even employ grand juries and criminal prosecutions – to intimidate, silence and punish climate crisis nonbelievers.
People could certainly conclude that the thin-skinned senator would feel right at home in Inquisition Spain, Stalinist Russia, Red Guard and Xi Jinping China, or book-burning pre-Holocaust fascist Europe. Their history of silencing dissenters, erasing them from history, and sending them off to gulags and salt mines (or worse) is legendary. Their economic and governing ideology is classic fascism:
an extreme, intolerant system, under which an authoritarian government does not own businesses and industries outright, but does dictate what they can make, do, sell and say – while controlling citizens’ thoughts, speech and choices – through intimidation, silencing, arrest, prosecution, and fear of being fined, jailed, fired, sent to penal or reeducation colonies, and being beaten or executed.
These tactics are reprehensible and dictatorial. They are un-American and anti-science. Indeed, science achieves no progress without dissent, discussion and debate. It requires not just hypotheses, theories and computer models, but solid, empirical evidence to confirm or disprove hypotheses, models and predictions.
Discussion, debate, dissent and evidence are especially vital in addressing the assertion that humanity faces an unprecedented manmade climate crisis. That assertion is being used to justify demands that the United States, Europe and developed world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide over 80% of our energy, petrochemical and pharmaceutical raw materials, fertilizers and countless other benefits.
It is being used to justify demands that we replace this reliable, affordable energy and raw material base with wind, solar, battery and biofuel power. Not only are these alternatives intermittent, weather-dependent and far more expensive. They involve extensive mining, land use, wildlife, pollution and other environmental impacts. They are not renewable, sustainable, environment-friendly or climate-safe.
In the United States alone, we would have to replace some 7.5 billion megawatt-hours of electricity and electricity-equivalent fossil fuel use per year; replace enormous amounts of oil and natural gas raw materials; and overhaul our transportation, home heating and other systems. That would require millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of 1000-pound battery modules, tens of millions of acres of corn, canola, soybean and other biofuel crops – and tens of trillions of dollars.
Democrat urban population and voter centers will likely oppose those industrial-scale installations in their backyards. They would have little objection to locating them in what many ruling, media and Hollywood elites imperiously and derisively refer to “flyover country” – western, Midwestern and southern states.
This “transformation” – under the Paris climate treaty, a Green New Deal or a Biden-Harris regulatory program – would massively disrupt America’s economy, jobs, living standards, health and wellbeing, especially for poor, minority, blue-collar, fixed-income and flyover country families and communities.
Climate alarmists insist that any lost jobs would be replaced with “green” jobs. But those would be mostly minimum-wage positions: hauling, installing, maintaining, dismantling, removing and landfilling turbines, panels and batteries. Moreover, most of those green technologies would be manufactured overseas, especially in China, because environmentalists battle any mining in the USA, and a climate-focused energy system would provide insufficient reliable, affordable power for factories.
Those huge and unprecedented amounts of mining and manufacturing would require fossil fuels. So the only thing that would change is where the fossil fuel use and emissions occur.
It would be mostly in Asia and Africa, in countries that are not obligated under the Paris climate treaty to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; countries that will build as many hundreds or thousands of coal and gas-fired power plants as needed to lift their people out of poverty … and make “green energy” technologies they will happily sell to America, Australia, Canada and Europe.
That means, even if the US went cold-turkey on fossil fuels, it would make no difference to global GHG emissions or global atmospheric concentrations. And that means, even if carbon dioxide is the primary factor in climate change, destroying US and other modern economies would bring no climate benefits.
Thankfully, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that assertions of Climate Armageddon have been miscalculated, exaggerated or fabricated. Average global temperatures are rising far less rapidly than predicted by climate models: by at least a half-degree F.
Violent (F4-F5) US tornadoes have actually declined in number the past 35 years (1985-2020) versus the previous 35 years (1950-1984); and in 2018 not one F5 tornado touched down in the United States. For a record twelve years, from Wilma in 2005 until Harvey and Irma in 2017, no Category 3 to 5 hurricane struck the US mainland. Overall, there is little or no trend in tropical cyclone activity or intensity.
All that is not surprising in light of new research by Drs. William Happer and Willem van Wijngaarden that strongly indicates even doubling carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in Earth’s atmosphere would have minuscule effects on global temperatures and climate (but would benefit plant growth).
Indeed, it is impossible to distinguish human influences from natural factors, fluctuations and cycles regarding temperatures, polar ice, storms and droughts. Some scientists certainly claim otherwise – and generally just blame humans. But they have little or no actual, empirical evidence to support their claims, predictions and models. They simply say the science is settled, and we must ban fossil fuels, so shut up.
With so much at stake for America and the world, this is completely intolerable. At the very least, those claiming we face a climate calamity must be required to present solid empirical evidence to support their assertions – and engage in in robust, transparent debates with manmade climate change skeptics.
That is precisely what Senator Torquemada seems determined to prevent and punish, while transforming “the world’s greatest deliberative body” into a Russian Politburo or Chinese National People’s Congress – and an integral part of the $multi-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex.
In that quest he would certainly be aided by the Big Media and Big Tech moguls who share his views on climate change, silencing scientists and evidence that contradicts climate cataclysm catechism, and blacklisting “climate heretics” in government, academic and corporate circles.
People have been conditioned to kowtow to government lockdown edicts, to save humanity from Covid. Climate alarmists assume we will now be sufficiently compliant about banning fossil fuels to “save the planet,” when we’re trying to recover from Covid. Or their Torquemadas will make us compliant.
It’s time to reject politicized junk science, demand debate, and resist green climate and energy edicts. Perhaps most of all, the US Senate must assert its Advice and Consent responsibilities on the Paris climate treaty, the most far-reaching international agreement Americans were ever asked to ratify.’https://papundits.wordpress.com/2020/12/03/sheldon-whitehouses-climate-inquisition/
The United Nations is an Islamic/Communist institution and as such is a DIVIDER of Nations rather than UNITER! In 2007 the United Nations adopted the ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)‘. What does the Declaration emphasize? ‘The document emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to live in dignity, to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their self-determined development, in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.’https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/faq_drips_en.pdf
Here in Australia Islam has sought to make itself look like a friend of indigenous people even having on one Muslim web site the following logo of the Islamic Crescent and an Aboriginal boomerang.
A quick study of Islam will show that other cultures are always subordinate to Islam.
Now, staying with Australia and the UN’s promotion of Indigenous Peoples there is each year here in Australia what is called NAIDOC week. ‘NAIDOC stands for ‘National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee’ and this year’s theme is: “Always Was, Always Will Be”. This statement recognises that First Nations people have occupied and cared for this continent for over 65,000 years and were the first explorers, navigators, engineers, farmers, botanists, scientists, diplomats, astronomers and artists.
NAIDOC has grown from one day to a full week of celebrations (from the 8-15 of November) and is not just for our Indigenous communities but a celebration for all Australians.
This year’s theme celebrates Indigenous tradition and spiritual connection to the land whilst facing catastrophic droughts and rising sea levels by the enduring threat of climate change, demonstrating that knowledge of Country, is more important than ever before.’https://www.amust.com.au/2020/11/always-was-always-will-be-2020-naidoc-week-celebrations/
Note the highlighted eight words above. The first is 65,00 years. That is an evolutionary thesis but not a factual known number. That number of 65,000 is based on assumption and guess work! The second two words are Indigenous tradition. Traditions are good depending on the tradition but does one really believe most indigenous people wish to go back to how they once lived!?
The third is spiritual connection. Now, that is a drawback to paganism and animism. This is clearly not good in that the Creator Himself said I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. It is brutal to tell a people anything else. Thirdly note the ever present promotion of climate change. These six words are used to promote a bias against Europeans, the Christian faith and true science.
The United Nations’ UNDRIP is de-visive, deceiving, destructive and devilish.