The Court of AGW

At the upcoming United Nations Climate Summit in Paris, participating nations have prepared a treaty that would create an “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” giving Third World countries the power to haul the U.S. into a global court with enforcement powers.

Congress would be bypassed – left out in the cold – by this climate deal, critics say.

Policies once left to sovereign nations could be turned over to a U.N. body if the U.S. and its allies approve the proposed deal in Paris during the summit scheduled for Nov. 30-Dec. 11.

According to the proposed draft text of the climate treaty, the tribunal would take up issues such as “climate justice,” “climate finance,” “technology transfers,” and “climate debt.”

Buried on page 19 of the 34-page document is the critical text – still heavily bracketed with text that hasn’t been completely resolved and agreed upon – reads:

[An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.

The U.N. held a preparatory conference in September in Bonn, Germany, that drafted language to be approved at the upcoming Paris climate summit. At the Bonn meeting the U.N. brought together more than 2,000 participants from governments, observer organizations and the media.

But none of those media chose to report on the proposed new global tribunal.

The Paris Conference is mandated to adopt “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all parties,” which is to come into force in 2020, according to IISD Reporting Services, which tracks the global sustainable development movement.

Like many initiatives that come out of the U.N., there has been a media blackout on coverage of the potential for a new world tribunal that would make binding decisions on a host of issues critical to the U.S. economy. The draft text has been available on the Internet since Oct. 20 for all to see.

“The only mentions one is likely to find with search engines are alarms being sounded by critics, the climate realists who reject the apocalyptic predictions (and discredited pseudo-science – see: here, here, and here) of the multi-billion dollar global warming lobby,” writes William F. Jasper for the New American magazine.

One such critic is the Craig Rucker, executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

Rucker points out that more than 130 developing nations – “led by South Africa and instigated by China and India” – are insisting they will not sign a climate deal in Paris unless it contains massive redistribution of wealth from developed to poor nations.

“Now they want the power to haul the U.S. and its allies before a U.N. Star Chamber to enforce compliance,” Rucker writes.

He also notes that this is not the first time the U.N. has tried to insert language creating a global climate court into a U.N. climate document. It happened in 2011 at a summit in Durban but was stripped at the last minute when CFACT blew the whistle and some media outlets picked up the story.

But this time around, the globalists writing the text have substituted the world “tribunal” for “court” and insist the body will be “non-judicial.”

“The slight edit to the terminology offers little comfort,” Rucker said, cautioning that the word “tribunal” could get watered down further if it attracts too much attention.

“If the climate tribunal becomes the focus of public scrutiny, watch for the negotiators to pull a switch behind closed doors and try and accomplish the same thing by re-branding it an enforcement ‘mechanism,’” he said.

“Whatever they call it, countries who sign onto this agreement will be voting to expand the reach of the U.N. climate bureaucracy, cede national sovereignty, and create a one-way street along which billions will be redistributed from developed to poor nations,” Rucker says. “Developed nations would be expected to slash their emissions while the ‘poor’ countries expand theirs. China, which holds a trillion dollars in U.S. debt, would be counted among the poor.”

He said China and India are “delighted,” with the prospect.

“They would like nothing better than a world where the West cedes the competitive advantages their free market economies created,” Rucker writes. “They hope for a future where Asia does the manufacturing and the U.S. and Europe do the importing – until their wealth runs out, anyway.”

Obama, Kerry ‘desperate’ to claim treaty as success

Rucker said President Obama and John Kerry are desperate to claim the climate treaty as a foreign policy “success.”

“President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are mired in foreign policy failures,” Rucker notes. “They desperately want to get this agreement signed so they can claim a victory for their legacies.

“How far are they willing to sell out American interests to get this ill-begotten agreement signed?” (WND)

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA

NO MATTER WHAT!

That’s how far…

We’re Tired of Haters & Deniers

Did you know that Climate “Deniers” and The Tobacco Industry are related? 🙂

Warmist scientists including UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth to Obama: ‘We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.’

Via Politico: ‘Twenty climate scientists called for RICO investigation in a letter to Obama and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The scientists argue that the systemic efforts to prevent the public from understanding climate change resembles the investigation undertaken against tobacco. They draw inspiration from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who said on the Senate floor that there might be a similar conspiracy here, and a civil trial could provide the tools of discovery needed to find out.’

Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

September 1, 2015

Dear President Obama,Attorney General Lynch and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture,and biodiversity.

We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking.

Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change–indeed, the world’s response to climate change–is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity–and potential strategies for addressing them–are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014),

Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.

One additional tool–recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)–is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.

See Below

The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research (Brulle,2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010),The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015).

We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation. The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry.

A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.

If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Sincerely,

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park,MD

William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO

Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

Ben Kirtman,

University of Miami, Miami, FL

Robert Dickinson, University of

Texas, Austin, TX

Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY

Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY

Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY

Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford,VT (http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf)

Our “The Sky is Falling!!! We’re all going to Die!!!!” unless you do exactly as we say hasn’t been working so now it’s time for the Hammer of Social Justice and The US Government to beat the infidels into submission.

The “good” Senator from Rhode Island in an Op-Ed in the Washington Post:

Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.

Where’s the science? Oh right, it’s just evil Corporate Oil doing their mustache twirling evil deception. Unlike the disingenuous Chicken Little’s in the Global Cooling/Warming/Change holy mission of salvation. 🙂

Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise.

You mean the ones you probably supported and still take their money?

Well, Liberals are like Orwellian Nazis as they have “often been compared”. 🙂

The Big Tobacco playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.

The Global Warming playbook goes something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (Climate Gate, anyone?) (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; “97% Consensus” anyone? (3) relentlessly attack your opponents. Attack “Deniers” with RICO statutes and EPA regulations anyone?

Thankfully, the government had a playbook, too: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry groups, alleging that the companies “engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”

Is the Tobacco Industry still around? Yep. They just are 1/10 the Lobbying juggernaut they used to be.

Do people still smoke? Yep.

Tobacco spent millions of dollars and years of litigation fighting the government. But finally, through the discovery process, government lawyers were able to peel back the layers of deceit and denial and see what the tobacco companies really knew all along about cigarettes.

You mean the million in lobbying money. And amazing how they can uncover all this and not be able to figure out Benghazi, or the IRS scandal, or Hillary’s Emails? 🙂

In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise. According to the court: “Defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective — to . . . maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public.”

The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.

Only in your fervently anti-capitalist Luddite little mind.

In the case of fossil fuels, just as with tobacco, the industry joined together in a common enterprise and coordinated strategy.

Just like the Sky is Falling Global Warming “Consensus” crowd.

He has his own Political Action group: Oceans PAC and he gets his primary support from tech company investors & lobbyists from Comcast.

I created the OCEANS PAC because candidates who support oceans and environmental issues need our support. Indeed, the other side is funded by big polluters who don’t hesitate to put millions of dollars behind their lies. As I’ve said many times – I’m tired of bringing a knife to a gun fight. The OCEANS PAC is one way we can fight back.

And fight we must, because climate change is not a problem that will go away. Climate change is not a problem that can wait. But climate change is a problem that can be solved.  We can and we must leave a healthy environment, which includes healthy oceans, to our children and grandchildren. The public is ready for action; unfortunately, the missing piece is Congress. Congress is sleepwalking through history. It is time for Congress to hear the alarms, roll up our sleeves, and do what needs to be done. It is time to wake up. But for Congress to wake up, it needs more members who will support ocean and environmental issues – OCEANS PAC will support those candidates.

This is certainly not something I can do alone. There are high stakes involved and I need your help. I hope you will accompany me on this new journey, and that I can count on your enthusiastic support as we go forward. 

Sincerely,

Sheldon Whitehouse
United States Senator

So no conflict of interest there. 🙂  All, pure science!

2011 – 2016 PAC Contribution Breakdown

legend Business $775,653 (58%)
legend Labor $212,450 (16%)
legend Ideological/Single Issue $345,195 (26%)

Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, August 17, 2015.

All, pure science.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00027533

Just pure as the driven snow and twice as virtuous!

In 1998, the Clinton administration was building support for international climate action under the Kyoto Protocol. The fossil fuel industry, its trade associations and the conservative policy institutes that often do the industry’s dirty work met at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute. A memo from that meeting that was leaked to the New York Times documented their plans for a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to undermine climate science and to raise “questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.”

Climate Gate anyone?

The shape of the fossil fuel industry’s denial operation has been documented by, among others, Drexel University professor Robert Brulle. In a 2013 paper published in the journal Climatic Change, Brulle described a complex network of organizations and funding that appears designed to obscure the fossil fuel industry’s fingerprints. To quote directly from Brulle’s report, it was “a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate.” That sounds a lot like Kessler’s findings in the tobacco racketeering case.

The coordinated tactics of the climate denial network, Brulle’s report states, “span a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.” Compare that again to the findings in the tobacco case.

Funny, sounds just like the Global Warming crowd!

The tobacco industry was proved to have conducted research that showed the direct opposite of what the industry stated publicly — namely, that tobacco use had serious health effects. Civil discovery would reveal whether and to what extent the fossil fuel industry has crossed this same line. We do know that it has funded research that — to its benefit — directly contradicts the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science. One scientist who consistently published papers downplaying the role of carbon emissions in climate change, Willie Soon, reportedly received more than half of his funding from oil and electric utility interests: more than $1.2 million.

To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But there’s an awful lot of smoke.

And he knows smoke when he sees it…

Senator Whitehouse stated (On the Iran Deal): “I thank the many Rhode Islanders who have contacted me on every side of this question. I appreciate their thoughtful input.  I’ve decided to support the P5+1 agreement with Iran, not because it assures anything on its own, but because — with persistent watchfulness and effort — it could open a new doorway in the precarious Middle East. I do not see a better credible option.

And since he knows a good deal when he sees it, he must be right about Global Warming! 🙂

It’s all a Vast Right-Wing Capitalist Conspiracy!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Barbarism is The order of the day

The Agenda is The Agenda, no matter what. A “women’s right to choose” is more important than baby body part harvesting.

And the Republicans, supposedly “pro-Life” suddenly have no convictions at all except to avoid the whole thing as much as possible.

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Executives of Planned Parenthood’s federally subsidized meat markets — your tax dollars at work — lack the courage of their convictions. They should drop the pretense of conducting a complex moral calculus about the organs they harvest from the babies they kill.

First came the video showing a salad-nibbling, wine-sipping Planned Parenthood official explaining how “I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above” whatever organ (heart, lung, liver) is being harvested.

Then the president of a Planned Parenthood chapter explained the happy side of harvesting: “For a lot of the women participating in the fetal tissue donation program, they’re having a procedure that may be a very difficult decision for them and this is a way for them to feel that something positive is coming from … a very difficult time.”

“Having a procedure” — stopping the beating of a human heart — can indeed be a difficult decision for the woman involved. But it never is difficult for Planned Parenthood abortionists administering the “procedure.”

The abortion industry’s premise is: At no point in the gestation of a human infant does this living being have a trace of personhood that must be respected. Never does it have a moral standing superior to a tumor or a hamburger in the mother’s stomach.

In 1973, the Supreme Court, simultaneously frivolous and arrogant, discovered constitutional significance in the fact that the number nine is divisible by three. It decreed that the status of pre-born human life changes with pregnancy’s trimesters.

(What would abortion law be if the number of months of gestation were a prime number — seven or 11?)

The court followed this preposterous assertion with faux humility, insisting it could not say when life begins. Then, swerving back to breathtaking vanity, it declared when “meaningful” life begins — “viability,” when the fetus “is potentially able” to survive outside the womb.

When life begins is a scientific, not a philosophic or theological, question: Life begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with those of the ovum, forming a distinctive DNA complex that controls the new organism’s growth. This growth process continues unless a natural accident interrupts it, or it is ended by the sort of deliberate violence Planned Parenthood sells.

Another video shows the craftsmanship of Planned Parenthood’s abortionists — tiny limbs and hands from dismembered babies. To the craftsmen, however, these fragments are considered mere organic stuff. People who proclaim themselves both pro-choice and appalled by the videos are flinching from the logic of their extremism.

Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood’s president, apologizes “for the tone” of her operatives’ chatter about crushing babies. But the tone flows from Planned Parenthood’s premise: Why be solemn about meat?

Even partial-birth abortion is — must be — a sacrament in the Church of “Choice.” This sect knows that its entire edifice depends on not yielding an inch on its insistence that what an abortion kills never possesses a scintilla of moral significance.

In partial-birth abortion, a near-term baby is pulled by the legs almost out of the birth canal, until the base of the skull is exposed so the abortionist can suck out its contents.

During Senate debates on this procedure, three Democrats were asked: Suppose a baby’s head slips out of the birth canal — the baby is born — before the abortionist can kill it. Does the baby then have a right to live? Two of the Democrats refused to answer. The third said the baby acquires a right to life when it leaves the hospital.

The nonnegotiable tenet in today’s Democratic Party catechism is not opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline or support for a $15 minimum wage. These are evanescent fevers. As the decades roll by, the single unshakable commitment is opposition to any restriction on the right to inflict violence on pre-born babies.

So today there is a limitless right to kill, and distribute fragments of, babies that intrauterine medicine can increasingly treat as patients. We are wallowing in this moral swamp because the Supreme Court accelerated the desensitization of the nation by using words and categories about abortion the way infants use knives and forks — with gusto, but sloppily.

Because Planned Parenthood’s snout is deep in the federal trough, decent taxpayers find themselves complicit in the organization’s vileness. What kind of a government disdains the deepest convictions of citizens by forcing them to finance what they see in videos — Planned Parenthood operatives chattering about bloody human fragments?

“Taxes,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., “are what we pay for civilized society.” Today they finance barbarism. (George Will)

And the Leftists Holy Agenda that shall not be questioned or deterred at any level and The Republicans have no conviction (as usual) to stop them.

Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois bucked his Republican colleagues yesterday and sided with Senate Democrats to keep taxpayer money flowing to Planned Parenthood. Kirk, who has a 25 percent rating from NARAL (the nation’s leading pro-abortion group), defended his vote to sustain the Democratic filibuster on the grounds that Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts in his home state of Illinois.

(Kirk had a 100 percent rating from NARAL back in 2003, but NARAL reduced his rating to 25 percent after he opposed the provision of Obamacare that allowed for taxpayer funding of abortion. Kirk has said he is against such public funding, even though he remains pro-abortion. Which just shows you how extreme the Left is about adherence to their Agenda.)

“In other states tissue donation programs should be investigated but in Illinois there is no similar program,” Kirk said in a statement to The Hill. “I do not plan to cut access to basic health care and contraception for women, the majority of whom have no other resources.”

 

Apparently, it was of no consequence to the senator that Planned Parenthood illegally sells baby parts in the United States, the country whose laws Kirk has sworn to defend.

Illinois is his country. His bread and butter, and it’s very Liberal. So as a matter of survival for his political career he does what a politicians does best– narcissism.

So then, Illinois is an Island. 🙂

The Agenda is The Agenda…and I just hate women and want them to suffer, obviously. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Hook

Warming: The U.N.’s climate chief is scheduled to visit Australia, where she’ll be welcomed by an advisor of the prime minister who isn’t mincing words in explaining to his countrymen what their guest is all about.

Mind you they used Orwellian tactics to change it from “Global Warming” to the non-descript “Climate Change” to avoid the embarrassments of things like it snowing on their conferences or Flagstaff,AZ getting hit with snow in early May.

Maurice Newman, chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s Business Advisory Council, doesn’t seem too thrilled about the visit from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Writing in the Australian, Newman said the “climate catastrophists” are “opposed to capitalism and freedom” and aim to establish a “new world order under the control” of the United Nations.

The British Telegraph reports that Newman’s critics describe him as a “whacko.” But he is correct: The goal of those who want the world to believe that man’s carbon dioxide emissions are dangerously changing the climate is to pull down capitalism. And that’s not us saying it. Figueres herself has admitted this.

“This is the first time” in history, she said earlier this year, that there’s a chance “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

See The Watermelon analysis.

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/just-say-no-to-watermelons/

Watermelon Environmentalist: Behind all the acronyms and the jargon, they say, is a conspiracy to promote a nakedly political aim – anti-big business; anti-free market; pro-tax increases. In short, green on the outside but red on the inside…

Newman points this out in his op-ed, warning fellow Australians that “the real agenda is concentrated political authority.” Global warming? It’s merely “the hook.”

He also notes that Figueres “is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.”

Newman courts even more criticism when he boldly states that in Figueres’ “authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or disagreement.”

He adds: “Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travelers.”

Such comments will surely get him removed from many cocktail party invitation lists, but the price for being right is often stiff.

Newman also noted that those he describes as “eco-catastrophists”:

• “Won’t let up” and “have captured the U.N. and are extremely well funded.”

• “Will keep mobilizing public opinion using fear and appeals to morality.”

• “Have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.”

Newman could have mentioned, as well, that while many who are aligned with Figueres are motivated, as she is, by a raging desire to quash capitalism, the fight against man-made global warming and climate change has become a religious crusade for more than a few.

Count another U.N. climate chief among them. The freshly resigned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said earlier this year that “the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems, is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” His religion.

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse made a similar remark a year later. “When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science,” she wrote.

The global warming/climate change debate should not be driven by religion or a loathing toward free-market economies. It should be about science.

On that count, the skeptics and doubters have the advantage. As Newman reminds us, “95% of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”

Newman did his countrymen a favor by alerting them to Figueres and those who hold similar if not identical beliefs, and push the same false agenda. Now they need to do their part and heed his warning.

James Lovelock, the scientist who brought us the Gaia theory that Earth is a living being.

On MSNBC three years ago, he said that environmentalists have created a “green religion” that “is now taking over from the Christian religion.” He admitted then: “We don’t know what the climate is doing.”

We don’t know what the climate is doing because it doesn’t ask our permission or respond much to our input. To think otherwise is to believe in a fairy tale.
Or a Politically motivated “religion” disguised as “concern” and “science” as most Liberal things are. It’s also the endorsed religion of the Left. This holy writ and holy mantra is Politically Correct and any heretic who strays from the truth must be put down.

Now that’s Science, for you. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Just say “NO” to Watermelons

 Picture of watermelons for sale at the wholesale fruit market in Lima

Watermelon Environmentalists Cause Global Warming

UN Communists Hide In Global Warming Trojan Horse

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political

system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

Brett Stevens was both humorous and thought-provoking when he announced a while

back that “Liberalism Caused Global Warming.” I have political evidence that suggests

that he may have even had an empirical point. You see there are two types of

environmental activists. Honest ones believe that the government should assume greater

powers in order to prevent environmental pollution from doing terrible things to people

and places they care about. Dishonest environmental activists (AKA Watermelons*) just

believe the government should get more power over the lives and wallets of the citizenry.

The environment provides an excellent vehicle to usurp power and control the property

of other citizens.

United Nations Climate Chief Christiana Figueres is clearly a dishonest environmental

activist. She informs us that Communist China, the world’s leading source of CO2

pollution for several consecutive years since 2007, has the right type of governmental

system to fight Global Warming. This can only bring me back to questioning why

Christiana Figueres calls herself an environmentalist. If she wants to reduce the extent to

which human pollution could potentially warm the terrestrial climate, she should not

encourage the world emulate a nation that emits 25% of the world’s industrial CO2

pollution on an annual basis. Not only that, they get about 25% as much GDP per ton of

CO2 as the United States and about 13% as much GDP per ton of CO2 as Germany or

Japan.

To demonstrate just how wrong Christiana Figueres and her cohorts at the UN truly are,

we look at two pieces of data. The United States Government tracks CO2 pollution by

nation, by year at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. They are properly

diligent in making this data available to the public. The table below** displays the

world’s top 10 CO2 polluters by nation for 2010.

Rank Nation Metric Tons CO2
1 China 2259856
2 USA 1481608
3 India 547811
4 Russia 474714
5 Japan 319257
6 Germany 203268
7 Iran 155880
8 Korea 154777
9 Canada 136116
10 UK 134580

We then compare these pollution stats to how much economic output each of these

polluter nations produces. The World Bank tracks national GDPs by country by year.

The 2010 GDPs in Base Year USD $M for each top 10 CO2 polluter nation follows below.

Rank Nation GDP USD $M
1 USA 14,582,400
2 China 5,878,629
3 Japan 5,497,813
4 Germany 3,309,669
6 UK 2,246,079
9 India 1,729,010
10 Canada 1,574,052
11 Russia 1,479,819
14 Korea, Rep. 1,014,483
29 Iran 331,015

So to finish walking the dog on this analysis, we can take the GDP and divide it by the

polluter nation’s CO2 emissions***. This allows us to evaluate what trade-off we make

every time one of the top 10 CO2 polluters emits another ton. Lower dollar figures

indicate a greater environmental cost per dollar of GDP produced. It can also allow us to

run back-of-the-envelope experiments such as determining how much CO2 China or

Japan would have to emit to produce the US 2010 GDP. My own tabulation of this

experiment follows below.

Rank Nation $M GDP/Tons CO2 Tons CO2 to Produce US GDP
1 Japan 17.221 846,797.313
2 UK 16.690 873,744.598
3 Germany 16.282 895,598.709
4 Canada 11.564 1,261,011.681
5 USA 9.842 1,481,608.000
6 Korea 6.554 2,224,798.370
7 India 3.156 4,620,215.668
8 Russia 3.117 4,677,916.308
9 China 2.601 5,605,749.935
10 Iran 2.124 6,867,074.036

If Christiana Figueres were to arrive in New York and announce that the United States

had a lot to learn from other countries in reducing CO2 pollution per unit of wealth

produced, I would find her obnoxious but impossible to refute. She veers into the

self-serving Leftist stupid when she claims we should be learning it from the Communist

Chinese. The top 10 CO2 polluter nations produced about $37.5 Trillion in national

wealth. At the USA’s rate of CO2 pollution, these nations would have emitted 3.8 Million

Tons. At Japan’s rate, they would collectively emitted 2.2 Million Tons; at China’s

rate….14.5 million.

Pace Christiana Figueres; the United States needs to learn and do better on this issue.

Contra the dishonest, UN Watermelon Environmentalist, we sure don’t need to be

learning from a Communist dictatorship. If we accepted her prescription, and the UN

was truly correct about CO2 impacts on terrestrial climate, then Watermelon

Environmentalists would cause Global Warming.

*- Watermelon Environmentalist: Behind all the acronyms and the jargon, they say, is a conspiracy to promote a nakedly political aim – anti-big business; anti-free market; pro-tax increases. In short, green on the outside but red on the inside..
** – (HT:HTML.am) for the table source code.
***- We’ll call this our Dead Millibear Index (HT:Al Gore)

corruption

1989 Flashback to Apocolypse

We are now living 15 years after the global warming apocalypse.

Well, at least according to a top United Nations official who warned that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth” by the year 2000 if nothing was done to stop global warming.

Well, they weren’t wipe out by nature, but they were wiped out by Liberals. But I am glad that didn’t happen so we can just forget about all this Global Warming crap then, eh? 🙂

The dire warning came from a top U.N. official in 1989, warning that mankind only had a 10-year window to stop global warming before it went beyond human ability to reverse. But 15 years after the warning, no nations have been wiped off the planet because of global warming, and global temperatures have not warmed nearly as much as most climate models predicted.

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

Brown, who was the director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, warned that “[c]oastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Brown added that “governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human” ability to stop it.

But 2000 came and went with little fanfare, and not a single nation has been “wiped out” or even come close.

The New York Times reported last November that global warming-induced food shortages had already toppled governments, but then quickly retracted the remark because the claim is not true.

But it made them feel good. Disasters make Liberals feel good for some reason.

U.N. officials and climate scientists, however, are still warning that sea level rise threatens to flood coastal cities and that more extreme weather events will create millions of climate refugees.

15 years later and they are still waiting for their own apocalypse, isn’t that cute.

“Climate change is a threat to our very existence,” writes Michael Møller, acting head of U.N.’s Geneva office. “Wherever we live and whatever we do. We all contribute to it. And we all have a responsibility to do something about it.”

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! OMG! WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF YOU DON’T SUBJECT TO OUR ABSOLUTE RULE IMMEDIATELY! 🙂

The U.N. and other groups are calling for countries to drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions to avoid warming of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era.

Except for China, the #1 Polluter because China has told them to piss off!

“We have no time to waste, and much to gain by moving quickly down a lower-carbon pathway. All countries must be part of the solution if we are to stay below the 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise threshold,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement.

SUBMIT OR DIE!  (kinda sounds like ISIS). 🙂

The International Energy Agency says that 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions must be cut to avoid warming over 2 degrees Celsius — meaning that fossil fuels would either have to be totally revamped or done away with completely to meet the 2 degree threshold.

Boy Horse and Buggy sales will skyrocket! And Candles will make a come back. But how will I power my iPhone by wind power?

“A continuation of current trends – which saw overall electricity emissions increase by 75% between 1990 and 2011, due to rising demand but little change in emissions intensity – would dangerously drive up electricity-related emissions,” IEA found in a recent report.

But what the U.N. and IEA leave out is that carbon dioxide emissions stemming from fossil fuel use has skyrocketed since 2000 — the predicted doomsday. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have grown from about 370 parts per million in 2000 to more than 400 parts per million in February 2015.

But while CO2 concentrations have skyrocketed, global average temperatures have stagnated for the last 15 to 20 years depending on what measurements are used. Surface temperature data shows little to no warming trend for the last 15 years or so.

Satellite data, which measures the lowest parts of Earth’s atmosphere, shows warming stalled for more than 18 years.  (DC)

So you must submit to our Liberal fascist will or die!

Do not think, just do, do now!

Or Else!

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Dana Summers
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Compromise & Ice Ages

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Sources tell me that  budget negotiators on Capitol Hill have tentatively agreed on a deal that would involve at least $33 billion in spending cuts from this year’s budget.  That’s $23 billion dollars more than Democrats have previously agreed to in short-term continuing resolutions, and $28 billion less than Republicans previously passed in the House. (ABC)

WUSS!!!

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

April 23rd: Easter Sunday.

Time for the “The Spring Egg Hunt.” 🙂

The Spring Bunny lays eggs.

Nice stinky Liberal ones.

Comment on Brooklyn Heights blog on their hunt:

David on Middagh : I think it’s because “Easter” derives from the name of a pagan goddess. I’m sure that not all who might wish to participate are pagans.
<<Barf bag on standby>>
Another Comment: I find PC Euphemisms far more offensive than “Easter” or “Christmas” In fact I find the whole “PC” mindset thoroughly nauseating.
AMEN!!
************
NEW ICE AGE
On the heels of the pronouncement by one of the gurus of global warming that any decrease in the earth’s temperature could be a thousand years away, another scientist has stepped forward with the warning that a new Ice Age could be right around the corner. Professor Tim Flannery, the head of Australia’s Climate Change Commission, sparked the latest scandal in the global warming community when he recently declared, “If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet’s not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years.” As reported previously for The New American, Prof. Flannery has endeavored to ameliorate the effects of his comment by claiming that temperatures would begin to drop by the end of the century, but his millenarian prognostications served to highlight the ineffectiveness — even insignificance — of the proposed draconian reductions in the world’s industrial activity.However, if George Kukla is correct, the cooling which Flannery and his cohorts desire may be coming in spades. Kukla, a retired professor of paleoclimatology at Columbia University, believes the Earth is no overdue for an Ice Age. An article by Terrence Aym (“Prepare for new Ice Age now says top paleoclimatologist”) at Helium.com sets forth some of Kukla’s argument:

The “Earth has experienced an ongoing cycle of ice ages dating back millions of years. Cold, glacial periods affecting the polar to mid-latitudes persist for about 100,000 years, punctuated by briefer, warmer periods called interglacials,” Kukla says.
Co-author of an important section of the book “Natural Climate Variability on Decade to Century Time Scales,” Kukla asserts all Ice Ages strat [sic] with a period of global warming. They are the the harbingers of new Ice Ages. Actually, he explains, warming is good. Ice Ages are deadly and may even kill millions.
Can Mankind stop it? No. Just as humanity cannot affect the long term climate of the planet, neither can it stop an Ice Age from happening. The climate is primarly [sic] driven by the sun.

Kukla has been warning of the possibility of new Ice Age for some time, and the cycle which he and other scientists believe may drive the process of climate change has been observed since at least the 1920s. Eleven years ago, Kukla gave a brief summary of his view on the cause of climate change for an article published by the Columbia University News:

In fact, the geologic record reveals that Earth has experienced an ongoing cycle of ice ages dating back millions of years. Cold, glacial periods affecting the polar to mid-latitudes persist for about 100,000 years, punctuated by briefer, warmer periods called interglacials. The Holocene is just another interglacial that is more than half over, Kukla said.
It turns out that this ongoing cycle of glaciation closely matches cyclic variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun, leading many researchers to conclude that orbit drives glaciation. This correspondence between orbit and climate is called the Milankovich cycle, after the scientist who analyzed and popularized it in the 1920s.
“I feel we’re on pretty solid ground in interpreting orbit around the sun as the primary driving force behind ice-age glaciation. The relationship is just too clear and consistent to allow reasonable doubt,” Kukla said. “It’s either that, or climate drives orbit, and that just doesn’t make sense.”

Kukla claims that 116,000 years have passed since the last Ice Age; therefore, if the theory is correct, Earth would be overdue for global cooling.

Of course, Kukla is not the only advocate of a theory of a new Ice Age; the difference between him and some very prominent promoters of the theory is that his model does not recognize any connection between such an event and human activity. Obama’s science ‘czar,’ John Holdren, coauthored a book with Paul Ehrlich in 1971 predicting that “global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.” Now, the doom and gloom crowd have completely reversed their assessment of the disaster which they claim will soon befall the human race, but the “solution” remains the same: Devastate the human species.

As the global warming theory has withered under public scrutiny in the aftermath of the Climategate and Glaciergate scandals, the theory’s proponents have been dashing around looking for a way to push their agenda. Last year, Holdren tried to adjust the language of the climate change debate by promoting a new terminology of “global climate disruption.” The cultivated ambiguity of Holdren’s new phraseology permits virtually any anomalous weather activity to constitute “proof” of their theory—rendering the theory incapable of being falsified, which is usually a fine indicator of pseudoscience.

Thus, Kukla’s theory of a new Ice Age is utterly different from the Holdren/Ehrlich’s “new Ice Age” of the 1970s, or the “global warming” scare which has predominated in the circles of scientific apocalypticism in recent decades. If Kukla is right, the Ice Age will come according to its own schedule, and there’s nothing that the human race can do about it—except, of course, for enjoying the brief warming that precedes the big chill. (New American)

Remember, in 1975 the whackos who are screaming about Global Warming were talking about a coming Ice Age, until they decided it wasn’t working so they switched tacts.

But at least we have Spring Egg Hunts and Winter Festival Trees and Republican who can stick to their convictions… 😦

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers