Read here. One of the great benefits of a free market and consumer choice is the economic incentive it provides innovators. As a result, our capitalistic-based society continues to be a cornucopia of better technology that is more efficient and better for the environment.
The iPhone has become a classic example of innovation that reveals capitalism to be the best engine for improving sustainability objectives.
Simply put, those green activists, the United Nations' apparatchiks, big government politicos and all the world's bureaucrats in combination have done far less for environmental quality than what the free market of choices and innovation have done.
And as we discussed in a previous article, the U.S. leads the world in reducing CO2 emissions, and did so without the burden of the stifiling and corruption-tainted 'stinking' CO2/carbon regulations that the EU has failed miserably with and Australia is now embracing.
Look again at the adjacent image, closely. Now, ask yourself: "which EU bureaucrat or Australian regulator produced the iPhone?" Oh....that's right....the bureucrats were busy working on their own hot innovation....you know, those marvelous innovations that always are heavily subsidized by the low income taxpayers to help the wealthy taxpayers buy.
Read here. The United Nations and European Union elites and bureaucrats must possess that unique combination of being idiot-savants and pathological liars. The people that continue to massively mismanage the global economy and financial markets, also claim that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for CO2 emissions was a resounding success. It was sooooo successful that they now want a Kyoto II.
In fact, the empirical evidence clearly shows the Kyoto Protocol to be an abysmal failure. Instead of reducing CO2 emissions by 5.2% of the 1990 base year, actual 2010 CO2 emissions were some 46% higher and 2011 emissions are likely to be even higher. The UN and EU experts predicted the 5.2% reduction by year 2012.
Did we say abysmal failure yet? (click on any above chart to enlarge)
The leftmost chart at top is total global CO2 emissions starting in 1965. Despite the UN and EU forcing the majority of countries to become Kyoto signatories, the CO2 emissions just kept on growing.
The middle chart reveals that the U.S., without signing or agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol, reduced per capita emissions the most. The EU, the principal Kyoto promoter, failed to match the U.S. accomplishments - completely opposite of what the UN experts predicted.
The final chart on the right documents the vast superiority of the U.S. free market approach to CO2 emissions: over the 2-year period ending 2010, the U.S. has robustly led the world in reducing emissions, without the penalty of the failed Kyoto regulations.
However, this incredible failure of a predicted outcome by the EU/UN elites is not admitted to. Instead, their mass stupidity, self-delusion and arrogance has pushed them to propose the Kyoto II protocols. Simply amazing.
This gross failure of the Kyoto has an additional twist. At the time the Kyoto Protocol was being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, one of today's infamous Climategate's scientist estimated that if all countries signed and actually reduced emissions by 5.2% the impact on global warming would be an almost immeasurable 0.05 degree reduction.
"There has been some discussion over the years regarding Tom Wigley’s 1998 estimate that even if Kyoto were to be 100% successful in meeting its targets, it would only have reduced temperatures by an estimated 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050. Since Wigley was and is a strong supporter of Kyoto, this was a significant admission. Kyoto has been a crazy waste of money, Kyoto nations have spent billions and billions of dollars on the off-chance of cooling the earth by an amount too small to be measured..."
Conclusion: All the EU elites have managed to accomplish is to waste their taxpayer billions on regulations that don't work, destroyed multiple EU economies and the EU currency in the process, while making sure to enrich wealthy investors and corrupt friends in bogus green energy scams. Simply brilliant, no?
Read here. Wikileaks, the organization dedicated to exposing the dark underbelly of big government, has published documents regarding the UN's climate program known as the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM). In essence, the program has been an abject failure bordering on flagrant corruption.
"What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce,” says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. “In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading,” Filzmoser says."
Obviously, the CDM program had two principal functions, neither of which concerned a better environment. The first was to enhance the investment profitability of wealthy "green" investors; the second being a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers of advanced countries to countries incapable of producing their own prosperity without some form of subsidized theft.
The entire climate change endeavor sponsored by the United Nations is essentially a gigantic fraud, propelled by leftists and greens dedicated to no growth, no prosperity policies. The actual quotes from "elites" who support the UN's "green" policies confirms everything that Wikileaks is now discovering.
Read here. The coalition of lefts/greens have proposed an Australian policy that would allow utility/govt bureaucrats to remotely switch off energy intensive items in the home at their discretion. If allowed, this would be the first step towards eventual complete control of each consumer's power consumption, including the entire blackout of residences at certain times.
The fact that this policy has even seen the light of day in a free market, democratic country attests to the politician's desire for sheer control over the masses. The rationale that the politician provides is that CO2 emissions are behind the global warming that also needs to be "controlled."
Of course, the fact that global warming in the Southern Hemisphere is non-existent has not deterred the radical greens and the control-freak politicians from embracing dictatorial, non-market, anti-consumer policies.
Until Australian voters eliminate the green scourge coursing through the body politic there, it will remain an unstable climate dangerous to both consumer quality of life and business growth.
Read here. As the IPCC's quest for the holy grail of reduced CO2 has assumed the feeling of a Monty Python movie, the UN is now turning its focus on other human factors that likely affect global temperatures, including black soot. Besides changing the focus, this new UN study makes an amazing admission of CO2-mitigation futility:
"A fairly aggressive strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions under current reduction scenarios "does little to mitigate warming over the next 20 to 30 years," the study said. With carbon dioxide reductions alone, global temperatures are still projected to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2050 over pre-industrial levels."
It would appear the UN's 'killer CO2' has now officially become the new 'killer bunny'..."runaway, runaway, runaway!"...To where though? Hollywood? Perfect.
Although it has taken the UN several decades and hundreds of billions of wasted CO2 climate research funding, at least they are now turning their sights on human climate influences, such as black soot, that have a legitimate expectation of being controlled and reduced, without devastating the global economy.
That's a lot to read but represents only a small portion of the articles written about "green" corruption, especially regarding activities involved with cap and trade schemes. The cap and trade dollar potential is gigantic, and as it turns out, can easily be leveraged and manipulated with a variety of corrupt tactics.
What do organized crime, Goldman Sachs, Gore, and Soros all have in common? If you think it's their desiring a better planet, you've definitely got your head up your arse with blinkers on.
If you prefer viewing instead of reading, take the time to watch these videos about what 'cap and trade' is really about.
The cap and trade (energy bill) legislation sponsored by Sens. Kerry, Boxer, Lieberman and L. Graham, that is currently stalled in the Senate, proposes that the U.S. enforce CO2 reductions of 17% by 2020 and 83% by 2050, based on year 2005's emissions. As the red line on the above chart portrays, U.S. emissions continue to contribute to global warming, despite the 83% cut by 2050. The simple facts are, the U.S. emissions will always increase temperatures unless they are cut to absolute zero.
Of more interest, is the incredibly tiny impact the cutting 83% of U.S. emissions has. One would think, based on all the global warming anti-CO2 propaganda, that a huge cut in emissions would have a significant and worthwhile impact - it ain't so, though.
The chart's black line represents the global temperature increase of 0.26°C by 2100 if the U.S. allowed emissions to remain at the 2008 level (since 2003, U.S. annual emissions have been essentially flat, with no CO2 regulations). The red line represents the combined impact of the 17% and 83% emissions cut, which by 2100, the temperature increase would be 0.099°C. For the subtraction challenged, that's a ludicrously small difference of about 0.17 degrees between a "do nothing" strategy versus an all out war on U.S. CO2 emissions strategy.
And, if one beleives the IPCC and its climate models (C3 doesn't), the global temperature could increase some 8°C by 2100 anyways, as depicted on the top of the chart. If that's the case, a 0.17 degree difference is what accountants would call grossly "immaterial."
Now that we know what an 83% CO2 cut means, what would this Democratic, Al Gore-type profiteering, environmental jihadists' war on CO2 cost Americans? Forcing America to cut emissions by 83% would cost Americans from $2.5 to $4.5 trillion in new energy taxes, and the potential economic losses would range from $5 to $10 trillion, depending on which study one believes. With the known outcome to be only a tiny reduction of 17 one-hundredths of a degree, versus a zero dollar cost of doing nothing that produces similar results, the enactment of such CO2 reduction legislation could best be summarized in one word: insanity.
Note: The above analysis results are similar to those generated by a climate model, as described in this masterful article. How does our above analysis differ? We did it the old fashioned way, by simply using historical CO2 emissions data and past temperature data as inputs to an Excel spreadsheet with some formulas.
Here are the key assumptions and data to do your own back-of-the-envelope calculations:
1. IPCC global warming science claims human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years (not likely, but we'll assume it for this analysis).
2. IPCC global warming science claims that all warming since WWII is the result of human CO2 emissions (not likely, but we'll it assume for this analysis).
3. Since January 1, 1960, approximately 1 trillion tons of human CO2 have been emitted, globally.
4. Since January 1, 1960, global temperatures have increased by approximately 0.50°C.
5. Based on this 50 year experience and its data, this means that a single ton of human CO2 emitted causes a global temperature increase of approximately 0.00000000000050°C.
6. The U.S. CO2 emissions in 2005 were 5,994,000,000 tons.
7. The U.S. CO2 emissions in 2008 were 5,833,000,000 tons.
Video's here. As only Glenn Beck could, he chalkboards the incredible entanglement of people and organizations of the Left (Progressives/Socialists/Unions/Marxists/Democrats) behind the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). Literally, the entire CCX endeavor collapses if 'cap & trade' legislation isn't passed and the potential lost profit opportunities exceed trillions per year for the Left's patrons.
There are a total 7 parts to the two videos and well worth the time invested to view as an aid to clarifying what actually is being attempted. It is truly mind-boggling that the mainstream media has been virtually silent on the machinations, on the groups and on the people behind the CCX. Just more proof that old media is dying because it continually fails to serve the public's interest.
Despite the U.S. government temperature data indicating that the continental
U.S. and the state of New Mexico are both cooling over the past 12 years, the liberal
Democrats of New Mexico have decided to implement legislation to fight
the fake "global warming." Why?
By introducing CO2 emission
legislation that will have zero temperature impact on their state, or
the U.S., New Mexico's Democrats hope is to raise additional revenues. It's
honestly not about global warming nor climate change; for Democrats, it's about
revenues, control, and power - simple as that. (click on image to enlarge)
"Fast forward to 2010. New
Mexico has decided to go it alone and unilaterally pass its own Cap and
Trade program, making it the only state in the country to ignore the
federal decision on this issue. More specifically, NM Governor Bill
Richardson and his lame-duck administration have decided to use
administrative process alone to force through Cap and Trade, and even
bypass our state legislature."
Read here. Of course, we are somewhat biased ourselves about this report. The C3 editor was one of some forty plus individuals reviewing the IPCC chapters for non-compliance.
Since the world was told by the mainstream media, big-government leftists, and environmental fanatical activists that the IPCC climate reports were based on peer-researched science, Donna Laframboise of the No Frakking Consensusblog decided to conduct an audit of those claims. End result? Close to 50% of the IPCC report's chapters are not based on scientific research/evidence, but instead are based on anecdotal opinions and hearsay from the global warming alarmists and environmental activists - a science travesty, so-to-speak.
"21 of 44 chapters [48%] in the United Nations' Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card we are releasing today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed....Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "grey literature."....We've been told this report is the gold standard. We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal."
The United Nations has always been a byzantine institution of
little value and of extraordinary waste. The recent U.N. sponsored
climate studies and conferences have certainly provided ample evidence
of these traits, with the U.N. consumed only with a political agenda of gaining a
world governance position for itself that controlling CO2 emissions
Read here. The entire article about global warming and the changing scientific and political environment from the German viewpoint is a fascinating read. The explanation of the genesis of the magical 2°C maximum limit that world leaders would stop global warming at is enlightening, besides being incredibly alarming (my god, the political class elites are really this stupid?).
Literally, the top scientists pulled a number out of the proverbial hat that they thought politicians could grasp. The traumatic world economic changes proposed by political leaders to "solve" global warming is based on a "consensus" fantasy number for political and public relation reasons, only.
"All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren't terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets....For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization....It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with."
"Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, "life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible."...."But this is scientific nonsense. "Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.""
Read here. The U.S. free market approach to energy efficiency does a superior job at reducing CO2 emissions than the 'cap n' trade', heavily regulated, Kyoto-style approach favored by the EU, the UN, and of course, the enlightened, big tax/big govt, Obama regime.
Despite the better results achieved by the U.S. approach, Obama and his academic accomplices want to make it even more painful - $7 to $9.00 per gallon gas - for U.S. consumers, so we can all be like those inefficient, wasteful, polluting, hypocritical EU'ers. (click image to enlarge)
Read here. Richard Tol is a world expert who has been involved with the IPCC's previous reports. In a series of posts at Roger Pielke Jr's blog he has been examining bias within the IPCC report, specifically the "Working Group III" report and has found it wanting (see below).
His last sentence is the one that begat the headline for this C3 post: "Dr Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research was one of the lead authors of Chapter 11 where most of the “errors” originate. He has since been appointed as the co-chairperson of WG3 for the Fifth Assessment Report of 2014."
"The Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group 2 (II) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been widely criticised for being overly pessimistic about the impacts of climate change. The IPCC has admitted that errors were made, but argues that the mistakes were just that. However, all errors point in one direction: alarmism about climate change. This suggests, at least, an inadvertent bias....In the previous guest posts, I argue that Working Group 3 (III) also contains mistakes, and that most errors point in one direction: optimism about the impacts of climate policy. The other mistakes reveal the inability of the IPCC to constructively engage with valid criticism."
"In sum, the review process of the IPCC failed miserably. AR4 of WG3 substantially and knowingly misrepresents the state of the art in our understanding of the costs of emission reduction. It leads the reader to the conclusion that emission reduction is much cheaper and easier than it will be in real life."
Read here. As the world population grows, more food will need to be produced on less hospitable agricultural lands and climates. It is well known that environmental fanatics like Paul Erlich, Stephen Schneider, and Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, most likely would not shed a tear for the billions who would starve.....
Readhere. The infamousClimategate(and other 'Gate') scientists and government agencies, which have been exposed as scientific charlatans and false prophets of climate doom, have devised a coordinated,PR propaganda campaignthat puts a public face on their continuing denial of the exposed scientific malfeasance associated with global warming science.This public exposure of malfeasance has resulted, for climate scientists, climate agencies and global warming activists, an immense credibility loss, and has severely damaged the reputation of the overall science community.
Here is how a relatively small group of climate scientists and their facilitators (i.e., IPCC, Al Gore, George Soros, etc.) managed to accomplish this almost impossible to do achievement:
1. Willfully sensationalized global warming hypothetical, catastrophic scenarios.
Read here. Major corporations that join big government in an effort to control and manage and tax the economy, energy, healthcare and the climate are the true enemies of Americans' freedoms and liberties. Much like how Hitler and his National Socialism associates provided business/financial incentives to German executives to participate in the Nazi regime, we now have large corporations being incentivized to join forces with Obama's statist policies, which are the antithesis of free market principles, and individual free choice.
Shell Oil is a major corporate player that has eagerly turned to this dark side, literally betraying its customers, individuals and small businesses with its support of 'cap & trade'. To see how the Shell CEO rationalizes this type of behavior, read the article - it's excellent.
"This is just a green variant of what Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit,” the belief that the “best and brightest” know what the “next big thing” is, and therefore should be allowed to rig the market via mandates, taxes, and subsidies to create the infrastructure of the future. Just describing this mindset should be enough to discredit it. If Odum and others are the visionaries they profess to be, they could all make a killing just by putting their money where their collective mouth is. Instead, they lobby for policy privileges because the future they envision utterly depends on the triumph of politics over markets. Their plan would lead to a net loss of jobs and wealth..."
Oh, and btw, quit buying any Shell products if you find their anti-consumer, self-greed behavior revolting (or, any of these other corporations listed below....firms with red lines gave up on the "One" and came back to their pro-consumer senses.)
Read here and here. As Democrats and unions march in lockstep with anti-growth, anti-jobs, anti-consumer, anti-business, anti-choice and anti-democracy initiatives, it is becoming clearer that Americans are getting fed up with leftist/socialist leaders of the unions.
As more Americans come to realize that union leaders support massive energy price increases and higher corporate taxes (which will be passed onto consumers) in order to battle the fake global-warming crisis, approval of unions will plummet even further.
Read here. The revelations of IPCC scientific incompetence just keep on coming. How any rational, objective person could still maintain that the UN/IPCC effort could be rehabilitated is beyond comprehension. There is no doubt now that the UN/IPCC global warming product (propaganda?) is the antithesis of solid and accurate science.
From Richard Tol, an expert IPCC reviewer and one of the world's leading economists:
"In a number of instances, authors mainly quote their own work. This is unworthy. In a number of instances, authors mainly quote other IPCC material. This is incestuous. The quoting of IPCC material is most pronounced in the scenario discussion, which can be summarised as "We, the IPCC, declare that all previous IPCC work is great." This is silly...In many places, the authors are out of their depth; the selection of papers is haphazard, the assessment superficial. I also found too many references that are simply wrong; the authors cannot have read these papers. For a supposedly expert panel, this is very serious....In a number of instances, the draft material reads like a political manifesto rather than a scientific document. In other instances, the authors have tried to hide their political message in pseudo-scientific language. For a supposedly independent panel, this is very serious....Part of the literature review is haphazard; it seems as if the authors have not systematically searched the literature, but simple [sic] quote a few papers that happened to lie around. Another part of the literature review is severely biased; the authors quote their own work, and that of their friends, but systematically ignore the work of many authors. This is particularly true in the presentation of model results; results are shown for a subset of models only..."
Read here. This book covered many of the "Team's" efforts (duties?) that resulted in corrupting the peer-review process; evading compliance with FOIA requests that they were obligated to comply with; and, "hiding" what their research data actually indicated about warming during the late 20th century. The book did not cover though the Team effort to produce propaganda supporting global warming alarmism meme. The Climategate emails do reveal that effort (duties?) also.
"Several of the recently leaked Climategate e-mails reveal backstage manipulations to produce a propaganda tool, the Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate, intended to be unveiled at the Kyoto Climate Conference. Members of the Jones Gang from East Anglia University organized efforts to get just about anyone to sign this statement to push up the numbers. In an e-mail dated 9 October 1997, Dr. Joseph Alcamo admonishes other members of the Jones Gang to forget credentials and just get signatures."
The most recent scientist(s) propaganda effort to influence policymakers is presently unraveling with the new Glaciergate expose. The safest conclusion at this juncture is not to trust any scientist who expresses confidence ("consensus") in the science of CO2-AGW. They appear all to have been corrupted in some manner and degree.
Read here. Yesterday, we posted about Soros demanding 'cap & trade' from the Obama Administration in order to make his energy investments profitable. Sure enough, when the crooks and thugs demand Obama to jump, he asks how high. Yep, hope and change for his friends and patrons.
"But he [Secretary of Energy Chu] added that creating a cost for emitting greenhouse gases – which
would occur under an emissions-capping bill – provides a “long-term
signal” that will drive investment decisions by energy project
Read here. Well, only a few days before Massachusetts voters made it clear to everyone that more big government is not the solution, George Soros, the leftist billionaire, was asking for U.S. government guarantees for his energy investments. In this case, a new, big government law enforcing 'cap & trade' policies would be all the guarantee he needs to make his energy investments a winner. This policy would force a lot of American consumer and business dollars to flow into the Soros' owned 'cap & trade' energy solutions. And, by golly, he would even donate $100 million to an environmental policy group to help enforce the regulations - how thoughtful.
Apparently, the Obama administration has bought into the chutzpah of the leftist-speculator-criminal and is considering pushing 'cap & trade', again. Gee, I wonder why Obama would do that? Goodluck with that, guys. We'll be waiting at the ballot box if you try.
Read here. It's not only the unions that are knocking California for a loop. During 2006, California decided to pass its infamous CO2 emissions regulations, which has surely kept existing California business from expanding and new businesses being California-based. Instead, businesses are moving to Neveda and Texas to avoid the massive regulation cost and burden California imposed. With the draconian CO2 measures that literally will have no impact on global temperatures, why would any company stay in California.
"The law all but encourages outsourcing to Nevada, Texas, China and
India. Even the liberal Sacramento Bee, which supports the law, says
that policy makers should be "candid about the real costs of the
transition it is contemplating. . . . Industries that are
energy-intensive will move elsewhere....Meanwhile, a new study commissioned by
the Governor's Office of Small Business Advocacy estimates that the
direct cost of current California regulation is $175 billion, or nearly
twice the size of the state general fund budget and about $134,000 per
small business each year"
Read here, here and here. Most people, on every side of the AGW debate, would agree that chopping down a rain or boreal forest to promote development of renewable fuels is an extremely bad idea in terms of earth's climate. Unfortunately, the failure of Copenhagen also keeps these forests at risk because of the previous idiotic legislation/regulations previously agreed upon or promoted (Kyoto, cap & trade, U.S. renewable energy schemes, etc.).
Because of the Climategate scientists fraudulent science, and their propaganda of imminent world catastrophes if nothing was done about CO2 emissions immediately, it caused all the focus to be on a questionable, nebulous problem with an impossible political/economic solution, instead of actually focusing on real world climate and environment problems that could be solved. Climategate lies cause trees to die.
Read here. Many accuse the CO2-AGW skeptics of being anti-science, yet in the real world, it is the skeptics who embrace science with gusto and won't let go of it. The actual physical science of CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 levels, and subsequent influence on temperatures is very well known. To reduce it down to its simplest components, to keep global temperatures from rising a single degree Celsius means that 1.767 trillion tons of future CO2 emissions must be prevented (human CO2 mitigation) - that's the actual hard science.
The entire world of human activities produced only 32 billion tons of CO2 emissions in 2008. In order to eliminate 1.767 trillion tons of human CO2 emissions, which would prevent a 1 degree Celsius increase, the world (all of humanity) has to eliminate 100% of all CO2 emissions for 55+ years, based on 2008 figure of 32 billion tons. Yes, over 55 years of zero economic/industrial/government activity, to accomplish zero CO2 emissions, just to prevent a 1 degree increase, starting immediately.
The science is the science and there is no escaping the hard, scientific facts. There is no way to politically or economically to shut down the world's economic system for decades, let alone a couple of days, to meet an impossible, extremely dubious climate objective.
Or, in different words, CO2 mitigation will be unable to deliver practical, significant prevention of future temperature increases.
For the world's citizens, Copenhagen's sole focus on CO2 mitigation ('decarbonization') has been an exercise in galactic futility, and ostentatious waste, conducted by the hubris-challenged political elites and celebrity class, who are the antithesis of science, if not its most fervent enemies.
Read here and here. As more Climategate facts are being exposed about the temperature data fraud, the temperature scandal involving Russia appears to be a very serious case of malfeasance. Although the global warming alarmists continue to act out with blissful ignorance in Copenhagen, the whole world is watching this kabukian-styled fraud dance, and reading about what is really happening.
Read here and here. It has become fact that Obama, the leftists-liberals, and the Democrats believe they can just steal taxpayer dollars and give it to any person, company, group or country demanding a bailout. This will develop into another failedforeignaid project, chasing the trillions that were wasted in previous years. The majority of the "Copenhagen $100 billion" will end up in the corrupt despots' Swiss bank accounts or will be used to purchase military arms or wasted on other non-climatic endeavors. Very little of the $100 billion will ever be used for climate adaption purposes by the receiving countries.
At this point in the Copenhagen proceedings, there would
seem to be absolutely no benefit for China, India and Russia to continue to
kowtow to Europe or the U.S. any longer on the over-hyped climate change
issues. These three countries are....
Read here and here. Well, of course, Al Gore did not say that because he and IPCC head Pachauri would not profit from stating the truth, nor would thousands of political, NGO and business elites. But if he did, it would reflect reality: the world's official temperature records as presented to the public are fraudulent.
As Climategate has exposed, historical and modern temperatures have been excessively adjusted to literally "prove" that dangerous, non-natural global warming exists. But as more and more individuals start examining the actual original temperatures recorded, the "dangerous" warming disappears - it never existed until pro-warming, IPCC-related climate scientists got their hands on the temperature data. That's why Copenhagen COP15 is such a farce - it's not about climate or saving people's lives.
Read here. It's a corruption scandal story that won't die, which made it easier to deliver a blow that staggers the Copenhagen global governance, increased taxation, and financial profiteering desires of the political/business elite. No doubt about it, Climategate resonates with the public hugely, everywhere, as it has become more widely known that this is not about earth's climate and saving people's lives.
Read here, here, here, here, here, and here. Ever more interested researchers are making the effort to closely analyze the original, unadjusted climate data. Why now? Climategate has revealed to the world the extensive collusion and conspiracy efforts to fraudulently change the actual climate data that is being presented to policymakers as "settled" science. This IPCC sanctioned....
Read here and here. With Climategate exposing fraud and the leftist-liberal, anti-science agenda leading up to Copenhagen (COP15), attention is starting to focus on NASA. The climate researchers at NASA's GISS have funding incentives that promote a global warming agenda, which does not make for good science. Certainly GISS has had its share of temperature data presentation problems/issues and very questionable science techniques.
Here's an example of GISS using selective data in the chart starting at 1900 to promote the warming agenda. But if the entire temperature data record is shown from the year 1820, warming actually becomes cooling. (click image to enlarge)
And, here's an example of GISS 'cooking the temperature data books' to manufacture non-existent global warming. They "adjust" earlier temperatures down and "adjust" later temperatures up to produce a warming trend that is more dramatic. (click image to enlarge)
Read here. Back in March of 2009, 100+ prominent scientists sent Obama a letter that countered the claims being made by the Climategate scientists. The claims based on the AGW hypothesis were being proven wrong by the actual data and the letter writers went out of their way to provide a fair and accurate warning of the problems with the AGW claims/predictions.
They had identified a "scientific" house-of-cards and stepped up to do the right thing. Unfortunately, neither Obama, nor the "expert" sycophants advising him (the leftist-liberals drooling over new 'cap & trade' revenue streams), listened. At that time Obama could have demanded more and better scientific evidence than just more hype and hysteria. Instead, he ignored the actual science and now the climate science fraud revealed by Climategate has blown up in his face on the eve of Copenhagen. Certainly not the best-of-breed leadership qualities that's needed in today's world.
Read here. The IPCC climate scientists involved with the global warming fraud originating out of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) now report that the critical raw temperature data have been purposefully deleted, which means it may never be recovered. The only reason to delete the original,....
Read here and here. The fraud and corruption by climate scientists whom advocate human CO2-caused global warming have created a viral Internet storm as indicated by Google. The term "climategate" now gets more hits than....
Read here. The world does not need another great wealth producing country joining the anti-CO2, cult-science realm, especially with daily revelations that the IPCC has lied and its scientists committed scientific fraud. Australians should not be burying their liberties and economic freedoms based on the bogus science of global warming and hysterical hype of the mainstream press. (image source)
Read here and here. These two articles provide a clear indication of the extreme lying that is promoted at the highest levels of the Obama administration and at UN agencies, all in the name of pushing a favored political agenda to control energy supplies and prices (i.e. more tax revenues). Every scientific study, in addition to common sense, tells us that as a country's economic wealth grows, that life expectancy and overall health conditions improve exponentially, all due to the use of low cost fossil fuels. As a recent example of what happens when low cost energy becomes more expensive, here is what occurred in the UK last year during the winter: ‘Fuel bills blamed for 50% rise in winter deaths‘
Which economic-energy environment looks better for your own and loved ones' health? (click image to enlarge)
The 'Climate Liars' are promoting the life existence on the right by patently false, getting-ready-for-Copenhagen, non-stop lying.
Update: It's not only in the climate change arena that the liberal-leftists are flat-out lying; it's become the go-to strategy of Obama and Congressional Democrats on just about everything. The entire freaking Democratic Party has been ACORN-ized.
Read here. New Zealand's official climate warming is found to be totally bogus. Instead of 0.92°C trend per century, the real temperatures show only a nano-sized 0.06°C per century trend. (The bogus warming sure looks good though for Copenhagen climate-crisis hype and political reasons.)
All indications are pointing to massive corruption and science fraud by climate scientists across the world within the IPCC framework. The world's surface temperature databases need to be thoroughly audited and cleansed so that costly and disruptive policies can be made with at minimum a sound foundation of temperature data. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here and here. Read, and then re-read, those two articles by the supposed NYT liberal/leftist smart "elites," in the context of the latest climate science fraud revelations. Both Friedman and Krugman have long bought into the "consensus" climate science, without even flinching. Despite....
Read here. As large government diplomat bureaucrats get their marching orders from their own political leaders the below chart, on the left, is truly an indictment of nation-state politicians, and their view of what major world humanitarian issues need to be solved. That the major diplomats/bureaucrats consider climate change and/or global warming as the leading humanitarian challenge reflects poorly on those surveyed is definitely an understatement. The world's premier economists, on the other hand (okay, bad joke), as represented by the chart on the right below, apparently have a much better grasp on the life and death humanitarian needs of the world's citizens. To view the Copenhagen Consensus economist' priorities in solving the major humanitarian issues, go here.
Read here. As previous experts have found, promoting increased production of biofuels has many negatives, including:
Produce little or no additional energy.
Can damage vehicle engines not designed to run on ethanol.
Result in greater CO2 emissions than fossil fuel.
Causes rising food prices either directly or by competing with food crops.
Encourage clearing of forest lands.
Increase use of fertilizer leading to greater runoff and NOx emissions.
Produce less energy than simply burning the biomass to produce electricity
Are only commercially viable with government subsidies and forced use mandates.
Now add 20,000 gallons of fresh water needed for a single gallon of biofuel as another large negative that scientists have documented. This incredibly stupid idea for biofuel energy has been legislated by Congress, renowned globally for its corruption by lobbyists, and, of course, its amazing scientific idiocy. Letting these same people make any decisions on CO2 emissions, global warming and/or climate change legislation and regulation is another disaster that can be avoided - starting in 2010, all politicians supporting 'cap & trade' policies need to be voted out of office.
Read here. The Copenhagen meeting in December is potentially a human-made disaster trying to solve a pseudo, non-crisis, climate change. It appears that human trait of greed is going to strangle any agreement that is forthcoming. Let's hope.
Read here. Extrapolating from the CO2 emissions/atmosphere science presented in this article, it can be determined how many years in a row that the world would have to cease using fossil fuels in order to reduce the average global temperature by one degree Fahrenheit - it would take 31+ years of no fossil fuel energy use. In total, civilization would have to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 trillion tons, and since humans only generate 31 billion tons per year, it would thus take over 31 years to reach a 1 trillion ton cut for a measly 1 degree reduction. (The elites and the UN's IPCC are now claiming temperatures will increase 7 degrees if CO2 reduction action is not taken immediately, which means zero emissions will need to be achieved for over 200 years.)
Literally, what the political and MSM elite idiocracy are claiming needs to be done immediately to "save" the polar bears will completely destroy civilization. To reach zero CO2 human emissions, means no coal, no natural gas, no oil and no human fires. And, of course, if even one moderate sized volcano erupts during this period, that 31 years will be increased another 5 to 10 years.
In summary, zero CO2 emissions to reduce temperatures by 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6°C) within 50 years means the following:
No cars, no planes, no trains, no subways, no fuel powered ships
No modern agriculture, no modern fishing, no refrigeration
No hospitals, no vaccines, no wonder drugs, no operations
No modern law enforcement, no modern fire suppression
No TV, no radio, no movies, no print media, no Internet, no iPhone
No vacations, no recreational activities, no restaurants
No heat generation, no air conditioning
No artificial light (wonderful, go to bed at dark)
This is what the idiocracy of the elites and fanatical environmentalists will force on all humans in order to achieve a minor 1 degree global reduction. They will end the world. Why? Because simply, they are idiots who refuse to take the time to learn and understand the actual science of CO2 emissions reductions and what it means for the future. To save the world for future generations, they will sacrifice the world for future generations - there will be no civilization left as a new Dark Age period will exist.
Finally, instead of 100% CO2 emission cut, we in the U.S. could choose only the 83% cut as proposed by L.Graham-Boxer-Kerry-Waxman-Markey legislation, but what impact would that have on global temperatures? Almost nothing, as it is an insignificant 0.01°F reduction by year 2100. A trillion dollar pain, for no climate gain with a horrendous economic and cultural sacrifice. This is what the idiocracy is proposing.
Why hasn't the MSM (journalists and pundits) reported the actual science of CO2 emission reductions and the impact on civilization? Remember, many consider them the leading idiots of the "elites" idiocracy, and the self-destruction of their own industry strongly supports that view.
Read here and here. As more and more Americans learn about the tiny impact of CO2, and that climate change legislation being pushed by leftists and the U.N., commonly referred to as 'cap & trade', has nothing to do with stopping global warming and has everything to do with enriching Wall Street traders and speculators, enriching existing billionaires, and those self-righteous billionaire wannabes, the less likely this pro-billionaire, middle-class tax-raising, economic-killer, anti-liberty, and god-awful legislation will be passed. Hey, so far so good this year, and let's shoot for that "1,460 Days" - a one-term president.
President Obama and Congressional Democrats are allowing the Europeans and U.N. to impose CO2 emission restrictions on U.S. citizens. The only means to accomplish this is to raise U.S. fossil fuel energy prices significantly for the average business and consumer. In order to survive, businesses will move any, or all, operations to foreign countries that don't have a CO2 emission tax. For U.S. consumers, the Obama Administration CO2 'cap & trade' results in a huge tax caused by the inflated energy prices everyone will have to pay for products and services. (click image to view)
Read here. Western companies, such as Apple, have moved their manufacturing to China for several reasons: low wages, low electricity prices, and low environmental enforcement. It benefits people like Al Gore and Steve Jobs but for the rest of the world,....
U.S. and world politicians want greater economic control and improved means to increase taxes on its citizens. Their best way to accomplish is through causing fear of human CO2 emissions. In order to reach their control and taxing objectives, they claim human CO2 will cause every conceivable, earthly catastrophe ever thought of. Thus, economic activity must be controlled and taxed to save the world, they say. One huge problem though, the tiny amounts of human CO2 will in no way cause any of the catastrophes proclaimed by politicians - they are lying, simply stated.
Read here, here, and here. Obviously, the fear of global warming has totally shaken the foundation of rational thought and reason on the other side of the 'pond.' Sadly, Europeans have truly become the world's incompetents.
Read here. By now, just about everyone knows that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham chose to embrace the Left's/Liberal global warming hysteria, and the Democrat's devastating economic agenda to control fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, Senator Graham got fooled again when he thought he could at least get the environmentalists to agree to nuclear power in exchange for his going belly-up on controlling CO2 emissions. As the PlanetGore article indicates, the regulators and environmentalists will always find a means to stop new nuclear power construction.