Thread: Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Wednesday, 18 December 2013 15:52

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%


Written by Alex Newman






Self-styled “global-warming” guru Al Gore (shown) and a gaggle of supposed “climate scientists” have egg all over their faces — big time. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Gore publicly and very hysterically warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.” Citing “climate” experts, the government-funded BBC hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article under the headline: “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.” Other establishment media outlets did the same.


Well, 2013 is almost over, and contrary to the alarmist “predictions” by Gore and what critics refer to as his “doomsday cult,” the latest satellite data show that Arctic ice cover has actually expanded 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Experts predict the expansion to continue in the years to come, leaving global-warming alarmists scrambling fiendishly for explanations to save face — and to revive the rapidly melting climate hysteria.


In September, meanwhile, data also showed that sea ice levels in Antarctica had expanded to record levels for the second year in a row. Of course, by now, virtually everyone who has been following news about “global warming” — now more often referred to as “climate change” owing to public-relations concerns — also knows that global temperatures have not risen for some 17 years. The spectacular lack of warming demolished all 73 of the “climate models” used by the United Nations to push its controversial theories.




According to the dubious theories and predictions advanced by Al Gore and other alarmists, though, none of this should be happening. Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in 5 years.” While the original video of that particular failed prediction appears to have been scrubbed from the Internet, conservative bloggers managed to track down the same footage from other sources. “Five years,” Gore emphasized again, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”

The following year, Gore made similar claims at a UN “climate” summit in Copenhagen. “Some of the models ... suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.” Indeed, the bogus prediction appears wildly off the mark, to put it mildly, but the establishment press and Gore apparently do not want the world to find out.


In fairness, Gore was hardly the only hysterical climate-doomsday proponent to be left looking foolish. In December of 2007, the BBC highlighted alleged “modeling studies” that supposedly “indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.” Incredibly, some of the supposed “experts” even claimed it could happen before then, citing calculations performed by “super computers” that the BBC noted “has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.”


“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” claimed Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, described as researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School who was working with co-workers at NASA to come up with the now-thoroughly discredited forecasts about polar ice. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be [sic] our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Other “experts” quoted in the BBC article agreed with the hysteria.


In the real world, however, the scientific evidence demolishing the global-warming theories advanced by Gore, the UN, and government-funded “climate scientists” continues to grow, along with the ice cover in both hemispheres. In the Arctic, for example, data collected by Europe's Cryosat spacecraft pointed to about 9,000 cubic kilometers of ice at the end of the 2013 melt season. In 2012, which was admittedly a low year, the total volume was about 6,000 cubic kilometers — some 50 percent less than the 2013 total. Polar bear populations are thriving, too.


Across the southern hemisphere, the data have proved even more devastating to what supposed “climate scientists” were caught referring to as their “cause” in the deeply embarrassing ClimateGate e-mails. First, the figures from 2012 showed a record high level of sea-ice cover — more than at any point since records began in 1978. This year set another new record, with ice covering more than 19.5 million square kilometers of ocean around Antarctica by September.


Around the world, meanwhile, record low temperatures continue to make a mockery of “global warming” theories. While anecdotal, to be sure, Cairo, Egypt, just saw its first snowfall in more than 100 years. In the United States there have been thousands of new records for cold temperatures and snowfalls just in the month of December. In an extremely bizarre twist, some “climate scientists” have even started claiming that the freezing temperatures are actually more evidence of “global warming.”


To explain the universally acknowledged lack of warming over the last 17 years in defiance of all UN climate theories, government-funded “climate scientists” and the UN have increasingly touted what critics ridicule as “The Theory of The Ocean Ate My Global Warming.” Under heavy political pressure from the Obama administration and other governments, the UN ran with the theory, despite the lack of any observable evidence to suggest the deep ocean is actually eating the UN’s predicted global warming.


Appearing increasingly detached from reality to independent scientists, the UN claimed in its latest global-warming report to be 95 percent sure that human emissions of carbon dioxide were to blame for rising temperatures. Those claims, now widely laughed at around the world, were made despite the fact that every single one of its computer models has been entirely discredited by the lack of warming for the last 17 years. Many experts are now even predicting global cooling.


Top scientists and experts around the world — even many who have served on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — have been ridiculing the global outfit and its discredited “climate” report. Most governments and dictators, however, continue playing along with what some experts call the climate “charade” or “hoax,” mostly due to built-in incentives and taxpayer funds that help perpetuate the unjustified alarmism.


For third-world dictators, the goal appears to be securing trillions in Western taxpayer money under the guise of “climate” reparations and “justice.” For governments ruling wealthier nations, the end-game seems to be carbon taxes and a planetary “climate” regime with unprecedented powers over humanity. Assembled in Warsaw for the latest UN climate summit, even as the implosion of the “science” behind global-warming theories was accelerating, member regimes agreed to finalize a global climate treaty by 2015.


Polls show that despite hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars squandered on global-warming alarmism, the American public still refuses to widely accept the man-made warming theories advanced by an increasingly discredited UN and its allies. A September Rasmussen survey of likely voters, for example, found that just 43 percent of likely U.S. voters believe alleged “global warming” is caused by human activity. About the same number believe it is not.
Despite vicious attacks and threats — some of it exposed in the ClimateGate scandal — scientists are increasingly jumping off the sinking “climate” ship as well. Even some major governments are working to rein in the out-of-control alarmism, with authorities in Australia, elected in a landslide earlier this year, promising to liberate the nation from “carbon taxes” while quashing much of the taxpayer-funded “global-warming” juggernaut. Calls for prosecuting “fraud” by “climate scientists” are growing, too.



So far, despite hyping the absurd claims five years ago, the establishment press has failed to inform its dwindling readership that Al Gore and his fellow alarmists were proven embarrassingly wrong. No apologies have been forthcoming from Gore, either, and none of the “scientists” who made the ridiculous predictions has apologized or lost his U.S. taxpayer-funded job. In fact, almost unbelievably, the establishment press is now parroting new claims from the same discredited “experts” suggesting that the Arctic will be “ice-free” by 2016.
As Gore put it in 2009, “We will find out.”

Photo of Al Gore: AP Images

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.
Related articles:
Al Gore's "Climate Reality" vs. Reality
Al Gore Appeals to "Collective Will" to Solve Climate Change
Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity
Arctic Ice Expands, Dispelling Myths of Climate Change
Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling
“Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda
Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death
Despite Lack of Global Warming, UN Sure Humanity Is to Blame
Obama & Allies Tell UN to Cover for Lack of Global Warming
Amid UN Climate Deception, Experts Decry Corruption of Science
UN Climate Summit Reaches Deal for Radical Treaty by 2015




http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...ver-expands-50


It is all crap and traitor!! Money from your pocket into theirs world wide!!!!

Daily Caller News Foundation

‘MASSIVE SEIZURE OF POWER’: Climate scientists, economists challenge EPA

1:52 PM 12/18/2013


Michael Bastasch


A group of climate scientists and economists are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other stationary sources.

These critics see a “massive seizure of power” by the agency.

The scientists and economists, including the former chair of the EPA’s Science Advisory Committee, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, arguing that the agency does not have the authority to permit greenhouse gases from stationary sources. According to the group, such a permitting scheme is a “naked power grab of the most cynical sort.”

“There is no avoiding that this rule is a massive seizure of power, indeed likely far and away the largest seizure of power by any government agency ever,” reads the amicus brief.

“Under the guise of a technical statutory interpretation, the EPA now asserts it has a central role for itself to control and dictate all aspects of our lives under an over 30-year-old statutory provision never previously thought remotely to cover this subject matter,” the brief continues.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments from the EPA and some states and energy companies in February regarding the agency’s greenhouse gas permitting system. The central question of the case is, whether or not the EPA’s authority to regulate emissions from cars and trucks gives the agency the authority to set standards for stationary facilities, like power plants and refineries.

The EPA argues that it has the authority to permit stationary sources, but petitioners say that such a permitting scheme would be unworkable since greenhouse gases stem from global emissions and can’t be controlled by limiting U.S. emissions alone.

The high court’s decision will have huge implications for the energy sector and for the economies of coal states. Given that, several Republican lawmakers have injected themselves into this case, arguing that the court should rule against the EPA.

“The EPA continually attempts to sidestep Congress and expand its role in advancing a partisan political agenda,” said Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith. “The Obama administration continues to overstep its constitutional authority as it attempts to enact job-killing regulations."

Smith was joined by Kentucky’s Republican congressional delegation in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Monday. This includes Kentucky Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, as well as Republican Reps. Andy Barr, Brett Guthrie, Thomas Massie, Hal Rogers and Ed Whitfield.

The lawmakers argue that the EPA has effectively usurped Congress’s authority to write the laws by moving to regulate greenhouse gases — which was done under the Obama administration.

“Our Constitution reserves the power to enact, amend, or repeal statutes to Congress alone,” reads the lawmakers’ brief.
“The power asserted by the EPA here infringes on the constitutional prerogatives of Congress, undermines government accountability, and threatens liberty,” the brief says.

The greenhouse gas permitting scheme is a key component of President Obama’s plan to tackle global warming. It would allow the administration to fore more coal plants offline to reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which some scientists say cause global warming.
Follow Michael on Twitter and Facebook

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/ma...challenge-epa/

February 17, 2014 Climate Consensus Con Game

By S. Fred Singer
At the outset, let's be quite clear: There is no consensus about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) -- and there never was. There is not even a consensus on whether human activities, such as burning fossil fuels to produce useful energy, affect global climate significantly. So what's all this fuss about?

Let's also be quite clear that science does not work by way of consensus. Science does not progress by appeal to authority; in fact, major scientific advances usually come from outside the consensus; one can cite many classic examples, from Galileo to Einstein. [Another way to phrase this issue: Scientific veracity does not depend on fashionable thinking.] In other words, the very notion of a scientific consensus is unscientific.

The degree of consensus also depends on the way the questions are phrased. For example, we can get 100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe in climate change?" We can get a near-100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe that humans have some effect on the climate?" This latter question also would include also local effects, like urbanization, clearing of forests, agriculture, etc.

So one has to be rather careful and always ask: What is the exact question for which a consensus has been claimed?

Subverting Peer Review

Finally, we should point out that a consensus can be manufactured -- even where no consensus exists. For example, it has become very popular to claim that 97% of all publications support AGW. Here the key question to ask is: Which publications and what exactly is the form of support?

Thanks to the revelations of the Climategate e-mails, we now have a more skeptical view about the process which is used to vet publications. We know now that peer-review, once considered by many as the 'gold-standard,' can be manipulated -- and in fact has been manipulated by a gang of UK and US climate scientists who have been very open about their aim to keep dissenting views from being published. We also know from the same e-mails that editors can be bullied by determined activists.

In any case, the peer-review process can easily be slanted by the editor, who usually selects the reviewers. And some editors misuse their position to advance their personal biases.

We have, for example, the case of a former editor of Science who was quite open about his belief in DAGW, and actively discouraged publication of any papers that went against his bias. Finally, he had to be shamed into giving voice to a climate skeptic's contrary opinion, based on solid scientific evidence. But of course, he reserved to himself the last word in the debate.

My occasional scientific coauthors David Douglass (U. of Rochester) and John Christy (U. of Alabama, Huntsville) describe a particularly egregious instance of the blatant subversion of peer-review -- all supported by evidence from Climategate e-mails.

Confusing the Issue

Further, we should mention the possibility of confusing the public, and often many scientists as well, by clever use of words. I will give just two examples:

It is often pointed out that there has been essentially no warming trend in the last 15 years -- even though greenhouse forcing from carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing. At the same time, climate activists claim that the past decade is the warmest since thermometer records were started.

It happens that both statements are true; yet they do not contradict each other. How is this possible?

We are dealing here with a case of simple confusion. On the one hand we have a temperature trend which has been essentially zero for at least 15 years. On the other hand, we have a temperature level which is highest since the Little Ice Age ended, around 1800 A.D.

Note that 'level' and 'trend' are quite different concepts -- and even use different units. Level is measured in degreesC; trend is measured in degC per decade. [This is a very general problem; for example, many people confuse electric energy with electric power; one is measured in joules or kilowatt-hours; the other is measured in kilowatts.]

It may help here to think of prices on the stock market. The Dow-Jones index has more or less been level for the last several weeks, fluctuating between 15,000 and 16,000, showing essentially a zero trend; but it is at its highest level since the D-J index was started in 1896.

This is only one example by which climate activists can confuse the public -- and often even themselves -- into believing that there is a consensus on DAGW. Look at two typical recent headlines:

"2013 sixth-hottest year, confirms long-term warming: UN"
"U.S. Dec/Jan Temperatures 3rd Coldest in 30 Years"

Both are correct, but neither mentions the important fact that the trend has been flat for at least 15 years -- thus falsifying the greenhouse climate models, all of which predict a strong future warming.

And of course, government climate policies are all based on such unvalidated climate models -- which have already been proven wrong. Yet the latest UN-IPCC report of Sept 2013 claims to be 95% certain about DAGW! Aware of the actual temperature data, how can they claim this and keep a straight face?

Their laughable answer: 95% of climate models agree; therefore the observations must be wrong! One can only shake one's head sadly at such a display of "science."

Another trick question by activists trying to sell a "consensus": "If you are seriously ill and 99 doctors recommend a certain treatment, would you go with the one doctor who disagrees?"

It all depends. Suppose I do some research and find that all 99 doctors got their information from a single (anonymous) article in Wikipedia, what then?

Opinion Polls

Both sides in the climate debate have made active use of opinion polls. In 1990, when I started to become seriously involved in climate-change arguments and incorporated the SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project), I decided to poll the experts. Having limited funds, and before the advent of widespread e-mail, I polled the officers of the listed technical committees of the American Meteorological Society -- a sample of less than 100. I figured those must be the experts.

I took the precaution of isolating myself from this survey by enlisting the cooperation of Dr Jay Winston, a widely respected meteorologist, skeptical of climate skeptics. And I employed two graduate students who had no discernible expertise in climate issues to conduct the actual survey and analyze the returns.

This exercise produced an interesting result: Roughly half of the AMS experts believed there must be a significant human influence on the climate through the release of carbon dioxide -- while the other half had considerable doubt about the validity of climate models.

Subsequent polls, for example those by Hans von Storch in Germany, have given similar results -- while polls conducted by activists have consistently shown strong support for AGW. A classic case is a survey of the abstracts of nearly 1000 papers, by science historian Naomi Oreskes (UC San Diego); published in 2004 Science, she claimed a near-unanimous consensus about AGW. However, after being challenged, Oreskes discovered having overlooked some 11,000 abstracts -- and published a discreet Correction in a later issue of Science.

On the other hand, independent polls by newspapers, by Pew, Gallup, and other respected organizations, using much larger samples, have mirrored the results of my earlier AMS poll. But what has been most interesting is the gradual decline over the years in public support for DAGW, as shown by these independent polls.

Over the years also, there have been a large number of "declarations, manifestos, and petitions" -- signed by scientists, and designed to influence public opinion -- starting with the "Leipzig Declaration" of 1995. Noteworthy among the many is the Copenhagen Diagnosis (2009), published to build up hype for a UN conference that failed utterly.

It is safe to say that the overall impact of such polls has been minimal, compared to the political consequences of UN-IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) reports that led to (mostly failed) attempts at international action, like the Kyoto Protocol (1997-2012). One should mention here the Oregon Petition against Kyoto, signed by some 31,000 (mostly US) scientists and engineers -- nearly 10,000 with advanced degrees. More important perhaps, in July 1997 the US Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution against a Kyoto-like treaty by unanimous vote -- which probably dissuaded the Clinton-Gore White House from ever submitting Kyoto for Senate ratification.

Is Consensus still an issue?

By now, the question of a scientific consensus on AGW may have become largely academic. What counts are the actual climate observations, which have shaken public faith in climate models that preach DAGW. The wild claims of the IPCC are being offset by the more sober, fact-based publications of the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change). While many national science academies and organizations still cling to the ever-changing "evidence" presented by the IPCC, it may be significant that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated and published a condensation of NIPCC reports.

In the words of physicist Prof Howard "Cork" Hayden:

"If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident -- from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC's Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report)."

Climate activists seem to embrace faith and ideology -- and are no longer interested in facts.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute, and an elected Fellow of several scientific and engineering organizations. He co-authored theNY Timesbest-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings, seehttp://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/...#ixzz2tgBhnsIl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Shutting Down Climate Change Deniers for Politics and Profits

Posted 7 hours ago

It’s funny (not funny ha ha) that leftists must always be fighting against something. They must always have a bogeyman lurking in the shadows that they feel the need to defend the rest of us from.

Liberals can’t just mind their business and live their lives. It might be the mythical separation of church and state, homosexual marriage, or a “woman’s right to choose.” No matter what the wacky cause du jour, there must always be a straw dog oppressor or denier.

Leftists will fight until they get what they want – although it’s hard to tell if they’ve won because they never seem satisfied.
It is, however, easier to know when they are losing. They get even wackier, even more absurd. So I wasn’t surprised when in Britain a government minister (official) wishes simply to “shut down” all dissenting views about climate change.

Andrew Miller, a Minister of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, recently said, “There are dissenting voices inside the government machine… Frankly, the role of a Minister is either to accept collective responsibility or shut up or leave. Climate change is such a hugely important public policy issue and therefore to have inconsistency from within government is extremely dangerous territory.”

And the dissent of the collective is not just from inside government. It seems the BBC is allowing any old skeptic to go on the air and lie about the religion of climate change. Lord Lawson, an official with the global warming policy foundation, had the gall to question, on air, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

Minister Miller said of this appalling development: “At the very least, put a caption on the bottom of the screen: the global warming policy foundation views are not accepted by 97% of scientists.”

Wow Andrew — way to use those progressive buzzwords, like “machine” and “collective.” No question of who or what you are.

So what’s this guy’s beef? Oh – I shouldn’t say beef – beef makes one think of cows and cows produce flatulence, causing global warming.
What I meant to say, What’s his problem? Well, it seems there is at least one person in government who is not towing the “man-caused” warming line. Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, just last year stated, “People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.”

What? A differing opinion within the collective? That won’t do. We must not debate the deniers on the merits or facts — we must “shut down” all dissenting opinions, you know, like the Inquisition is accused of doing.

And this is how you know they are losing the argument. They can see more and more people waking up and realizing that man-caused global warming is a scam.

It seems Minister Miller does not have a very high opinion of the British public to form their own opinion on climate change as his committee criticized both the UK Daily Mail and the Telegraph for placing “heavy reliance … on the ability of their readers to distinguish between fact and opinion on climate change.”

We see that leftists are leftists, either European or American. We, the unwashed, uneducated serfs are all too stupid to understand such a complicated subject like global warming. We must be told what to think and there can be no dissenting view. Not from us, the press, or from inside the government “machine.”

Remember . . . Nudge . . . Shove . . . Shoot.

It seems we’ve moved from the nudge phase to the shove phase. Sit down and shut up! We have bills to pass, people to control, and money to spend.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15081/s...tMZyrjEJw0b.99

Human Events

"Climate change enthusiasts predict every imaginable disaster, and if any of it actually happens, they’ll expect applause for their prophetic insights:"



The great climate change walkback | Human Events

If the "science is settled," why do these climate change reports keep contradicting each other?

HUMAN EVENTS

Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt: EPA’s 'Cap and Trade Scheme' Would Violate the Clean Air Act

Michael Bastasch 2 hours ago


The Environmental Protection Agency's upcoming climate rule that would push policies like cap and trade violates the Clean Air Act and will be challenged in court by the states, said Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.

News reports have said the EPA's carbon dioxide regulations would force states to significantly lower their emissions from existing power plants. The agency will reportedly give the states a menu of options to choose from to lower emissions, including cap-and-trade schemes.

But cajoling the states into imposing cap-and-trade on their energy sectors would be in violation of the Clean Air Act and almost certainly face numerous legal challenges from states and the coal industry, said Pruitt.

"The Clean Air Act clearly sets out a role for EPA to suggest guidelines, while granting states authority to develop and implement specific proposals to achieve the goals of the Clean Air Act," Pruitt told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

"Should the EPA's proposed regulation force states to adopt a 'cap and trade' scheme or any other specific proposal, it would violate the law and likely be challenged in court," he said.

Pruitt has set out a plan which he says "properly construes" the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. Pruitt's plan, called OKAG Plan, would have the EPA design the guidelines for emissions reductions and the states set the actual emissions standards for their power plants.

OKAG Plan differs from what others have argued the EPA should do in that it institutes what's called a unit-by-unit plan — which means that each power plant would have their own unique emissions standards as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach.

"It is not feasible for EPA to establish any assumed numeric efficiency to any existing unit, much less a numerical standard for the approximately 1,200 coal-fired EGUs in the country," wrote a coalition of states' environmental protection agency heads.

Environmental regulators from nine states — including North Carolina, Alabama and West Virginia — said, "the EPA should ensure that its guidelines allow States to set GHG performance standards that are based on measures that can be applied at each EGU rather than include activities beyond the unit itself."

"The OKAG Plan preserves State primacy and does not turn over management of local generation fleets to EPA under the guise of 'flexibility,'" according to OKAG Plan.

But news reports about the EPA's upcoming rules for existing power plants suggest the agency did not consider the wishes of some states. The Wall Street Journal reported the proposal will "include a cap-and-trade component where a limit is set on emissions and companies can trade allowances or credits for emissions" to meet new federal rules.

Power plant operators could also "trade emissions credits or use other offsets in the power sector, such as renewable energy or energy-efficiency programs, to meet the target," according to the Journal.

This would be a boon to states that already have cap-and-trade systems, like California and a group of nine east coast states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The White House is selling this option as a "flexible" one, even though it would likely result in the closing of more coal-fired power plants.

White House energy and climate adviser Dan Utech said the rule is "going to enable states to move forward in a way that works best for them with the energy resources they have."

But a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report from Wednesday found that EPA's climate rule would cost $50 billion per year — the most expensive the agency has come up with. The Chamber report also found that an additional 114 gigawatts of coal-fired power would be shut down — 40 percent of the coal fleet.

Even the drastic cuts to carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. would do nothing to lower global emissions. Developing nations' rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions will outpace any cuts made here in the U.S. — negating efforts to fight global warming.

"To put this in perspective, the International Energy Agency estimates that over the 2011-30 forecast period, the rest of the world will increase its power sector CO2 emissions by nearly 4,700 million metric tons (MMT), or 44%," the Chamber noted. "Those non-U.S. global emissions increases are more than six times larger than the U.S. reductions achieved in the Policy Case from 2014-30."

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/oklahoma-ag-scott-pruitt-epas-cap-and-trade-scheme-violate-clean-air-act/#6wRLJDu3uyrS4zPi.99

EPA another 3 letter agency!!! Tell you anything yet???

Break Out the Global Warming Hysteria! Election 2016 Approaches

By ++++Allen / 29 May 2014



Tis’ the Season, when the left will be rallying their faithful to action. Once again, the highly debated subject of Global Warming will be rolled out of moth balls, just in the nick of time.


What season you may ask? Well, it’s the warming up to the 2016 elections for our new Grand Poo-Bah. This is the Big Kahuna, the elections of all elections. Therefore it’s time once again to heat-up the battle cry of that pesky — although imaginary — evil enemy, Global Warming.


It has been said to never let a good tragedy go to waste. Or in the Democrats’ case, never let a good video for causing despondency among the
masses go to waste. So via a willing accomplice, a “Wag the Dog” type videographer who will locate or create a piece of ice set to drift, which by the way, takes place every year in its correct season. Cue the cooperative polar bear which will be spotted in a somewhat precarious situation, floating along on that little, ice, ice baby. Ready set, action, can you hear it?

Here comes the mantra now, in perfect pitch, “By golly, we must end Global Warming, (for the bears) for the sake of our children!” The reference to children is to guarantee support from the Sheeple, which then transforms into votes for their evil empire. Having won the victory, Global Warning will once again return to the moth balls, until the need for votes arises…again.

It’s amazing how the slimy left has no shame in using the “for the good of our children” angle, as they will prostitute their political party for votes. Let us not forget in this coming season that this disingenuous Democratic Party is the party which favors eliminating life (children) from the womb before birth. Would this same party truly be interested in “for the good of our children”? Or rather interested in an earth-worship cause, such as Global Warming? My money’s on the ice, ice baby.

Gee, and isn’t it interesting that after Obama got elected, they’ve stopped talking about Global Warming? Put on your thinking caps, because it has been more than five years since Barak first entered the White House — winning on the slogans of “change” and on Al Gore’s shirt tails of the “Global Warming” cause.

We the American public haven’t had to listen to Al Gore’s incessant blabbering on the subject in quite a while; maybe he will be rolled out of moth balls too. Other willing accomplices, Lurch (aka Kerry) and King Obama will be set to bamboozle the Sheeple by chiming in on the warming rhetoric too, in order to “Win one for the Gipper,” whoever that will be for 2016. Got to start now putting that fear back into the Sheeple for all those slimy votes.

P.S. Remember the smoke and mirrors show when G.W. Bush was president? When night after night the Democrat-compliant nightly news channels would run a ticker at the bottom of the screen that would show our American soldier death count totals in the Middle East? Yet suddenly, when Barack entered the White House, the ticker magically disappeared, as if the deaths had stopped. Saying: See there, all fixed now! Actually the figures show there are more soldier deaths per month in Afghanistan, since Barack Obama became King.
Image: Courtesy of: http://wikifreaky5d.wikispaces.com/

Image: Joan of Arc; Courtesy of: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of...ne_d%27arc.jpg

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/05/break-...O4sZjmRWLbW.99

DiCaprio Says We Must Put a Price on Carbon, His Stupidity is Free

Posted on 22 August, 2014 by Rick Wells


The next step in the Democrat assault on America’s energy is being rolled out in the form of a public brainwashing on the myth of man-made climate change. It is being spearheaded by Hollywood intellectual and frustrated meteorologist Leonardo DiCaprio.
The first of a series, in advance of the United Nations “climate summit,” debuts next month. Naturally, the timing is no accident. It is the next step of the endless progression since 1992 for the adoption of a global government climate tax and authority by the United Nations. At that point, once it becomes a reality, true national sovereignty becomes a thing of the past.
If DiCaprio is as smart as one would imagine a climate expert to be, then he must surely be aware of the fact that he is supporting a march towards UN planetary dominance as well as the crippling of America’s already struggling economy and our energy capacity. He must be okay with that. After all, national sovereignty and the rights of Americans to self-rule don’t hold a candle to the rights of a cabal of elites to play god.
The first film is titled “Carbon,” and is based upon the false premise that carbon, the plant equivalent of oxygen, is a pollutant. It is a fictional story, but that same type of fiction presented unabashedly as truth made Al Gore an obscenely wealthy man.
It the prep, DiCaprio said, “We cannot sit idly by and watch the fossil fuel industry make billions at our collective expense. We must put a price on carbon — now.”
Actually, placing a tax on carbon will be at our collective expense, as those fees are passed on to the consumer. If profits offend him, and he wants to redistribute some fossil fuel dollars, at least be honest enough to admit to being a socialist or fascist.
DiCaprio cast his fellow socialist, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in a leading role in the 8 minute film, as well as fellow libtard, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
In trying to incite a grassroots rebellion against low-priced energy, DiCaprio says in the film, “If national governments won’t take action, your community can. We no longer need the dead economy of the fossil fuel industry. We can move our economy town by town, state by state to renewable energy and a sustainable future.”
The film is being released to generate momentum for the upcoming UN summit in New York on September 23^rd. Talks are also to be held in Paris next year with a goal of committing 120 nations, including the United States, to UN subservience through a greenhouse gas treaty.
The director of the film, Leila Conners, said, “This film is meant to be an asset for the climate movement and to generate momentum for the global reduction of carbon emissions. We must move toward renewable energy and create a real solution, hopefully well before the [meeting] in Paris in 2015.”
The entire series will be released in advance of the New York climate change propaganda festival. Hussein Obama, never one to miss a party or a chance to be cool with the cool people, will be in attendance, twisting a few arms of his own at that event.
There are three words that are unmistakable markers for the eco-fascists when they are maneuvering themselves into a controlling position over the people. They are renewable, sustainable, and smart.
All are code words for UN Agenda 21. When you hear them, understand that the associated message is likely propaganda aimed at persuading us to voluntarily surrender our sovereignty, to just go along with the “rest of the world.”
If this is what the rest of the world wants, they can have it. And they can have Commie DiCaprio too.
Rick Wells is a conservative author who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/08/22/dicaprio-says-must-put-price-carbon-stupidity-free/

Tuesday, 24 December 2013 08:15 Reddit Joins LA Times in Banning Skeptics from Climate “Debate”

Written by William F. Jasper

• E-mail
  

Reddit, the giant aggregator of social, political, and entertainment news, which boasts that it is “the front page of the Internet,” is taking flak for announcing that it now bans all climate “deniers” from its science forum.
In a December 16 posting on the left-liberal Grist website (a George Soros-funded website), Reddit science “moderator” (now self-professed censor) Nathan Allen announced that the Reddit science forum would no longer allow postings from those who challenge the increasingly discredited notion that manmade carbon-dioxide is causing a global warming existential threat to the planet.
Allen’s essay, entitled “Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers do the same?”, obviously hopes to spark a wave of official, explicit bans at other media outlets. Of course, most of the so-called mainstream media already employ de facto censorship of the realist/skeptic position in their “climate change” coverage, and have for many years. While they heap lavish, adoring coverage on fanatical climate “scientists” such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, and non-scientist activist celebrities such as Al Gore, George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bono, and Madonna, the mainstream media (MSM) can be counted on to ignore or vilify the thousands of genuine scientists who contradict the carefully crafted false claim of a “scientific consensus” in favor of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). However, much of the MSM have gone beyond censoring the contrarian scientists out of their “news” stories and op-ed pages, going so far as to ban all letters-to-the-editor section that challenge the AGW dogma. The Los Angeles Times is one of the few major MSM organs that has publicly admitted it has a policy of refusing to print letters from climate “deniers.” The folks at Reddit, apparently, would be happy if all media outlets followed suit.


In his Grist op-ed, Dr. Allen wrote:
In addition to my career as a PhD chemist, I am one of a select few who enjoy the privilege of moderating content on reddit.com’s science forum. The science forum is a small part of reddit, but it nonetheless enjoys over 4 million subscribers. By comparison, that’s roughly twice the circulation of The New York Times.
Dr. Allen is obviously pleased with himself and the global digital footprint he influences. He continues:
The forum, known as /r/science, provides a digital space for discussions about recent, peer-reviewed scientific publications. This puts us (along with /r/AskScience) on the front line of the science-public interface. On our little page, scientists and nonscientists can connect through discussions on everything from subatomic particles to interstellar astrophysics.
According to Allen, Reddit’s science forum is “a microcosm, representative of the vast range of views that can be supported by empirical evidence.” “Importantly,” he claims, “it provides the same window for those who are not scientists, who do not regularly talk with PhDs, and who may be unfamiliar with how science is discussed by scientists. In essence, it is a window into the Ivory Tower.” Unfortunately, the “window into the Ivory Tower” of Reddit is as closed as the window into the Ivory Tower of most of academe. Like his professorial comrades on the college and university campuses, Allen seems to be stuck in Stalinism 101, unable to tolerate true debate and the give-and-take that occurs in genuine scientific enquiry. Typical of his comrades on the left, he has adopted the terminology of the Holocaust, consciously vilifying all who dissent from the radical global warming alarmist dogma as “deniers.”
This uncivil discourse is a form of genuine hate speech, aimed at generating hate for those with an opposing scientific viewpoint. Of course, liberal-left activists such as Nathan Allen claim to abhor incivility and hate speech — all the while practicing it with a vengeance. According to Allen, “no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.”
While admitting that intemperate language and insults come from both sides of the AGW debate, he unconvincingly argues that it is the global warming “deniers” who are most culpable of offensive, “aggressive behavior.” “Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors,” Allen charges.
“As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their ‘skepticism’ on climate change,” asserts Allen. “The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad.”
According to Reddit’s Nathan Allen, the “deniers” are hopeless “true believers” and the only way to deal with them is to cut off their access to all media outlets. “As a site, reddit is passionately dedicated to free speech, so we expected considerable blowback,” says Allen. “But the widespread outrage we feared never materialized, and the atmosphere greatly improved.” If Allen is being truthful, the fact that no widespread outrage materialized is an inadvertent auto-refutation of Reddit’s supposed passionate dedication to free speech. It belies the Reddit mythology about the website’s supposed openness and diversity.
Across the top of its “about” page, in large type, Reddit proudly runs this paean to its accessibility from a Reddit enthusiast, one Dapper77:
“This is a place friendly to thought, relationships, arguments, and to those that wish to challenge those genres."
Reddit’s Wikipedia entry says “The website is known for its open nature and diverse user community that generate its content.” It also claims that the website “has a strong culture of free speech and very few rules about the types of content that may be posted.”
Allen and his fellow Reddit moderators can tolerate just about anything — except dissent from their pet environmental dogma. "As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral," Allen said.
Talk about “true believers”! Allowing dissenters to comment, according to Reddit, is “immoral.” Allen calls upon other media thought police to emulate Reddit’s proficiency in policing their venues to eliminate “contrarian” thought. Says Allen:
So if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?
The “97% of Scientists” Consensus Myth
Not surprisingly, while ridiculing “deniers” as antiscientific, Allen and the Reddit science moderators engage in one of the biggest and most thoroughly discredited anti-science deceptions of all time: the claim that there is a near-unanimous scientific “consensus” in favor of their radical AGW theories. Here’s Allen:
When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus.
Sound familiar? Yes, that’s the same bogus statistic cited by President Obama this past May, along with the usual MSM choir trumpeting the same false claims of almost total “scientific consensus” on the impending apocalyptic climate “crisis.” Like President Obama, Reddit cites as its source for this outrageous claim the thoroughly discredited study by Australian AGW alarmist/activist John Cook. The New American reported on the eviscerating analyses of Cook’s study by independent scientists and researchers here, here, and here.
The Cook report, which claimed to be based on “over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers,” published in the period 1991-2011, turned out to be a colossal fraud. Stripped of its false accounting methodology, only 65 of the 12,000 papers actually explicitly endorsed AGW alarmist claims. That yields an endorsement rate of around half a percent, not 97 percent! But the 97 percent mantra has been repeated so often that it is cited as gospel by millions of true believers.
One of the most incredible claims of Allen and his Reddit cadres — and yet a claim that is all too typical among the AGW alarmists — is that the “deniers” are a bunch of nasty, ignorant laymen, and that the only scientists who dissent from AGW orthodoxy are a relative handful of “professional climate change deniers” in the pay of Big Oil and Big Coal. However, the AGW accusers never bother to back up their charges — because they can’t. As The New American has reported a number of times (see here and here), the few millions of dollars that AGW skeptics have received from corporate donors is a scant pittance compared to the tens of billions of dollars that have been lavished on the climate alarmists by corporations, foundations, environmental organizations, carbon trading investors, and governments.
Concerning the ever-recurring pernicious lie of scientific consensus, the alarmists appear to be getting increasingly shrill, perhaps in panic mode because so many of their former allies have been jumping ship. Two of the most prominent “green” scientists to reverse course on AGW alarmism are James Lovelock, the British inventor, NASA scientist, author, and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis; and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, a founding father of Germany’s environmental movement and a director of one of Europe’s largest alternative energy companies.
Here are some of the other world-renowned scientists whom Allen and the Reddit ignore, dismiss, or insult:
• Dr. William Happer, one of America’s preeminent physicists and a professor of physics at Princeton University;
• Dr. Pierre Darriult, physicist and former Director of Research at the CERN Laboratories;
• Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology;
• Mike Hulme, professor of climate science at East Anglia University and an IPCC lead author;
• Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences;

• Dr. John Christy, climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA;
• Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas;
• Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences;
• Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher;
• Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway;
• Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans;
• Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist;
• Burt Rutan, renowned engineer, inventor, and aviation/space pioneer;
• Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, emeritus professor of physics, and founding director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks;
• Dr. Bjarne Andresen, physicist, and professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark;
• Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa, Canada.
That’s just the tip of the proverbial scientific dissenter iceberg. In 2010, Marc Morano at Climate Depot published a 321-page PDF special report featuring statements and bios of more than 1,000 eminent scientists from around the world, including Nobel Prize winners and IPCC authors, who challenge the claim of scientific consensus on global warming.
And, as we have mentioned many times in previous articles, there are more than 31,000 scientists in the United States who have signed a petition urging the U.S. government to reject AGW hysteria and the types of actions that have been proposed at UN forums in Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, and Rio.
In our free society the Reddit climate alarmists should be free to limit access to their website to whomever they please; however they should be named and shamed for falsely portraying themselves as advocates of free and open discourse, and for smearing all those who do not share their hysterical hype and their statist, anti-liberty policy proposals.
Related articles:
Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%
EPA Official Sentenced for Fraud
Obama EPA Climate Decrees Will Further Damage U.S. Economy
Energy Stakeholders Contest EPA Power Regulations
Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
Famous “Gaia” Scientist James Lovelock Converts From Alarmist to Skeptic on Global Warming, Blasts UN (Video)
Sha Zukang, Communist China’s Radical UN Official, Heads Rio+20 Enviro Summit (Video)
Billionaire Socialist Maurice Strong Returns to Promote Rio+20 (Video)
Agenda 21, ICLEI and the UN’s Rio+20 Conference (Video)
Lord Monckton Breaks Down Rio+20 (Video)
UN’s Rio+20: Add “Biodiversity” and “Sustainability” to “Climate Change” Fearmongering (Video)
Obama Launches New Global Warming Video as Phony "Consensus" Crumbles
Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked
German Firms Flee to U.S. to Avoid Staggering “Green” Energy Costs
Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report
"Lysenkoism" at OSU?
Germany Cuts Subsidies to Floundering Solar Industry
Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books
IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud
“Fakegate” Climate Scientist Reinstated, Criminal Questions Unanswered
Activist Climate Scientist Admits Stealing Documents from Heartland Institute
Ethical Meltdown: Global Warming Alarmists Defend Peter Gleick’s Theft, Fraud
“Peter Gleick Lied, But …” — Global-warming Alarmists Justify His Crime, Deception



http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...climate-debate

February 16, 2014 Really? Kerry - Global Warming as Big of a Threat as Terrorism

Published on Feb 16, 2014
US Secretary of State John Kerry has been in Indonesia talking about climate change.

He spoke to students at the American Cultural Centre in Jakarta, telling them:

"When I think about the array of global climate, of the global threats; think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. All challenges that know no borders. The reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them."

On Friday, Kerry came to an agreem...
READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/16/jo...

euronews: the most watched news channel in Europe
Subscribe! http://eurone.ws/10ZCK4a

euronews is available in 14 languages: http://eurone.ws/17moBCU

In English:
Website: http://www.euronews.com/news
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/euronews
Twitter: http://twitter.com/euronews
Google+: http://google.com/+euronews
VKontakte: http://vk.com/en.euronews

• Category
  
  News & Politics
  
• License
  
  Standard YouTube License
  

Seeking to burnish his credential as a climate champion before deciding on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project, Secretary of State John F. Kerry warned Indonesians on Saturday that global warming is as big a threat as terrorism. Indonesia is the world's largest exporter of coal for power plants.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/video...#ixzz2tgF585iX
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Really Kerry the scam of the century is more like what climate change is. It is unbelievable what you and your elitists buddies are doing in order to try and con the Public out of their hard earned money. Qorld wide too with your scare tactics and insidious ideas!!!!!