Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54
Like Tree2Likes

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Wednesday, 16 July 2014 09:47
    Cornwall Alliance: Fighting the Corruption of Science (Video)


    Written by William F. Jasper



    Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance, discussed with The New American the widespread corruption of science that has accompanied the massive government funding of global warming alarmism in the past two decades. Dr. Beisner was honored at the Heartland Institute’s 9th International Climate Conference (ICCC9) with the Outstanding Spokesperson on Faith, Science, and Stewardship Award, presented by the Heritage Foundation.

    “The Cornwall Alliance is a coalition of clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics, and policy experts committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development,” the organization’s website explains.

    Dr. Beisner is an interdisciplinary scholar specializing in the application of Biblical world view, theology, and ethics to economics, environmental stewardship, political philosophy, public policy, and apologetics. He has testified as an expert witness on the theology, ethics, science, and economics of climate change policy before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce; briefed the White House Council on Environmental Policy; delivered a paper at a conference at the Vatican sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace; and spoken at the 2008, 2009, and 2010 International Conferences on Climate Change, and at colleges, churches, and other venues.

    Dr. Beisner is the author of numerous articles, and his books include The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros & Cons: Debating the Federal Vision; Where Garden Meets Wilderness: Evangelical Entry Into the Environmental Debate; Prospects for Growth: A Biblical View of Population, Resources, and the Future; and Prosperity and Poverty: The Compassionate Use of Resources in a World of Scarcity.

    Dr. Beisner’s presentation and participation on the ICC9 Panel, “Global Warming as a Social Movement”, can be viewed here.
    The entire lineup of the speakers and panels for the conference, with links to videos of the events, can be accessed here.


    Image: screenshot of interview with Dr. Beisner
    Related articles/videos:
    Greenpeace “Heretic”: CO2 Good; Greenpeace “Anti-human” (Video)
    Is It “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” or “Climate Disruption”?
    More Proof U.S. Temperature Data Is Manipulated
    Intolerance: Global-warming Fanatics Intimidate Swedish Scientist
    “Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda
    William F. Jasper on “Gaia Guru” James Lovelock Conversion (Video)
    Bill Jasper on Maurice Strong and Rio+20 Earth Summit (Video)

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...7660-287785873




  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    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 23rd. 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/

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Obama Resorts to "Political Magic" to Carry Out His Stealthy Global Climate Change Strategy


    Ronald Bailey|Aug. 27, 2014 11:41 am
    gpp
    In Paris next year, the nations of the world are supposed to hammer out an global regime to control energy production as a way to prevent possible catastrophic climate change. Having covered United Nations climate negotiations for more than two decades, I can confidently predict that there is no way that countries will adopt a comprehensive treaty that somehow legally binds them to make specific cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. As evidence, consider that when the Kyoto Protocol emissions limits chafed, many countries, e.g., Canada and Japan, simply ignored them and dropped out of the treaty.

    Now the New York Times is reporting that President Barack Obama is working on a "politcally binding" international agreement to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases produced largely by burning fossil fuels. Such an agreement would be an end run around the pesky constitutional requirement that treaties must be ratified by two-thirds vote of the Senate. As the Times explains:
    In seeking to go around Congress to push his international climate change agenda, Mr. Obama is echoing his domestic climate strategy. In June, he bypassed Congress and used his executive authority to order a far-reaching regulation forcing American coal-fired power plants to curb their carbon emissions....
    American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.
    Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to identify those nations that did not meet their cuts.
    “There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the Senate.

    President Obama seems to be following a script laid out in May, 2014 by former Undersecretary for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth, who was the Clinton Administration’s lead negotiator for the Kyoto Protocol, and former South Dakota Senator Thomas Daschle who astutely asserted that “the international community should stop chasing the chimera of a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions.” They further noted that more than two decades of U.N. climate negotiations have failed because “nations could not agree on who is to blame, on how to allocate emissions, or on projections for the future.”


    Wirth and Daschle are advocating that the climate negotiators adopt a system of “pledge and review” at the 2015 Paris conference of the parties to the UNFCCC. In such a scheme nations would make specific pledges to cut their carbon emissions, to adopt clean energy technologies, and to wring more GDP out of each ton of carbon emitted. The parties would review their progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions every three years and make further pledges as necessary to achieve the goal of keeping the increase in average global temperature under 2°C. Since there would be no legally binding targets, there would be no treaty that would require politically difficult ratification. If insufficient progress is being made by 2020 they argue that countries should consider adopting globally coordinated price on carbon.


    Wirth and Daschle have joined the emerging consensus that schemes to prevent climate change by rationing carbon – e.g., imposing a cap-and-trade scheme or taxation - are doomed to failure. Why failure? Because of the “iron law of climate policy” argues University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. Pielke’s iron law declares that “when policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time.” People and their governments are very reluctant to give up the immediate benefits of economic growth – more goods and services, jobs, better education and improved health - that access to modern fuels make possible in order to avert the distant harms of climate change.

    In any case, President Obama evidently believes that addressing the climate "crisis" is far more important than observing constitiutional niceties like senatorial "advice and consent" to treaties.

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/27/ob...c-to-carr#fold



  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Wednesday, 27 August 2014 15:15
    Obama Plotting to Bypass Congress on UN Climate Regime


    Written by Alex Newman



    The Obama administration, conspiring with the United Nations and various foreign governments, is plotting to foist a draconian “global-warming” regime on the American people — without ratification by a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate, as required by the Constitution for all treaties. The radical strategy primarily involves semantics and legal quackery: Instead of calling the controversial scheme a “treaty,” the White House is pursuing what it calls an international “accord.” If Congress does not step in to stop it, the global plot would ration emissions of carbon dioxide and energy while redistributing potentially trillions of dollars from Western taxpayers to Third World regimes. Globalists and alarmists hope to conclude the UN deal at a “climate” summit in Paris next year.

    The reasoning behind the lawless machinations is fairly simple: Obama, the UN, and foreign governments milking the climate alarmism all know the U.S. Senate will never ratify a global-warming regime. Having already failed to get a domestic cap-and-trade scheme through even a Democrat-controlled Congress, Obama has also turned to “executive actions” in his unconstitutional bid to limit emissions of essential-to-life carbon dioxide domestically. Using the Environmental Protection Agency, the administration simply decreed that CO2 — exhaled by humans and required for plant life — is “pollution.” By contrast, scientists and experts not feeding at the global-warming industry trough refer to carbon dioxide as “the gas of life.”

    According to the New York Times, which first reported the latest administration scheme to bypass Congress, Obama’s “climate negotiators” are working with foreign powers and the UN to adopt a “politically binding” carbon regime. Critics of the lawless plan say lawmakers will have to act to rein in the administration, possibly by defunding the “climate” scheming undertaken by the White House and the UN. If Congress fails in its duty, though, the UN climate regime will seek to coerce governments around the world into seizing unprecedented powers over their populations and economies under the guise of limiting CO2. Americans and Europeans, meanwhile, would be fleeced to prop up largely autocratic regimes around the world under the bogus pretext of fighting “climate change.”

    As opposition grows to the president’s “pen and phone” schemes to bypass Congress and the Constitution, Obama’s swarms of climate bureaucrats are already pushing the radical plan in the press. “If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” observed Paul Bledsoe, described by the Times as “a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.” In other words, the Constitution, the legislative branch, the American people, and checks and balances will all be trampled to advance the UN climate regime. If the Constitution were followed, the administration knows it will fail.

    Around the world, foreign governments and bureaucrats — who, unlike Obama and all members of Congress, did not take a solemn oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution — are fully on-board with the plot to crush even the appearance of constitutional governance in the United States. “There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate,” said Laurence Tubiana, the “climate ambassador” to the UN for the imploding Socialist French government. “There’s a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse.” By “difficulties,” of course, the climate bureaucrat from France was referring to America’s system of constitutional self-government. The UN climate czar previously said the mass-murdering Communist Chinese system was better suited to fighting “global warming” than the U.S. Constitution.

    Even if the climate regime were to be ratified by the Senate — the chances of that happening appear to range from slim to none, especially because most Americans reject the discredited man-made global-warming theories pushed by the UN and Obama — the federal government has no constitutional authority to foist such a scheme on the American people in the first place. Big Government-mongers like to pretend that any treaty approved by two-thirds of senators becomes the “law of the land.” In reality, though, the U.S. government cannot expand its powers beyond those delegated to it in the Constitution simply by ratifying a treaty.

    From the earliest days of the American constitutional Republic, that was common knowledge. “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless,” noted Thomas Jefferson, one of the most important Founding Fathers behind the U.S. Constitution, in 1803. “If it is, then we have no Constitution.” More recently, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1957 Reid v. Covert case that “no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” If Obama was indeed a “constitutional law professor,” as he claimed, he would know that, meaning he is deliberately violating the oath he took with his hand on the Bible.

    The scam being cooked up by Obama and his allies would also include “voluntary pledges” combined with “legally binding” elements from a 1992 treaty, the Times reported. “Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies,” the paper added. Of course, by “countries,” the Times was referring to UN member regimes, most of which are autocratic and many of which do not have even a shred of legitimacy (think Mugabe, Castro, Kim Jong-un, and others). “There’s some legal and political magic to this,” Natural Resources Defense Council “global climate negotiations expert” Jake Schmidt was quoted as admitting.

    Ahead of the Paris summit where the administration hopes to ink the deal to impose a global climate regime on humanity, global-warming “dignitaries” plan to meet in New York next month to discuss the plan. In December, the UN global-warming circus will fly at taxpayer expense to Lima, Peru, to finalize the draft agreement. Then, if all goes according to plan, governments and dictators from around the world will meet in the French capital next September to put their signatures on the document, which they believe will bind the populations they rule into submitting to the UN carbon regime.

    However, there are already signs that Republican lawmakers may put up some resistance, and with the GOP widely expected to take control of the Senate, Obama’s climate scheming may be doomed well before the Paris conference begins. “Unfortunately, this would be just another of many examples of the Obama administration’s tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard laws it doesn’t like — and to ignore the elected representatives of the people when they don’t agree,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the top Republican in the Senate. Specific action plans have not been laid out, but the GOP-controlled House could simply cut off funds for the administration’s unlawful plot.

    Another top Republican and a firm opponent of the “pseudo-science” underpinning the UN’s warming theories offered an even stronger rebuke to the White House plot. In a statement released Wednesday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Obama’s latest scheme shows the president has “given up on his dream of enacting an internationally binding global warming treaty.” The Senate will not ratify it, he noted again, a consistent and accurate message he has delivered over and over to the UN and its member regimes. Even on the domestic front, lawmakers plan to keep battling the unconstitutional machinations.

    “We will continue to fight the president's economy crushing domestic greenhouse gas regulations,” added Sen. Inhofe, perhaps the leading climate realist in Washington and persistent thorn in the side of UN alarmists. “U.S. economic competitiveness is hanging in the balance, and additional U.S. restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will only hurt the United States as other nations like Australia either scrap or water down their unsuccessful green dream policies.” He was referring to the devastating blow to climate deception and hysteria delivered by Australia recently, when it voted to repeal carbon taxes after previously vowing not to accept any more UN “socialism masquerading as environmentalism.”

    As The New American reported recently, virtually every falsifiable climate prediction made by the UN, Obama, and the legions of taxpayer-funded alarmists has been proven spectacularly wrong. In fact, 73 out of 73 UN “climate models” predicted warming, yet there has been none for at least 17 or 18 years — maybe more, depending on the data set used. The globalists, carbon taxers, and pseudo-environmentalists know their window to impose a devastating global carbon regime on humanity is on the verge of being slammed shut forever. Obama’s latest plot represents a desperate, kooky, last-ditch effort to shackle the world. Americans and their elected representatives must ensure that it fails.

    Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.
    Related articles:

    Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

    Desperate Dash of Global Warming
    UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity
    Climate Alarmists Push Chinese Communism, Population Control
    White House Boasts of Obama Power Grabs as Congress Funds Them
    In Historic Blow to Climate Hysteria, Australia Kills Carbon Tax
    Carbon Scam by UN and World Bank Behind “Genocidal” Land Grabs
    Obama’s EPA Coal Plant Regulations: “Obamacare for the Atmosphere”
    EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant
    Obama’s Alarmist “Climate” Report Debunked by Scientists
    Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
    “Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...596e-287785873



    Money from your pocket into theirs world wide!!!
    Last edited by kathyet2; 08-28-2014 at 10:27 AM.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Mark Udall’s Wife Partners with Leonardo DiCaprio to Call for Carbon Tax

    Leonardo DiCaprio begins series of anti-oil, anti-fracking videos


    Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore together for Earth Day in 2007 / AP


    BY: Elizabeth Harrington
    August 28, 2014 9:00 am

    Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Udall’s (Colo.) wife called for a carbon tax while appearing in a new anti-oil video produced by Leonardo DiCaprio.
    “People are ready for conversation,” says Maggie Fox, Udall’s wife and former president of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, in the Green World Rising video, entitled, “Carbon.”
    “They’re ready to understand that carbon pollution is causing this challenge and that there is a simple solution: put a price on carbon pollution,” she says.
    DiCaprio is releasing a series of environmentalist videos on climate change, the first focusing on gathering support for a cap and trade system. A dark animated robot represents the oil and gas industry, and is shown grabbing money from the ground, producing nothing but black smoke into the atmosphere.
    The video states that there is a “moral reason” for a carbon tax, and features Fox; self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.); Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress; Eamon Ryan, the leader of the Irish Green Party, and others.
    DiCaprio, who flies “around the world doing good for the environment,” narrates the video. He calls fossil fuels, black oil, coal, and gas an “ancient menace,” and attacks the oil and gas industry.
    “They drill, they extract, making trillions of dollars,” he says. “They frack, they mine, earning astronomical profits. We need to keep this carbon in the ground.”
    The video ends with the message: “Your community can defeat the carbon monster.”
    Fox recently stepped down as president and CEO of the Climate Reality Project, which was founded by former Vice President and environmentalist activist Al Gore. In a statement announcing her departure, Gore said Fox joined the Climate Reality Project to “guide” the failed cap and trade push in Congress in 2009.
    Gore said Fox led the organization’s efforts to “combat the climate denial cottage-industry.” He said Fox joined him at a training event in South Africa for “Climate Reality Leaders” this March, where they called for a “market price on carbon and a political price on denial.”
    “Faced with the realization that the well-funded and pervasive climate denial industry was winning the broader cultural battle, The Climate Reality Project took up the mantle to dispel doubt and spread the immediate reality of climate change with innovative organizing and communication initiatives designed to transform the cultural conversation,” Fox said, when describing their work.
    Sen. Udall’s campaign did not return request for comment on whether he agrees with his wife’s position, and the video’s anti-fracking and anti-oil stance. On his Senate website, Udall says he supports putting a “common-sense price on carbon.”
    In the video, Fox, who worked for the environmentalist Sierra Club for 20 years, claims that the United States spends $110 billion dollars on “climate change events” a year, in her argument to tax carbon emissions.
    “In the 50s in London—based on the Industrial Revolution—there was so much pollution, as you see in Beijing and around China today, that you actually couldn’t see six straight feet in front of you,” she says. “They put a price on pollution and it changed.”
    “What Maggie Fox endorses—and what is touted in the video—is a job-killing, zero benefit to the environment carbon tax that Australia just repealed this year because it did not work,” said Michael Sandoval, an energy policy analyst with the Colorado-based Independence Institute. “Increasing energy prices with a costly tax on carbon might satisfy the wishes of eco-extremists like Fox, but it only attacks small businesses, endangers low income residents, and reduces the number of good paying jobs in the economy.”
    Green World Rising proposes taxing carbon dioxide emissions at $100 per ton, or more, as necessary for “saving humanity from global warming-induced extinction.”
    “The concept of a carbon tax is simple: make it expensive to pollute carbon,” DiCaprio’s website states. “Once a carbon tax is implemented, polluters would have to pay a tax for every ton of CO2 or other greenhouse gas they pollute. That tax can range anywhere from $20 per ton of CO2 all the way up to $100 or even higher.”
    Both DiCaprio and Gore’s environmental advocacy has been criticized as hypocritical, given their lavish lifestyles and large carbon footprints. DiCaprio throws parties on the 482-foot yacht owned by the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates, which generates its wealth from oil. Gore has racked up $30,000 electricity bills.
    The Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation financed the production of the video, which had footage provided by Greenpeace. RT America is also listed in the credits as contributing to the video’s production.

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/mark-...or-carbon-tax/


    Crap and Traitor Puppets working hard on the latest scam!!!!

    Crap and Traitor = Money from you, to them, World Wide.. 1 2 3, all together now, can we say
    SCAM..



  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Global Climate Disruption of the Constitution

    Aug. 28, 2014


    Obama's hot weather fun

    The Obama administration is seeking an international treaty regulating climate change without the consent of the Senate. Of course he blames “dysfunction in Congress.” Clearly, this move is diversionary. Ahead of this year’s midterm elections, Obama has returned from his golf vacation to focus on what is perceived to be a populist cause – global warming – in order to distract from his domestic and foreign policy failures.

    After all, to quote John Kerry, global warming is perhaps “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

    Obama’s latest gambit is to sidestep Congress once again with something his administration calls “politically binding” instead of legally binding. According to The New York Times, “In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.”

    The White House knows such a treaty has no shot in the Senate, even though the chamber is controlled by Democrats – control that could be lost in November. As The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto writes, “Senate ratification is no more in the cards now than it was in 1997, when the world’s greatest deliberative body voted 95-0 in favor of a nonbinding resolution ‘expressing the sense of the Senate’ that the now-expired Kyoto Protocol was unacceptable.”

    So Obama plans to simply “update” the legally binding provisions of a 1992 treaty known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control and mix them with political arm-twisting to avoid the need for a new vote of ratification.

    White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained, “We would not want to enter a situation where we did try to broker an agreement that did require some sort of Senate ratification and then have that fall victim once again, as so many other priorities have, to dysfunction in Congress.”

    Translation: If Obama can’t get Congress to acquiesce to his demands he will just bypass Congress. And the administration has no problem letting everyone know they consider the Constitution an obstruction to be avoided.

    Obama is basing his unlawful actions on this assertion when unveiling his “climate action plan” last summer: “[W]e know that the 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15, and that last year was the warmest in American history. … [I]n a world that’s getting warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by it – more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes.”

    In reality, global warming is largely a phantom menace. Which is why the Left now religiously calls it climate change, or, a new favorite, “global climate disruption.”

    As far as other nations are concerned, the administration also knows the world’s largest emitters, like China and India, are not going to be easily persuaded to handcuff their economies to fight global warming. So The New York Times says the deal “would ‘name and shame’ countries into cutting their emissions,” thus supposedly enforcing political accountability.

    But political analyst Charles Krauthammer called that “the dumbest idea since the Russian reset.” He said that’s because it’s “based on the same assumptions that the Russians and the Chinese and others act the way Obama does – with adolescent idealism when it comes to foreign policy.”

    Domestically, the administration is already working to enact its agenda on global warming. In June, the EPA announced new rules targeting energy producers who aren’t favored politically. Obama and his minions always explain their efforts as coming from a “moral obligation” as a way to undercut any opposition as greedy, ignorant or evil. But by his own admission, his energy rules mean “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Check your latest bill and thank the president.

    The real climate change agenda is a political strategy to subjugate free enterprise under statist regulation – de facto socialism under the aegis of “saving us from ourselves.” Obama will pursue it using whatever means he deems necessary. As for naming and shaming, well, this administration is most worthy of it.



    http://patriotpost.us/articles/28615


    The real climate change agenda is a political strategy to subjugate free enterprise under statist regulation – de facto socialism under the aegis of “saving us from ourselves.” Obama will pursue it using whatever means he deems necessary. As for naming and shaming, well, this administration is most worthy of it.

    Money from our pockets into theirs in the form of a tax...worldwide..Crap and Traitor (cap & trade). Globalist newest Scam!!!!

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now


    • Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
    • An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
    • These satellite images taken from University of Illinois's Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated

    By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

    Published: 17:04 EST, 30 August 2014 | Updated: 07:50 EST,
    2 September 2014

    The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
    Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
    But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
    Scroll down for video


    To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.
    The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.
    This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.
    Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

    More...





    The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project.
    They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly.
    Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University and University Coillege, London, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.
    ‘It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.’


    The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore (above) was apocalyptic. He said that the North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff and could be gone in seven years

    Yet for years, many have been claiming that the Arctic is in an ‘irrevocable death spiral’, with imminent ice-free summers bound to trigger further disasters. These include gigantic releases of methane into the atmosphere from frozen Arctic deposits, and accelerated global warming caused by the fact that heat from the sun will no longer be reflected back by the ice into space.

    Judith Curry, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said last night: ‘The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed.’

    Those who just a few years ago were warning of ice-free summers by 2014 included US Secretary of State John Kerry, who made the same bogus prediction in 2009, while Mr Gore has repeated it numerous times – notably in a speech to world leaders at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, in an effort to persuade them to agree a new emissions treaty.

    The ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as 7 years from now

    Mr Gore – whose office yesterday failed to respond to a request for comment – insisted then: ‘There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.’

    Misleading as such forecasts are, some people continue to make them. Only last month, while giving evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee inquiry on the Arctic, Cambridge University’s Professor Peter Wadhams claimed that although the Arctic is not ice-free this year, it will be by September 2015.

    Asked about this yesterday, he said: ‘I still think that it is very likely that by mid-September 2015, the ice area will be less than one million square kilometres – the official designation of ice-free, implying only a fringe of floes around the coastlines. That is where the trend is taking us.’
    For that prediction to come true it would require by far the fastest loss of ice in history. It would also fly in the face of a report last year by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated with ‘medium confidence’ that ice levels would ‘likely’ fall below one million square kilometres by 2050.

    Politicians such as Al Gore have often insisted that climate science is ‘settled’ and have accused those who question their forecasts of being climate change ‘deniers’.

    However, while few scientists doubt that carbon-dioxide emissions cause global warming, and that this has caused Arctic ice to decline, there remains much uncertainty about the speed of melting and how much of it is due to human activity. But outside the scientific community, the more pessimistic views have attracted most attention. For example, Prof Wadhams’s forecasts have been cited widely by newspapers and the BBC. But many reject them.

    video at link below

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-3309166287001
    more videos


    +4

    An area twice the size of Alaska was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice after the arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row

    Yesterday Dr Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: ‘Peter Wadhams’s views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says.’

    Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather.

    ‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’ he said.

    However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.

    Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’

    Like many scientists, Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’.

    Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future.
    Prof Curry said: ‘I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half.

    ‘I think the natural variability component of Arctic sea ice extent is in the process of bottoming out, with a reversal to start within the next decade. And when it does, the reversal period could last for several decades.’

    This led her to believe that the IPCC forecast, like Al Gore’s, was too pessimistic.

    ‘Ice-free in 2050 is a possible scenario, but I don’t think it is a likely scenario,’ she concluded.
    GOOD NEWS FOR POLAR BEARS...




    The apparent recovery in Arctic ice looks like good news for polar bears.

    If there is more ice at the end of the summer, they can hunt seals more easily. Yet even when the ice reached a low point in 2012, there was no scientific evidence that bear numbers were declining, with their estimated total of 20,000 to 25,000 thought to be higher than in the 1970s, when hunting was first banned.

    In many Arctic regions, say scientists, they are in robust health and breeding successfully.

    Computer model predictions of decline caused by ice melt have also failed to come true. In 2004, researchers claimed Hudson Bay bear numbers would fall from 900 to fewer than 700 by 2011. In fact, they have risen to over 1,000.

    However, the main international bear science body, the Polar Bear Specialist Group, admits it has no reliable data from almost half of the Arctic, so cannot say whether numbers are falling or rising.



    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz3CAd6Cbzt



    Crap and Traitor money from you to them world wide, scam of the century if you fall for it. MyOpionionOfCourse!!!!







    Last edited by kathyet2; 09-02-2014 at 11:10 AM.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Bob Beckel Says Climate Change Is A Bigger Threat Than ISIS

    Bob Beckel, token liberal panelist of The Five on Fox News, sparred with his co-hosts Friday, claiming that climate change was a bigger threat to the United States than the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS). “Climate change is so much more consequential than ISIS ever was it’s like putting the United States military up against the boy scouts,” Beckel said. In response, co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle asked Beckel if he was joking, sparking a heated back and forth before Beckel made a final push to advance his argument. “I have people that I think scientifically have a good argument other people say they have a good argument, we disagree with it,” Beckel said. “But the idea suggesting that ISIS is more important than climate change is just absurd, as far as i’m concerned.”
    via FreeBeacon

    Read more at http://conservativevideos.com/bob-be...vsug9dudATj.99


    video at link below

    Read more at http://conservativevideos.com/bob-be...vsug9dudATj.99

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    #Communism

    ‘People’s Climate March’ Backed By Communist, Socialist Parties http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/pe...alist-parties/




    ‘People’s Climate March’ Backed By Communist, Socialist Parties - Freedom Outpost
    freedomoutpost.com
    ‘People’s Climate March’ Backed By Communist, Socialist Parties



    ‘People’s Climate March’ Backed By Communist, Socialist Parties


    Michael Bastasch 2 hours ago

    The upcoming "People's Climate March" intended to show massive support for a global warming treaty to world leaders at the United Nations climate summit later this month is not only being supported by environmentalists, but also communist and socialist groups.

    Among the literally hundreds of groups participating in the march are environmentalists and labor unions, as well as social justice groups, Islamic groups and other religious organizations.
    But supporters of the "People's Climate March" also include Communist Party USA, Socialist Party USA and a hodgepodge of other socialist organizations.
    Socialist organizations supporting the climate march include the Democratic Socialists of America, Ecosocialist Horizons, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, the Freedom Socialist Party, the International Socialist Organization, Socialist Action and the Socialist Alternative.
    The People's Climate March is scheduled for September 21, the same day as the UN climate summit kicks off. Groups participating in the march hope to show strong support for a global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissionsdespite the lack of global warming for the last 215 months.
    The climate march is an "open-source" model, meaning that any group can join up and support it, but details about the march, such as the date, location and distance are being sent out by major environmental groups.
    Environmentalists, however, argue that global warming affects everyone regardless of their political beliefs. To green groups, the march is about pressing political leaders to agree on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
    A spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council told The Daily Caller News Foundation that "the march is being organized in a participatory, open-source model; thus any group can join — Republicans, Democrats, independents, libertarians, vegetarians."
    "Climate change is a global problem and everyone must join the fight," the NRDC spokesman added.
    Representatives from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, 350.org did not immediately respond to TheDCNF's request for comment.
    Communist Party USA was founded as a radical Marxist-Leninist organization 1919 to push a communist agenda in U.S. politics. The group unapologetically supported the Soviet Union, and was even subsidized by the Soviets well into the 1980s. The group once boasted tens of thousands of members, but currently says it has a membership of 3,000 to 4,000.
    "Until we win enough support to change the system, communists call for radical reforms under capitalism," the Communist Party's website reads. "We call for nationalization of the banks, railroads, and industries like steel and auto… We say put the unemployed to work at union wages on massive public works programs to rebuild our cities, provide affordable housing for the homeless, build mass transit, and clean up the environment!"

    "Our outlook is based on the social science of Marxism-Leninism. We study history, politics and economics in order to change the world," the website adds.
    Leninists follow the teachings and examples of Vladimir Lenin, who wrested control of Russia from the czars in a bloody civil war in the early 1900s. The Bolsheviks, as they were called, were responsible for murdering the Russian royal family and launching a campaign of terror to subjugate dissenters.
    Lenin also began a campaign of "mass terror" and demanded that "unreliable elements" of Russia be set to gulags, or forced labor camps, throughout the country, according to Anne Applebaum, columnist and director of the Global Transitions Program at London's Legatum Institute. "By 1921, there were already 84 camps in 43 provinces, mostly designed to "rehabilitate" these first enemies of the people," Applebaum wrote.
    The use of gulags to silence Soviet political enemies expanded under Stalin to the point that prisoners "worked in almost every industry imaginable – logging, mining, construction, factory work, farming, the designing of airplanes and artillery – and lived, in effect, in a country within a country, almost a separate civilization," Applebaum noted. Gulags continued even into the 1980s.
    The Soviet Union is also responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million people in the 20th Century. Communism as a whole is responsible for killing as many as 65 million people during the last century —more than nearly five times as many people killed by the Nazi regime.
    Socialist Party USA has roots going back to 1901 and champions "radical democracy" which they say is a "non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community."
    Since its inception, Socialist Party USA sought to work to bring the U.S. closer to a social democracy, bringing big companies under government ownership and eliminating personal property.
    "In contrast to the Democratic and Republican parties, the Socialist Party has an underlying philosophy that is both coherent and radical," the group's website reads. "Socialists believe that the problems facing America and the world, such as environmental despoliation, the systematic waste of public resources for private profit, persistent unemployment concentrated among women and racial minorities, and the maldistribution of wealth, power, and income, are not mere aberrations of the capitalist system — they are the capitalist system."
    Source
    Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


    Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/pe...Hd8pMScSQ2U.99

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •