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

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???

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

Al Gore Embarrassed by Mother Nature – Polar Ice Caps Grow by 43%


“The polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”

This is what Al Gore said in December 2007 during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
Now it is 2014, which is seven years from Gore’s original prediction. Have the polar ice caps completely melted? Hardly.
According to satellite imagery, the arctic sea ice has expanded by at least 43% since 2012. Just to give you some perspective, that’s an area that’s about the equivalent of the size of Alaska.


Published on Aug 31, 2014
The latest satellite images are in and, according to the Danish Meteorological Institute, the Polar Ice Cap increased yet another year. In 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore said they would probably be gone by 2014...massive fail? An Inconvenient Prediction? What do you think?

Related News:
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
The Daily Mail

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.

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.

Read more here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

• Category
  
  • News & Politics
  
  
• License
  
  • Standard YouTube License
  
  

Of course, these new revelations lend some credence to the idea that we could be in for a rough winter here in the northern hemisphere.
At least one meteorologist says this coming winter will be worse than the last one. He and his team accurately predicted the bad winter of 2014 as well as the cool “garden of Eden” summer that much of the continental U.S. has experienced.
And as you may have experienced firsthand, this past winter was so cold and snowy that it had a measurable economic impact on U.S. business activity. So the idea of a winter worse than the last one is not pleasant — and just a little bit intimidating.
Want to make sure you’re prepared for anything — including a harsh winter? Click here to learn how to create a complete family survival plan.


http://survivaljoe.net/blog/al-gore-...paign=140921SJ


AHHH sorry but I can't see this man being embarrassed by anything he says...it is all about money!!!!

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/

DiCaprio film magnifies the real climate change 'monster'

http://ow.ly/2NDAdt





DiCaprio film magnifies the real climate change 'monster'

ow.ly
in the DiCaprio film about the “climate crisis,” we are told the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based

The face of a NWO puppet