Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 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. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    No Two Global-Warming Flakes Are Alike

    Posted By Chris Graham on Feb 14, 2014 | 146 Comments



    Whoo-whee! Did you guys get all that global warming that hit yesterday?

    I spent 45 minutes shoveling more than a foot of global warming out of my driveway and clearing a path up the walkway.

    What was especially difficult was that after all the global warming fell, it turned to rain and created a sheet of ice on top of all that thick, white global warming, causing it to be twice as heavy than it would have otherwise been.

    Where was President Obama during all of this? He was supposed to be able to control the weather!

    But man did I break a sweat out there! A-ha! See? Global warming! Warmth causes you to sweat, I sweated, ergo, warming—on a global scale!

    Did you hear about Death Valley in the Mojave Desert? It got over two feet of global warming! It was so warm that it actually felt cold, and the clouds apparently believed it because they dropped over two feet of cold, icy global warming on the place.

    Okay, that didn’t happen. But it will one day. As the world heats up, the ponds, lakes, and oceans evaporate into the clouds, and then those clouds spill precipitation back down to Earth, sometimes in watery form, sometimes in icy form.

    If this sounds a lot like what’s been going on literally since the beginning of history, it’s not; this time, the evaporated waters will multiply in the air and precipitate ten times, no, 50 times as much water back to Earth, causing, one day, a worldwide flood. With some volcanoes and earthquakes thrown in for good measure.

    Don’t tell me that doesn’t make perfect sense.

    The only thing that can really save us from such a flood will be Obama. The moment we nominated him to be our Democratic Party presidential candidate—that was the moment he started slowing the rise of the oceans.

    As long as he’s president, he can protect us. (I don’t know where he was yesterday—another fundraiser with another obscene rapper?—but, hey, even deities need rests sometimes.)

    I propose we make him president in perpetuity. I know no two global-warming flakes are alike, but it all looks the same to me and I’m sick of it. It has to end.

    Barack Obama 2016…and Beyond!

    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4746/two-g...lcA3rcJC5tS.99


  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    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.



  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    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




    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.


    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!!!!!
    Last edited by kathyet2; 02-18-2014 at 09:43 AM.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    February 18, 2014 Mass Destruction of Science

    Charles Battig
    Perhaps given the chance to avert public eyes from his lackluster results with containing the deteriorating situation in Syria, nuclear talks with Iran, and the Middle East peace process, Secretary of State Kerry has chosen to flaunt his lack of scientific understanding as a needed diversion.

    Kerry described those who do not accept that human activity causes global warming as "shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues," and said big companies and special interests should not be allowed to "hijack" the climate debate. "Climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction."

    These sound-bite alarmism utterances from an ideologue lacking scientific training himself, shoddy or otherwise, are consistent with a special-interest politician always alert to the political climate. By unilaterally labeling a fundamental, natural feature of Earth itself a "weapon of mass destruction," Kerry has now redefined "original sin" as being the result of excess man-made carbon dioxide. He has removed the path of redemption from the hands of traditional religion and proclaimed salvation in government-imposed "global warming pollution reduction." The failed 2010 Kerry/Lieberman "American Power Act" apparently lives on in Kerry's psyche.

    Let Kerry produce the impartial evidence that would quantify how much human activity has caused how much global warming (or cooling). The inherently chaotic nature of climate has defied attempts of climate modelers to accurately predict the future climate. What is "normal climate" is heavily dependent on the time period and geographic place chosen. The scientific record shows no global warming for the past 16 years, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased about 9 percent. True "weapons of mass destruction" have reliable on-off switches, well-calculated destructive impacts, and specific targets.

    "Climate change" has been coopted by the progressive/liberal movement as something akin to the "universal solvent." It is the term used to explain any untoward event anywhere, and direct blame to all of mankind...but with the exception of the ruling class. It is the term that brings visions of guaranteed profits to the corporate cronyist, endless government research grants to compliant scientists, and elitist political control of the populace, whose function is reduced to paying for the scam.
    Charles Battig, M.D., Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website is www.climateis.wordpress.com


    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz2thsTZd2O
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    John Kerry Uses Mockery To Deal With Lack of Evidence Of Global Warming (Postscript)


    Posted on February 18, 2014 by Mark Horne



    It is always a wonderful opportunity when the Secretary of State for the Galactic Empire the United States of America goes to some small country whose economy is the fraction of the size of ours, because then he is surrounded by people who are dying to gain his good graces and he can say whatever he wants. It is better than having canned applause. In this case, the captive audience was in Indonesia and the text of John Kerry’s sermon was the idiotic heresy of denying global warming.

    Anyone can look up John Kerry’s education and see he has no training at all in climate science. He has no idea what he is talking about. He is completely incapable, for example, of even holding a conversation with Richard Lindzen, the MIT climatologist.
    In other words, you have every bit as much right to your opinion as he has to his opinion. The only difference is that he has the power to censor your opinion and all the scientists from any debate and that is exactly what he intends to do.
    If Kerry has no education in climate science, what is his education? In a word: Liberalism. From Wikipedia:
    In 1962, Kerry entered Yale University, majoring in political science and residing in Jonathan Edwards College. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1966. Kerry played on the soccer, hockey, lacrosse, and fencing teams; in addition, he took flying lessons.
    In his sophomore year, Kerry became the Chairman of the Liberal Party of the Yale Political Union, and a year later he served as President of the Union. Amongst his influential teachers in this period was Professor H. Bradford Westerfield, who was himself a former President of the Political Union. His involvement with the Political Union gave him an opportunity to be involved with important issues of the day, such as the civil rights movement and Kennedy's New Frontier program. He also became a member of the secretive Skull and Bones Society. He also traveled to Switzerland through AIESEC Yale.

    Under the guidance of the speaking coach and history professor Rollin Osterweis, Kerry won many debates against other college students from across the nation. In March 1965, as the Vietnam War escalated, he won the Ten Eyck prize as the best orator in the junior class for a speech that was critical of U.S. foreign policy. In the speech he said, "It is the specter of Western imperialism that causes more fear among Africans and Asians than communism and thus, it is self-defeating."
    So we have here someone who was rather busy in college and, as I already mentioned, did not have time to do intensive study of climate science. It wasn’t his interest. Liberal politics was his interest.
    And it is liberal politics that is driving Kerry’s agenda now.
    Of course, it would be a disaster for Indonesia or any other developing economy to suddenly have to curtail their CO2 emissions, or to pay a tax for those emissions. It would be far more destructive than any “specter of Western imperialism” that Kerry imagined in his youth. The global warming scam is a rationalization for US aggression.
    The good news is that the truth is winning. The fact that Kerry is forced to resort to mockery and baseless smears shows he knows he is losing.

    Postscript: I was so angry at Kerry's words that I didn't even think about the so-called "carbon footprint" involved in his climate change international tour. See here for more details and my opinion of what it means.

    Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/02/...M4K8H4sWQEo.99



    Last edited by kathyet2; 02-19-2014 at 11:21 AM.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    More Hilarious Gore: “The Dust Bowl Is Coming Back, Quickly, Unless We Act”



    I’m confused, I thought we were supposed to be flooded by the melting polar ice caps?
    Via Kansas City:
    Al Gore has been known for his climate change warnings since the 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
    But the former vice president, speaking Saturday in Kansas City, cited many more recent examples how heavy use of fossil fuels is contributing to extreme weather events and trends, in his view.


    Gore filled a Westin Crown Center ballroom with a 90-minute presentation, using photos and videos to illustrate a litany of floods, wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising sea levels and increasing world temperatures.


    To those attending the Folk Alliance International conference, he noted examples of flooding in locations both remote and closer to home, such as in Manitou Springs, Colo., where high water barreled down mountain highways last year, carrying cars along with it


    “They had never seen anything like this in Manitou Springs,” Gore said.


    He cited the possibility of how flooding in Pakistan could destabilize that country, a nuclear power, and the possible effect that continuing drought in California might have on the world’s food supply.


    “Think about that,” he said. “The Dust Bowl is coming back, quickly, unless we act.”
    Keep reading…

    http://weaselzippers.us/176063-more-...unless-we-act/








    Al Gore brings climate change message to Kansas City

    February 22

    By BRIAN BURNES

    The Kansas City Star

    Al Gore has been known for his climate change warnings since the 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.”


    Susan Pfannmuller | Special to The Star Former vice president Al Gore spoke about climate change Saturday during the Folk Alliance International conference at the Westin Crown Center hotel.



    But the former vice president, speaking Saturday in Kansas City, cited many more recent examples how heavy use of fossil fuels is contributing to extreme weather events and trends, in his view.
    Gore filled a Westin Crown Center ballroom with a 90-minute presentation, using photos and videos to illustrate a litany of floods, wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising sea levels and increasing world temperatures.
    To those attending the Folk Alliance International conference, he noted examples of flooding in locations both remote and closer to home, such as in Manitou Springs, Colo., where high water barreled down mountain highways last year, carrying cars along with it.
    “They had never seen anything like this in Manitou Springs,” Gore said.
    He cited the possibility of how flooding in Pakistan could destabilize that country, a nuclear power, and the possible effect that continuing drought in California might have on the world’s food supply.
    “Think about that,” he said. “The Dust Bowl is coming back, quickly, unless we act.”
    Gore presented animation from his 2006 film depicting water pushing into the streets of lower Manhattan — much mocked at the time, Gore said — followed by images of water filling New York City subway tunnels during Hurricane Sandy in October 2012.
    Gore conceded the possible fatigue some may have with his warnings, as well as the possible sense of powerlessness as to what any one individual can do to affect what appear to be vast, unchangeable trends.
    “Do we really have to do this and — if the answer is yes — can we do it?” Gore said, repeating two questions he routinely hears.
    “The answer to both of those questions — spoiler alert — is ‘yes.’ ”
    Gore cited what he considered the increasing momentum with which renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power have been embraced.
    Just as one telephone company study 25 years ago underestimated the huge increase in the use of cellphones, estimates on the acceptance of wind and solar technology also have been conservative, Gore said.
    Among the countries or states turning to renewable energy strategies, Gore mentioned the Vatican’s increasing use of solar technology. Vatican City, Gore said, wants to be the first CO2-neutral sovereign city-state in the world.
    “They have two advantages,” Gore said. “It is very small, and they have God on their side.”
    He urged his listeners to act on an individual basis.
    “The one missing ingredient may well be you, no kidding,” he said.
    And, given how he was addressing a room filled with folk music admirers, Gore framed his remarks with references to two singers: Bob Dylan and the late Pete Seeger. Reciting a phrase from “The Times They Are a-Changin’ ” and later invoking Seeger’s memory, Gore urged those in attendance to write songs and spread a renewable energy message “all over this land.”
    Folk music, he added, “played a positive role in resolving the central question in civil rights, as to what was truly right and truly wrong.”

    To reach Brian Burnes, call 816-234-4120 or send email to bburnes@kcstar.com.


    http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/22...te-change.html


    Can we all say crap and traitor!!!!! Money from our pockets into theirs..
    Last edited by kathyet2; 02-24-2014 at 12:07 PM.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

    Supreme Court hears arguments on Obama’s global warming agenda

    3:07 PM 02/24/2014

    Michael Bastasch

    President Obama’s plan to fight global warming was on trial Monday. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether the administration had the authority to require that industrial facilities get permits when they emit large amounts of greenhouse gases.

    Thirteen states, industrial groups and utility companies have petitioned the Supreme Court to rule that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from these facilities. Such a ruling would imperil Obama’s plan to fight global warming, the lynchpin of which is to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

    “This case marks an extremely critical point in clarifying just how far the Obama Administration can extend their regulatory overreach, including by rewriting the Clean Air Act to suit its needs,” said Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter in a statement.

    “This Administration has led a far-left agenda driven crusade to circumvent Congress at every opportunity, and this case could permit an unprecedented power grab by expanding how far it can go to regulate greenhouse gases,” Vitter said. “Legislative attempts like ‘cap and trade’ have failed because the American public knows these regulations could strangle our economy, and the implications of this case could cripple the democratic process.”

    The EPA, environmentalists and public health groups argue that the agency’s requirement of permitting for facilities that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases is within the authority granted to it by the Clean Air Act.

    “We need all available safeguards under the Clean Air Act to address the urgent challenge of climate change — including the advanced pollution control measures required as an essential protection in construction permits for large industrial sources,” said Vickie Patton, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund. “These measures are vital if we hope to minimize industrial climate pollution.”

    Patton and others have also tried to downplay the importance of the case by arguing that while the case does have major policy implications, it is not challenging the EPA’s underlying authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

    “What is not at stake in this case is the EPA’s determination that six greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride — endanger the health and welfare of current and future generations,” Patton added.

    The background

    At the center of the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA is the question of whether the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles allows them to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources.

    The case follows the 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the court ruled that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions if it was determined that they were harmful to human health and that the agency needed to begin the process of making such a determination. In that case environmentalists, twelve states and several cities sued the EPA to compel them to begin the so-called “endangerment finding.”

    It wasn’t until President Obama was in the White House that the EPA finally came out with its endangerment finding, saying that greenhouse gases from motor vehicles were harmful to human health and, therefore, could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

    The EPA moved quickly to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions, first limiting emissions from motor vehicles with its “tailpipe rule.” This rule limited emissions from light-duty trucks and set new fuel efficiency rules for cars and trucks. Soon after, the EPA argued that because the Clean Air Act applies to “any air pollution agent,” they had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources.

    Next Page

    What's really at stake

    Video of Scotus:
    http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/vi...p&VID=25651048

    The problem was that the Clean Air Act Title V permits that the EPA is now applying to greenhouse gases, were created before global warming was viewed as a serious policy issue. Under the Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction permits are required for stationary sources that emit at least 100 or 250 tons per year of traditional pollutants — not greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Stationary facilities that could potentially emit at least 100 tons of pollutants per year need a Clean Air Act Title V permit.

    Sounds simple enough, but since greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are much more common than traditional pollutants and are emitted in much larger amounts. Applying Clean Air Act permitting rules in this way meant that the agency would more than six million facilities across the country, including including schools, hospitals and even some large households.

    So the agency tweaked its rule so that only large facilities, like refineries and power plants, which emit more than 75,000 or 100,000 tons per year would need permits for greenhouse gas emissions.

    What’s really at stake?
    While this Supreme Court case won’t completely prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, it will define what the agency can and can’t do in terms of fighting global warming.

    “With the president announcing in his State of the Union address that he plans to expand the use of executive authority, the question of just how far the courts will let administrative agencies go in substituting what the executive wants over what Congress legislated will increasingly come to the fore,” writes attorney Pete Glaser, who helped the the Washington Legal Foundation file two amicus briefs in support of Utility Air Regulatory Group. “If the EPA can ignore numerical statutory permitting thresholds, what else can federal agencies do?”

    “While the rule at issue is just one example of the president’s broader executive overreach, the Supreme Court must act to curb abuse of power by the president and his EPA before it escalates any further,” said Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

    “Millions of American jobs and the livelihoods of communities and families across the country will be jeopardized if President Obama is granted authority to proceed with his Climate Action Plan, the most radical components of which haven’t yet even been enacted,” Sheehan added.

    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.

    "What is crap and traitor"

    Last edited by kathyet2; 02-25-2014 at 10:50 AM.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

    More Ironic Bloviations From Hypocrite Al Gore

    Posted By Chris Graham on Feb 25, 2014 | 58 Comments


    Al Gore was once the Vice President of what was at that time still the most powerful nation on Earth, but he decided to squander his own legacy by becoming the world’s most famous crackpot. Oh well.

    Starting over a year ago, according to Oracle Gore, we were supposed to have been living in a world completely free of a northern polar ice cap. No, really, that’s what he warned us about in 2009. It was just supposed to have vanished into thin, hot hair, much like what comes out of Gore himself.

    The ice caps are still there and still not going anywhere…again, like Gore. In fact, since 2012, that ice cap has grown by 50 percent, which is very fortunate for those of us who appreciate delicious, chuckle-inducing irony.

    And speaking of hot air, Gore was in Kansas City over the weekend to bug everybody about how the world is burning up (can’t you feel it, folks?). He’s like the world’s richest End Times hobo, traveling the land with Power Point presentations declaring the end is nigh, repent, repent!

    Gore did in fact make reference to God in his 90-minute presentation, saying that Vatican City wants to be the first CO2-neutral city-state in the world, adding that “they have God on their side.”

    It’s a little ambiguous whether Gore even believes in the same God as they do in Vatican City, though. That God declared in the Book of Genesis, “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” That very clearly is not what Gore believes. In fact, his disbelief in those spoken words of God is how he’s made his millions since the turn of the century.

    And no End Times pronouncements are complete without imagery, whether verbal or physical, of destructive forces worldwide. Gore knows the game, has become a professional player of that game, and, as such, laid all those apocalyptic cards on the table.

    According to The Kansas City Star, Gore used “photos and videos to illustrate a litany of floods, wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising sea levels and increasing world temperatures.” You know, things that never happened, no sirree, before humans began heating up the Earth with their gases, like the emissions from Gore’s own private jet and multiple multi-million-dollar mansions that displace acres upon acres upon acres of natural land growth.

    Will somebody please do the Earth a favor? Raze this man’s mansions to the ground, plant a forest in their place, and build him a humble tree house. A lean-to in the dirt would be acceptable as well.

    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4858/ironi...SAaEVQfvp7V.99


  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    March 24, 2014

    Leading scientific body to review its support for global warming 'consensus'Thomas Lifson

    The so-called “consensus” among scientists supporting anthropogenic global warming climate change may take a fatal hit.
    The American Physical Society, a leading scientific organization in the field of physics with 50,000 members, has appointed a balanced panel to review its stance. Investors Business Daily reports:
    At the risk of being accused of embracing what alarmists call the flat-earth view of climate change, the American Physical Society has appointed a balanced, six-person committee to review its stance on so-called climate change that includes three distinguished skeptics: Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen. Their credentials are impressive.
    Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and was a lead author of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    Curry is a professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
    Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT from 1983 to 2013, is currently a distinguished senior fellow in the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
    A question the American Physical Society panel will address is one we ask repeatedly: Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC, part of the United Nations?
    Usually, when a scientific theory makes a prediction and that prediction fails to come true, the theory is considered to have been proven false. The warmists argue that something they call a “pause” is underway, but the problem is that nobody predicted such a pause cold be possible.
    Other questions the panel will be asked to address:
    The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?"
    In a nod to the likelihood that nature, not man, calls the shots, another APS audit question asks the panel: "What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (i.e., sunspot activity) in about a century?"
    Stay tuned. This could be the Waterloo of the warmists.





    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...m_medium=email

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

    Published on Mar 27, 2014
    Is Global Warming really happening? There are many voices in opposition to the theory and our guest today is just one of those. His name is John Coleman who was the original weathercaster on "Good Morning, America." After that Coleman founded and served as CEO and President of the Weather Channel.

    In 2007, Coleman began to speak out as a skeptic on the issue of global warming. He describes the wave of concern about global warming "a fictional, manufactured crisis."

    He believes many scientists and politicians have engaged in fraudulent activity based on bad science in a continuing quest for funding. He also explains the one-world government motive behind the formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Download your free Next News "Heroes & Villains" Poster here: http://nextnewsnetwork.com/the-2013-h...

    Donate USD: http://nnn.is/donate-dollars
    Donate BTC: http://nnn.is/donate-bitcoin

    LIVE: http://NextNewsNetwork.com
    Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
    Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
    Sub: http://NNN.is/the_new_media
    Meet the Next News Team: http://youtu.be/2QnNKwQ2WkY
    Hashtag: #N3


    About:
    Next News Network's WHDT World News program airs daily at 6pm and 11pm Eastern on Comcast, DirecTV and Over-the-Air and Online at http://NNN.is/on-WHDT

    WHDT World News is available to 6 million viewers from South Beach to Sebastian, Florida and to 2 million viewers in Boston, Massachusetts via WHDN.

    WHDT broadcasts on RF channel 44 (virtual channel 9) from Palm City and is carried on cable TV channels 44 (SD) and 1044 (HD) by AT&T, on cable channels 17 (SD) and 438 (HD) in West Palm Beach by Comcast, on satellite channel 44 (SD) in West Palm Beach by DIRECTV, and on WHDN-Boston which broadcasts on RF channel 38 (virtual channel 6) from the Government Center district in downtown Boston.

    More about WHDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDT
    #NNN




    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAWbRWlSlpk


    OH NO SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!!


    Now that I think of it they are trying to take the Weather Channel off line on my Direct TV, at least for me they did...I hate the stupid weather station they replaced it with it is a very moronic program!!!
    Last edited by kathyet2; 03-30-2014 at 03:45 PM.

Page 2 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
  •