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

I’VE GOT YOUR CLIMATE CHANGE: 25 Pics That Show Our Current Hysteria Is Cuckoo

By Clash Daily / 30 May 2014 / 0 Comments


Why should American taxpayers spend billions, if not trillions, of dollars fighting a quixotic crusade to keep the planet’s climate from changing?
Man’s activities play but a small part in the global scope of things, and 25 graphs show that to be the case.
1. Carbon Dioxide Levels Were Previously Much Higher & Yet Life Survived


Temperatures rise and fall in the long historical picture regardless of CO2 levels. In fact, CO2 levels are fairly low right now compared to life-flourishing eras.
2. Modern History Shows Similar Temps in Medieval Warm Period


Forget the “hockey stick” graph the IPCC whipped out to stoke fears of a global apocalypse; such warming is not unprecedented.
3. More About the Medieval Warm Period


Before the Industrial Revolution took hold, there was a period of warming that allowed the Vikings to more easily explore the North Atlantic and settle Greenland. Other historical studies, some based on tree-ring data, suggest a similar period of warming in Roman times.
4. Graph from 1990 IPCC contrasted with 2001 IPCC Report


The 1990 figure 7c that was subsequently “disappeared” from succeeding IPCC reports followed by the infamous “hockey stick.”
5. Carbon Dioxide’s Contribution to “Thermal Forcing” (Also Dubbed the “Greenhouse Effect”)



Mankind has about zero control over the volume of atmospheric water vapor, which is about 90% to 95% (varies by location) of what is commonly referred to as the “greenhouse effect.”
Read more: IJ Review


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/05/ive-got-climate-change-25-pics-show-current-hysteria-cuckoo/#tJB2FOirQxzO6ZAD.99


What is crap and traitor!!

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

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 To Sign Crippling Executive Order

President Obama plans to announce on Monday that he will be using his pen to sign an executive order that would put in place strict regulations on energy producers and have a potentially crippling effect on the economy.
Drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency, the regulations would require coal-fired plants to reduce carbon emissions by up to 20% while also forcing the industry to pay for its emissions through a cap-and-trade system.
The move has the potential to shut down hundreds of coal-fired plants across the nation as well as send energy prices soaring as the cost of producing energy is driven up. People familiar with the regulations say that it will set a national limit on carbon emissions from coal-fired plants as well as allowing each state to come up with its own plan to reduce emissions based on several options such as adding wind turbines, solar power, and other energy efficient technologies or joining other state cap-and-trade programs that specifically tax carbon emissions.
Republicans say that the regulations would effectively be back-dooring Congress since a similar plan failed to pass in 2010.
According to the New York Times:
“Cap and trade was born in 1990 during the administration of President George Bush as a centerpiece of amendments to the 1970 Clean Air Act. Conceived as a business-friendly way to cut pollution without heavy-handed regulation, the idea was that the cap would ratchet down each year, allowing less pollution while market forces drive up the price of permits, creating an incentive for industries to invest in lower-polluting sources of energy. In 2006 in California, Mr. Schwarzenegger signed a pioneering state cap-and-trade law. As the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, Senator John McCain of Arizona pledged to put in effect a nationwide cap-and-trade law.”
H/T: Mr. Conservative

http://tellmenow.com/2014/05/obama-t...ecutive-order/

Obama to Take Action to Slash Coal Pollution


By CORAL DAVENPORT JUNE 1, 2014


Photo

Coal-fired power plants, like this one near St. Marys, Kan., are at the center of the debate on climate change. Credit Charlie Riedel/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Monday will announce one of the strongest actions ever taken by the United States government to fight climate change, a proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulation to cut carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, according to people briefed on the plan who spoke anonymously because they had been asked not to reveal details.

The regulation takes aim at the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, the nation’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants. If it withstands an expected onslaught of legal and legislative attacks, experts say that it could close hundreds of the plants and also lead, over the course of decades, to systemic changes in the American electricity industry, including transformations in how power is generated and used.
Related Coverage

• video
  
  Video: The Politics of Obama’s Climate MoveMAY 31, 2014
  
  
• 
  News Analysis: Trying to Reclaim Leadership on Climate ChangeJUNE 1, 2014
  
  
• 
  Using Executive Powers, Obama Begins His Last Big Push on Climate PolicyMAY 31, 2014
  
  
• 
  Environmental Groups Focus on Change by Strengthening Their Political OperationsMAY 31, 2014
  
  
• 
  The Big Fix: A Price Tag on Carbon as a Climate Rescue PlanMAY 30, 2014
  
  
• 
  
  U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds, Citing Heat and FloodsMAY 6, 2014
  
  

It is also likely to stand as President Obama’s last chance to substantially shape domestic policy and as a defining element of his legacy. The president, who failed to push a sweeping climate change bill through Congress in his first term, is now acting on his own by using his executive authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to issue the regulation.

Photo

Coal-fired plants like the Morgantown Generating Station in Newburg, Md., in the background, would be affected by the rule. Credit Mark Wilson/Getty Images Under the rule, states will be given a wide menu of policy options to achieve the pollution cuts. Rather than immediately shutting down coal plants, states would be allowed to reduce emissions by making changes across their electricity systems — by installing new wind and solar generation or energy-efficiency technology, and by starting or joining state and regional “cap and trade” programs, in which states agree to cap carbon pollution and buy and sell permits to pollute.
E.P.A. officials have said they hope the flexible approach will allow states to comply with the regulation more easily and cost-effectively, by adopting policies best tailored to regional economies and energy mixes. But industry groups planning to sue to block or delay the rule have said that approach makes the rule more legally vulnerable.
The details of the proposed regulation were first reported Sunday afternoon by The Wall Street Journal online.
Because burning coal is the largest source of the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists blame for trapping heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet, the rule is expected to have a powerful environmental impact. It comes on top of a regulation Mr. Obama issued in his first term that sharply increased the required fuel economy of vehicles, the second-largest source of carbon pollution in the United States.
Experts said that the new regulation would set the United States on track to meet its target set forth in a United Nations accord in 2009, when Mr. Obama pledged that the United States would cut its greenhouse gas pollution 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050.
On Sunday, environmental advocates praised the proposed rule for its breadth and reach while the coal industry attacked it as a symbol of executive overreach that could wreak economic havoc. Republican campaigns plan to use the rule to attack incumbent Democrats in this fall’s midterm elections.
“This momentous announcement raises the bar for controlling carbon emissions in the United States,” said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, a Washington research organization, adding, “These new standards send a powerful message around the world.”

Scott Segal, a lawyer with the firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which represents coal companies and plans to sue over the rule, wrote in an email, “Clearly, it is designed to materially damage the ability of conventional energy sources to provide reliable and affordable power, which in turn can inflict serious damage on everything from household budgets to industrial jobs.”
Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a report warning that the rule could lower the gross domestic product by $50 billion annually.
Recent Comments

taylor

YesterdayThe Republicans have kids also, don't you care about them?
Mr. Gadsden

YesterdayDemocrats say: "We fight for the middle class" Democrats do: 1) destroy middle-class jobs (imposing regulations that coal plants can't...
Jim

YesterdayI hope everyone here understands by taking 600 Coal plants off line with no replacement or little replacement. We will have rolling...

• See All Comments

The proposal to be unveiled Monday will be a draft, open to public comment, and is certain to set off a wave of lobbying from states, industry groups and environmentalists seeking to shape the final version of the rule. While there is no legal deadline for finalizing the regulation, Mr. Obama has directed the E.P.A. to issue the rule by June 2015 so that the administration can begin putting the program in place before he leaves office.

Nations around the world are closely scrutinizing the climate change rule and its prospects.

The timing of the rule signals that Mr. Obama may be more interested in achieving a legacy-making global deal on climate change than in short-term political concerns. While the rule could make things politically difficult for incumbent Democrats from coal states in November, it could make things easier for American climate change negotiators this fall at the United Nations General Assembly, where governments are expected to hold side meetings intended to forge a global climate change treaty that negotiators hope to have signed by 2015.

Over the long term, the United States has been the world’s largest emitter of carbon pollution, but today China is the largest, with India and other developing Asian countries poised to see an explosion in their carbon pollution in the coming years as millions of people join the middle class and begin enjoying cheap coal-fired electricity.

But China and India have resisted American pressure to cut their own carbon pollution because, they have said, the United States has no moral authority to push other nations to cut pollution when it fails to do so at home.

State Department climate negotiators hope that by bringing the new E.P.A. rule to the table, they will be able to demonstrate significant action and have fresh leverage to broker a deal.

“I fully expect action by the United States to spur others in taking concrete action,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/politics/epa-to-seek-30-percent-cut-in-carbon-emissions.html?_r=0









What is crap and traitor!!!

June 4, 2014

My Two Favorite Questions for Global Warmists

By Paul Jacobson


So, I find myself sitting around a patio table next Independence Day sipping on the perfect mimosa with some friends and a couple of folks I haven’t met before. One of the new acquaintances brings up the subject of “climate change.” I know from the term used that this one is probably a sorta believer but not a hard-core, unshakable advocate; were that so, he would have used the latest, hippest, most with-it name-change term “climate disruption.” Now it’s time for my Favorite Global Warmism Question #1:

• Did you know that there’s no such thing as a greenhouse gas?

The conversation around the table stops dead in its tracks. Everybody’s looking quizzically at each other. No one is looking at me. After a few seconds, a dear friend of many years says, “C’mon, Flyoverpen, you must be kidding. Everybody knows greenhouse gasses exist.” I cross my arms, put on a smug pursed-lip smile and repeat, “Nope, there’s no such thing as a greenhouse gas.”
I then proceed to explain that the word “greenhouse” in that term is a misnomer. In a real-world earthbound greenhouse -- we all know what they look like even though there aren’t many in existence anymore -- the sun’s short-wave infrared light penetrates through the glass roof, warming up what’s inside the greenhouse: air, plants, soil, etc.
As the things inside the greenhouse absorb the short-wave infrared, they convert it into heat -- long-wave infrared. This long-wave infrared, instead of readily penetrating glass on the way out, is partially blocked; greenhouse glass is said to be opaque to long-wave infrared. Inside heat can escape from a greenhouse more readily if the temperature between inside and outside air increases. However, the mechanism -- convection -- by which the greenhouse cools under such circumstances is altogether different from what the sun does to heat up the greenhouse.
And, of course, if that bratty neighbor kid pitches a rock at the greenhouse roof and breaks a glass pane, warm air escapes, by air convection, in a hurry. In other words, a real greenhouse does its job primarily by suppressing convection.
Not so with the so-called “greenhouse” gasses, among them water vapor, methane (CH4) and, most controversially, carbon dioxide (CO2). In this case, long-wave infrared radiation radiating back from earth is absorbed by these gasses; some of it is then radiated out into space, and some is radiated back to earth, creating more warmth here. There is no phenomenon quite like this that we experience in everyday human life, which is probably why we don’t have an apt word for it in common discourse. Maybe someday somebody smarter than I am will come up with such a word, one that really fits. Until then I’ll keep using the term “greenhouse” gas but not without the irony quotes; take those quotes to mean “not really.”
Hey, I admit it: Question #1 is something of a semantic teaser. But now it’s time for Favorite Global Warmism Question #2, and this one is really serious:

• How much actual CO2 is there in the atmosphere?

Shoulders are shrugging all around the table, and folks are muttering, “I have no idea… not a clue… beats me,” the way just about any normal citizen would respond to this question… except the other new acquaintance, whose arms are folded and whose face is bearing a smug pursed-lip smile. “That’s one I happen to know: the actual CO2 in the atmosphere today is 379ppm.” Aha! Now I strongly suspect that I have a global warmism true believer in front of me, so I’m gonna have to be careful. I respond, “You’re absolutely right! And that number is virtually undisputed.” And it so happens that number comes straight from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a notoriously pro-global-warmism U.N. entity.
At this point, I’m going to depart from the fantasy conversation in order to play some games with that number. The IPCC, along with the rest of the global-warming “consensus,” would just as soon nobody even be aware of that IPCC number; notice how global warmists never refer to it in their advocacy propaganda. However, if somebody has to know, best that the data be presented in the format of their choice. They wouldn’t like one bit what I’m about to do with it.
First, let’s take a look at IPCC presentation of present-day CO2 (actual data from 2005) compared with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750):

• CO2 2005=379ppm
• CO2 1750=280ppm
• Increase: 99ppm

A normal citizen looking at these numbers would probably be thinking, “Hmm, those are pretty good size numbers, several hundred; the difference between them is substantial. But, uh, what does ‘ppm’ mean? Oh, yes, parts per million, I get it.” But even following that cognitive eureka, the full import of the data is unlikely to really sink in: people can come close to conceiving a hundred in human experiential terms, but a million? That will always remain an abstraction. So far so good for the cause of global warmism: the truth is still very opaque if not completely disguised.
To get closer to human experience, we need to play with the IPCC data format by presenting the numbers like this:

• CO2 2005=379ppm=0.000379=ca 4/100,000
• CO2 1750=280ppm=0.000280=ca 3/100,000
• Increase: 99ppm=0.000099=ca 1/100,000

Whoa! You’re trying to tell me a change of one part in a hundred thousand threatens to plunge the earth into climate catastrophe? That CO2 is just a trace gas and a miniscule one at that. What kind of a super-mega gas is that CO2, anyway? This whole “climate disruption” thing is preposterous before it even gets out of the starting gate.
OK, I’ve calmed down. Now I’ll try to speak rationally.
New scientific inquiries often as not entail a form of logic known as abduction, or abductive reasoning. Another name for this is “inference to the best explanation.” Another way of putting it might be“make your best guess with the data you’ve got.” Inquiries that rely on historical data often begin and end at the level of abduction if there’s no possibility of acquiring new evidence.
Abduction can also sometimes act as a hypothesis gateway, giving cause for acceptance, even if only provisional, of a hypothesis… or dismissal of a hypothesis as prima facie implausible. Global warmism manifestly deserves the second response. The poison pill is the sheer paucity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just in case you’re still not convinced of the magnitude of that paucity, consider this image:

While water vapor is known to be a less potent “greenhouse” gas than CO2, it utterly dwarfs puny little CO2 in terms of sheer quantity.
This much we -- skeptics and advocates of global warmism alike -- agree on: CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas (the simplest high school science project can demonstrate that); atmospheric CO2 has increased during the industrial era due to human activity; this has added more heat energy to earth’s atmosphere and surface than previously. However, this is not enough to break through the paucity-implausibility gateway. To accept the global warmist hypothesis that anthropogenic global warming is leading to climate catastrophe, we need to know not just that industrial-era anthropogenic CO2 emissions are merely effectual; this variable must be shown to be determinative.
This means that anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be examined in full context with numerous other climate variables such as solar activity, volcanism, magnetic field shifts, etc. An inquiry like this is certain to be dauntingly, perhaps overwhelmingly, complex if conducted like authentic, inductive science. Global warmism advocates have shamelessly evaded this monumental evidence burden -- and the burden is entirely on them -- by resorting to garbage-in-garbage-out computer models, even outright data fraud and deceitfulness.
Global warmism remains the most colossal hoax ever perpetrated.

Paul Jacobson blogs underthe nom de plume Flyoverpen. He resides in Deepmidwest, FO.




http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/..._warmists.html

Aussies to Form Alliance to Thwart Obama’s Climate Goals

Michael Bastasch 18 hours ago

Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott is seeking out "like-minded" countries to form an alliance to thwart climate policies being pushed by President Obama and other world leaders.
Abbott announced his intention to stymie efforts to push climate policies on unwilling countries as he met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday. Abbott said he seeks to build a conservative alliance with Canada, Britain, India and New Zealand.

All are Commonwealth countries that were formerly part of the British Empire and are led by center-right governments, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
President Obama's recently announced regulations on power plants have gained international recognition from the United Nations and some European countries. The White House hopes its new regulations will give the U.S. leverage when negotiating a new international climate deal in 2015.
But Abbott's planned coalition aims to counter Obama's push to get the international community to adopt climate policies, like carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes.
Abbott's conservative Liberal-National coalition won a landslide victory in Australia's elections last year, on a limited government platform that included repealing the country's carbon tax and cutting green energy and global warming spending.
Abbott's government is set to slash global warming spending by 90 percent over the next four years. Efforts to repeal the country's carbon tax have also moved forward as Labor Party Senators have begun to buckle under pressure to get rid of the tax.
"The carbon tax is an act of economic vandalism," Abbott said in March. "You can't trust [Labor] anywhere near an economy."

A study from last year by Dr. Alex Robson, an economist at Griffith University found that after just one year, the carbon tax increased taxes on 2.2 million Australians while doing nothing to decrease the country's carbon emissions.
Robson's study also found the carbon tax raised electricity prices 15 percent while the country's unemployment rate shot up by 10 percent after the carbon tax was implemented.
But while Australia has been ditching its climate policies, the U.S. has been pushing ahead. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that U.S. officials have been pushing the G20 to include global warming on the agenda for the group's meeting in Australia this fall.
Even though Abbott is targeting conservative governments for his anti-Obama alliance, it may be difficult to find takers. Britain and New Zealand both have cap-and-trade schemes. British Prime Minister David Cameron has also stressed his support for tackling global warming.
Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/au...QeRiMIoYOiB.99


Crap and Traitor!!! Money from your pocket into theirs, WORLD WIDE !!

June 26, 2014

Capturing Carbon Drives up Energy Costs

By Sierra Rayne



Some odd discussions are taking place on the right side of the political spectrum surrounding climate change policies and energy prices.

Claims by Roger Meiners -- a Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Arlington -- that "the latest salvo [by the Obama administration] against fossil fuels, announced this week, ensures higher energy prices in the future. This will discourage domestic investment in favor of going to countries such as China, India, and South Africa that are not shy about building new coal-fired power plants" are fundamentally correct. Efforts by the Obama administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, and will increase, energy prices above the non-GHG reduction counter-factual. And, indeed, raising energy prices slows economic growth and discourages domestic investment.
When Professor Meiners states that "domestic reductions in carbon emissions, which will damage the economy long after Mr. Obama is gone, will be swamped by new emissions from emerging nations," he is also accurately describing the state of global GHG emissions.
So far we're on a logical track, but here is where I have concerns with Professor Meiners' reasoning:

"If we are serious about reducing carbon emissions, reducing the size of our economy will not help. We need to find ways to capture the carbon. Unfortunately, the administration only pays lip service to carbon capture, focusing instead on policies that run up energy costs.
What nation is doing serious research on what is supposed to be the biggest long-term environmental threat?
The answer, of course, is China. It is pouring serious money into carbon capture projects. The Obama Administration talks a lot about climate change but does little to help produce the technology that can solve the problem."

Yes, China's communist government is "pouring serious money into carbon capture projects." But this is supposed to be a role model for the American economy? The Obama administration should be following communist China's lead and massively subsidizing the fossil fuel industry by "pouring serious money" from taxpayers into developing carbon capture technology? This doesn't sound like a rational free market approach.
Some harsh economic realities need to be brought into focus. Carbon capture costs money, and a lot of it. Full stop. And by costing money, carbon capture drives up energy prices. A case study of this is currently taking place in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. The government-owned provincial power agency spent well over a billion dollars -- in a province with a population of only one million -- to install a carbon capture system on a coal-fired power plant, and corresponding electricity prices in the province are now going through the roof.
Carbon taxation is carbon taxation is carbon taxation. If your proposal to capture carbon costs money relative to the non-capturing option, then your proposal involves carbon pricing (aka, taxation) and inevitably leads to higher energy prices than the alternative in which you do not capture carbon. And as we all know, higher energy prices equal lower economic growth -- all other factors being equal. Economies don't just need plentiful energy in order to prosper. They require plentiful cheap energy.
How much does capturing carbon cost? A lot. ICO2N -- "the Integrated CO2 Network, a group of Canadian companies representing multiple industries, including coal and the oil sands" that includes members such as BP Canada, ConocoPhillips, Husky Energy, Shell Canada, Statoil, Suncor Energy, Syncrude, and Total -- estimates the "total cost per tonne of CO2 abated ranges from $70 to $250 depending heavily on the capture process and CO2 source."
If ICO2N is still estimating that it costs $70 to $250 per tonne to capture carbon, and the province of Saskatchewan is apparently only receiving $20 per tonne for its captured carbon that is subsequently used for nearby enhanced oil recovery efforts, this suggests the province's taxpayers are losing anywhere from $50 to $230 per tonne (e.g., $50 to $230 million annually since the Boundary Dam plant captures one million tonnes per year) on the carbon capture project. No wonder electricity prices are skyrocketing. Ratepayers will need to cover any such financial shortfalls.
Some perspective required. In 2012, the U.S. emitted "5,400 million metric tons" of carbon dioxide. If your price on carbon per tonne "ranges from $70 to $250," that equates to a carbon tax cost of $378 billion to $1.35 trillion per year, or up to nearly 10 percent of the USA's annual GDP. Capturing only a small proportion of total U.S. emissions each year is still a massive tax.
Even advocates for climate change mitigation don't hide the fact that "carbon capture raises power plant costs by requiring capital investment in carbon capture equipment and by reducing the quantity of useful electricity. Additional generation capacity is needed at a power plant to power capture equipment, and incorporating CCS [carbon capture and storage] at a power plant could decrease its net power output by as much 30 percent. Overall, in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Energy Technology Laboratory estimated that 'CCS technologies would add around 80 percent to the cost of electricity for a new pulverized coal plant, and around 35 percent to the cost of electricity for a new advanced gasification-based plant.'" Energy cost increases of 35 to 80 percent will have a major negative impact on economic growth.
There is a broad literature on the high costs of carbon capture, and it is currently unclear -- and not getting clearer over time -- whether it is more economical to (1) continue using fossil fuels but capture the carbon emissions or (2) move almost entirely over to low carbon (e.g., nuclear) and renewable energy sources. Both these options, of course, assume that your goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and that you are seeking the least costly means of doing so. But make no mistake about it: both options will be very costly, will dramatically increase the cost of energy, and will harm the economy.
The following third option is the one I prefer: until it becomes unambiguously clear that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are exerting a net negative cost on society, do nothing and continue with business as usual.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/capturing_carbon_drives_up_energy_costs.html

What part of crap and traitor do people still not get!!!!

World Bank and UN carbon offset scheme ‘complicit’ in genocidal land grabs

The Guardian

Plight of Kenya’s indigenous Sengwer shows carbon offsets are empowering corporate recolonisation of the South
UN’s REDD scheme promises carbon offsetting will empower local communities in the developing world while conserving forests – but critics say the scheme is fuelling genocidal evictions of indigenous people from their lands. Photograph: Tony Karumba/AFP


Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 500 million acres of land in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean was acquired or negotiated under deals brokered on behalf of foreign governments or transnational corporations.
Many such deals are geared toward growing crops or biofuels for export to richer, developed countries – with the consequence that small-holder farmers are displaced from their land and lose their livelihood while local communities go hungry.
The concentration of ownership of the world’s farmland in the hands of powerful investors and corporations is rapidly accelerating, driven by resource scarcity and, thus, rising prices. According to a new report by the US land rights organisation Grain: “The powerful demands of food and energy industries are shifting farmland and water away from direct local food production to the production of commodities for industrial processing.”
Less known factors, however, include ‘conservation‘ and ‘carbon offsetting.’

- See more at: http://thedailysmug.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-bank-and-un-carbon-offset-scheme.html#sthash.5CL4xk5R.dpuf


Crap and Traitor!!!!!

Yes Obama, We Can Read All About Your Global Warming Hoax!

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/ye...-warming-hoax/




Yes Obama, We Can Read All About Your Global Warming Hoax! - Freedom Outpost
freedomoutpost.com
Yes Obama, We Can Read All About Your Global Warming Hoax!




Yes Obama, We Can Read All About Your Global Warming Hoax!

The Common Constitutionalist 56 mins ago

In a speech to the League of Conservation Voters, a wacky environmental activist organization, Barack Obama said: "Republicans have ducked the question and said, hey, I'm not a scientist, which really translates into, I accept that man-made climate change is real, and if I say so I will be run out of town by a bunch of fringe elements, so I am just going to pretend like – I don't know – I can't read."
Well, yes we can.
We can read that America's National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is funded by NASA, revealed that ice around the southern continent (Antarctica) covers about 16,000,000 km², more than 2.1 million more than is usual for this time of year.
We can read that government scientists have falsified some of the world's most often cited climate records by replacing actual temperature readings in the United States, Iceland and Australia with hypothetical numbers derived from computer models. It has been revealed that as much as 40% of temperature data are not real thermometer readings, but simply computer generated fiction.
The result has been a distorted view of temperature trends, according to Real Science, who first assembled the evidence, changing a steady temperature decline into an ominous looking warming. The measured USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) daily temperature data shows a decline in US temperatures since the 1930s. But before they released it to the public, they put it through a series of computer adjustments which magically changed it from a cooling trend to a warming trend.
In his speech, Obama just ignored the new evidence, the "inconvenient truth," that American scientists have been altering climate data for years.
What else can we read, el Presidente?
We can read about warmest nut jobs touting the decline in Arctic sea ice but refusing to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere. In fact, across the globe, there is quite a bit more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.
We can read that North Pole temperatures have been below normal every day of the summer thus far. So how is all this ice melting?
That has to be it, right?

Um…no. There's more.
We can read that an American "climate scientist" was quietly forced into retirement after falsifying data to show polar bears were drowning because of melting sea ice.
We can read that a bunch of leftist activists and lawyers, not scientists, from the NRDC, the National Resources Defense Council, wrote Obama's "Climate Action Plan," proving yet again that the "climate science" of the left has nothing at all to do with "science."
We can read from the New York Times no less, that under the "Climate Action Plan," the EPA "could do far more than just shut down coal plants; it could spur a transformation of the nation's energy sector."
Yikes! Yes, the EPA could transform us from a Superpower to No Power.
So you see Mr. President- some of us can read about all the deals you made with leftist climate groups, about all the falsified data and all the lies you, and they, have been covering up or glossing over to advance your stated goal of transforming this country.
Attribution: Real Science, MailOnline
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/yes-obama-can-read-global-warming-hoax/#JgJlgB9FfW6hEDms.99


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

SCAM..