Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Drudge Report: OBAMA PUSHES FOR UN 'CLIMATE' RULES WITHOUT CONGRESS

    Drudge Report

    OBAMA PUSHES FOR UN 'CLIMATE' RULES WITHOUT CONGRESS




    Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

    To sidestep Senate approval, President Obama’s negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal to “name and shame” countries into cutting emissions.

    www.nytimes.com|By Coral Davenport

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us...eaty.html?_r=0
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

    By CORAL DAVENPORTAUG. 26, 2014



    A coal-fired power plant in Kentucky. Coal-heavy states could be economic losers in any climate-change protocol that targets such plants, which are among the largest greenhouse gas emitters. Credit Luke Sharrett for The New York Times Continue reading the main story
    Continue reading the main story
    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
    In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
    To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.
    “If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.
    Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.
    “There’s a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse,” said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. “There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.”
    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.
    The strategy comes as scientists warn that the earth is already experiencing the first signs of human-caused global warming — more severe drought and stronger wildfires, rising sea levels and more devastating storms — and the United Nations heads toward what many say is the body’s last chance to avert more catastrophic results in the coming century.
    At the United Nations General Assembly in New York next month, delegates will gather at a sideline meeting on climate change to try to make progress toward the deal next year in Paris. A December meeting is planned in Lima, Peru, to draft the agreement.
    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. That regulation, which would not be not final until next year, already faces legal challenges, including a lawsuit filed on behalf of a dozen states.
    But unilateral action by the world’s largest economy will not be enough to curb the rise of carbon pollution across the globe. That will be possible only if the world’s largest economies, including India and China, agree to enact similar cuts.
    The Obama administration’s international climate strategy is likely to infuriate Republican lawmakers who already say the president is abusing his executive authority by pushing through major policies without congressional approval.
    “Unfortunately, this would be just another of many examples of the Obama administration’s tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard laws it doesn’t like — and to ignore the elected representatives of the people when they don’t agree,” Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, said in a statement.
    A deal that would not need to be ratified by the United States or any other nation is also drawing fire from the world’s poorest countries. In African and low-lying island nations — places that scientists say are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change — officials fear that any agreement made outside the structure of a traditional United Nations treaty will not bind rich countries to spend billions of dollars to help developing nations deal with the forces of climate change.
    Poor countries look to rich countries to help build dams and levees to guard against coastal flooding from rising seas levels, or to provide food aid during pervasive droughts.
    “Without an international agreement that binds us, it’s impossible for us to address the threats of climate change,” said Richard Muyungi, a climate negotiator for Tanzania. “We are not as capable as the U.S. of facing this problem, and historically we don’t have as much responsibility. What we need is just one thing: Let the U.S. ratify the agreement. If they ratify the agreement, it will trigger action across the world.”
    Observers of United Nations climate negotiations, which have gone on for more than two decades without achieving a global deal to legally bind the world’s biggest polluters to carbon cuts, say that if written carefully such an agreement could be a creative and pragmatic way to at least level off the world’s rapidly rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
    About a dozen countries are responsible for nearly 70 percent of the world’s carbon pollution, chiefly from cars and coal-fired power plants.
    At a 2009 climate meeting in Copenhagen, world leaders tried but failed to forge a new legally binding treaty to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Instead, they agreed only to a series of voluntary pledges to cut carbon emissions through 2020.
    Continue reading the main story Write A Comment The Obama administration’s climate change negotiators are desperate to avoid repeating the failure of Kyoto, the United Nations’ first effort at a legally binding global climate change treaty. Nations around the world signed on to the deal, which would have required the world’s richest economies to cut their carbon emissions, but the Senate refused to ratify the treaty, ensuring that the world’s largest historic carbon polluter was not bound by the agreement.
    Seventeen years later, the Senate obstacle remains. Even though Democrats currently control the chamber, the Senate has been unable to reach agreement to ratify relatively noncontroversial United Nations treaties. In 2012, for example, Republican senators blocked ratification of a United Nations treaty on equal rights for the disabled, even though the treaty was modeled after an American law and had been negotiated by a Republican president, George W. Bush.
    This fall, Senate Republicans are poised to pick up more seats, and possibly to retake control of the chamber. Mr. McConnell, who has been one of the fiercest opponents of Mr. Obama’s climate change policy, comes from a coal-heavy state that could be an economic loser in any climate-change protocol that targets coal-fired power plants, the world’s largest source of carbon pollution.

    A version of this article appears in print on August 27, 2014, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Obama Pursuing Climate Accord In Lieu of Treaty .

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us...eaty.html?_r=0
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Scientists abandon science to popularize climate change alarmism

    posted at 12:01 pm on August 26, 2014 by Noah Rothman

    Nothing says confidence in the verdict of history and an unwavering faith in ultimate vindication like gauche emotional manipulation. Similar to so many tropes on the left, the issue of climate change has evolved from a public policy challenge into just another shibboleth – a special knock, knowledge of which allows you access to the liberal speakeasy.
    Let’s perform a thought experiment. Take a look at the faces below. What emotion do you see displayed?









    I would say, respectively, bored, skeptical, hungry, and engaged. You probably came up with a number of different responses.
    Now look at them again with the knowledge that all of the above are climate scientists who are supposedly struggling to maintain their composure during a panicked discussion about the post-apocalyptic Hellscape that awaits us in a future defined by climate shifts.
    That’s how The Huffington Post primed its readers before featuring images of these and other scientific professionals purportedly wracked with anxiety over the pressing problem of global climate change.
    “We’ve read the daunting headlines. We’ve seen the bleak predictions. We know in our minds that climate change is putting our Earth’s future in danger,” the Huffington Post’s write up on a series of photographs called “Scared Scientists” by artist Nick Bowers. “And yet there’s something uniquely frightening about this artist’s attempt to transform global warming data into visceral, human responses.”
    Frightening? They might as well be dramatic headshots. You could probably book a recurring role on an HBO drama with one of these – at least, get you past the casting director’s door.
    This was just one of Tuesday’s attempts by climate activists to tug at your heartstrings in lieu of a logical argument.
    “Scientists are used to talking about climate change in facts and figures, a discussion framed around parts-per-million concentrations of carbon dioxide, millimeters of sea-level rise, and degrees of global temperatures,” a piece in Tuesaday’s National Journal opened. “[Australian National University student] Joe Duggan wants them to talk about their feelings.”
    Duggan said the project is meant to engage the broader public, who despite seeing facts about climate change can feel “apathetic” or simply overwhelmed by the volume of data. He thought that letting experts use an emotional pitch might help the layperson connect with their work.
    “The scientists that have penned letters for this project are scared, angry, anxious, and at times hopeful and optimistic,” he said in an email. “These are real feelings that everyone has experienced in their lives. But the scientists aren’t feeling this way about an anniversary or a pressing deadline. They’re feeling this way about the fate of our planet.”
    Duggan said the experts he’s reached out to have expressed “relief” at being able to express their emotions and he’s even starting hearing from more researchers who want to participate. He’s also been getting responses from the general public on his website and through Twitter.
    How insulting.
    Only the most emotionally stunted cannot anticipate the fact that a campaign centered on talking down to one’s audience is unlikely to result in a deluge of newfound public support. But these and other forms of casual condescension are what the climate alarmism movement has become.
    So often, those who are skeptical of the claims that catastrophic climate shifts will result in dramatic changes to the environment in a timeframe too short to allow for acclimation are told they are “deniers” – e.g. something akin to those who cling, in the face of all contrary evidence, to the notion that the Holocaust never occurred. And yet, those who evangelize about the terrible future that awaits us if we do not address climate change with policy prescriptions, most of which center on personal deprivation and the defining of prosperity down, appeal to the heart over the head in order to make their case.
    The logical contentions have failed, they seem to reason. Rather than examine that critically, they chose to shift tactics from argumentation to shaming and emoting. This is not a tactic which respects its audience as thinking individuals. The public knows an advertising campaign when they see one.


    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/2...ange-alarmism/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Freedom Outpost

    Obama Set to Sign UN Climate Change Agreement WITHOUT Congress http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/ob...hout-congress/



    Obama Set to Sign UN Climate Change Agreement WITHOUT Congress

    Melissa Melton 23 mins ago
    0 Comments

    The New York Times is reporting that the Obama administration is working behind the scenes to “forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions,” without seeking approval from Congress whatsoever:
    In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

    To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path. [emphasis added]
    Notice the statement didn’t say climate change “rules” to be enacted, but “laws” to reduce carbon pollution.

    So, because Obama and his administration haven’t been able to get everyone on board with the man made climate change “science,” despite continuously espousing that there is a consensus and the debate is over (even though there clearly isn’t a consensus and the debate obviously isn’t over or he wouldn’t have to go around Congress to do this), Obama is going straight to the UN and brokering a deal to get climate change laws passed anyway.

    The other nations involved realize what is going on here, too. The NYT continues:
    “There’s a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse,” said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. “There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.” [emphasis added]
    The deal would be an attempt to finally pass a legally binding global climate change treaty like the one that failed in 1997, aka the Kyoto Protocol, a mechanism based on the 1992 UN Agenda 21 Earth Summit.

    Carbon taxes and energy austerity, with even higher energy premiums, are sure to follow. Al Gore must be absolutely thrilled, considering he stands to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire” should such a thing go through.

    This isn’t the first time Obama, the self-proclaimed “constitutional law professor,” has bypassed Congress to get his way on the climate change policies he wants to enact.

    Last June, Obama used an executive order to enact regulations that would force coal-fired power plants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent, triggering lawsuits in multiple states.


    The president has planned this so-called “war on coal” ever since his first campaign (via The New American):
    During his 2008 campaign, he told the San Francisco Chronicle, “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

    Later during that same interview, Obama admitted that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under his plan for cap and trade. [emphasis added]
    Remember, this is also the same president that told a group of young African leaders at a town hall meeting in April 2013 that if everybody has nice houses, cars and air conditioning, the planet will “boil over.”



    Delegates at next month’s United Nations General Assembly in New York will continue working on the new deal to be drafted in December.
    Meanwhile, we are still teaching children in school that America is a constitutional republic — with a straight face.

    Source

    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.

    http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/ob...hout-congress/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Glenn Beck

    This will affect you.




    Buck Sexton: Obama’s new climate accord really a ploy to stall U.S. economy and redistribute wealth
    “The true environmentalist left just wants to use this kind of an agreement as a...
    glennbeck.com

    Buck Sexton: Obama’s new climate accord really a ploy to stall U.S. economy and redistribute wealth

    Wednesday, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:04 AM -0400

    As The New York Times exclusively reported on Tuesday, President Obama is once again looking to stretch the constitutional limits of his power by acting unilaterally to “forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions” ahead of the 2015 United Nations summit.
    In an article entitled “Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty,” the Times admits Obama will have to exercise some serious legal gymnastics in order to circumvent Congress and the obvious noncompliance of Republicans in the Senate.
    The Times reports:
    In preparation for this agreement… negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
    To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.
    […]
    “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.

    Read the entire Times report HERE.

    In an attempt to sidestep Congress, the Times says American negotiators are looking for a “hybrid agreement,” which would blend “legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty” and “new voluntary pledges.” Such a mix would not require “a new vote of ratification.”
    On radio this morning, TheBlaze’s Buck Sexton filled in for Glenn, and he explained why this latest power grab has ramifications far beyond the constitutionality of the action.

    Video at the page link:

    “You may not care about what the U.N. is doing in terms of meddling in America,” Buck explained. “But if you care about your electricity bill, you care about regulations on your business, you care about how expensive gas is that goes into your car, you care about the products that you buy every day in the store that use gasoline as part of the manufacturing process… you would be affected by this.”
    While countries like Russia and China will not take a ‘in good faith’ agreement seriously, the Obama Administration will regulate homes and businesses to comply with these standards, which will have a direct impact on the U.S. economy.
    “You still would be affected by an international agreement that would have only the good faith parties enforcing upon themselves climate regulations that some U.N. bureaucrats are deciding is a good idea,” Buck said. “That will have an immediate impact upon the U.S. economy because we will take it seriously – or at least if President Obama and the Democrats have their way, we will take it seriously.”
    Since there is very little doubt this agreement will have little impact on a global scale, Buck offered a different reasoning as to why the President is working so hard to negotiate this deal.
    “The true environmentalist left just wants to use this kind of an agreement as a mechanism for the transfer of wealth… from us to other countries around the world. That’s what this is actually really about,” Buck concluded. “It’s about purifying America through the pain of a stalled economy. That will come from the restrictions we put upon ourselves because if we don’t, the planet is going to melt down… or whatever they’ve got to say.”

    Front page image courtesy of the AP

    http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/08/27/...ribute-wealth/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #7
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    FlyoverCulture.com

    This woman is what you'd call a condescending, lying fool. ‪#‎Justsayin‬'




    EPA Chief: CO2 Regulations Are About ‘Justice’ For ‘Communities Of Color’
    The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed global warming regulations...
    dailycaller.com





    Share Video
    Link & Embed


    EPA Chief: CO2 Regulations Are About ‘Justice’ For ‘Communities Of Color’

    2:20 PM 08/27/2014
    Michael Bastasch
    Video at the page link:

    The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed global warming regulations aren’t just about stemming global temperature rises — according to agency’s chief, they are also about “justice” for “communities of color.”
    “Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a teleconference call with environmental activists. “If we want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them from climate change.”
    McCarthy is referring to the EPA’s proposed rule that would limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The agency says the rule will not only help fight global warming, but will also improve public health as coal-fired power plants are shuttered. McCarthy, however, put special emphasis on how the rule would reduce asthma rates, which affect African-American children.
    “Asthma disproportionately affects African-American kids,” McCarthy added. “In just the first year these standards go into effect, we’ll avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks — and those numbers go up from there.”
    “These standards are also doing more than to just address public health. By the time these standards are fully in place in 2030, the average household will also save $8 a month on electricity and create thousands of jobs that can’t be shipped overseas,” McCarthy said.
    The teleconference was hosted by the environmental group Green For All. The group bills itself as an outreach organization seeking to educate “communities of color” about fighting global warming. But Green For All also describes itself as “radical enough to push a deeply justice-based agenda.”
    “Green For All acknowledges the need to disrupt the current economy, because we understand that our current economy was based upon human trafficking, the exploitation of labor, and violent racism,” according to the group’s website. “We are safe enough to be invited into spaces where power-building groups are not, and radical enough to push a deeply justice-based agenda in those spaces. We are radical enough to partner with grassroots organizations when other national groups are turned away, and enough of an ally to offer resources and support in those spaces.”
    “As a black woman who suffers from asthma, I know first-hand how climate change can affect communities of color,” said Nikki Silvestri, Green For All’s executive director. “We are more susceptible to extreme weather, storms and heat-related deaths. But, I also know that we want climate action now.”
    On the call, McCarthy and Green For All activists asked attendees to file regulatory comments in the support of the EPA’s carbon dioxide rule.
    The rule has been heavily supported by environmental groups, who have also been using global warming as a way to extend their activist base into minority communities. The group 350.org recently published a piece trying to connect the crisis in Ferguson, Missouri to global warming.
    “It was not hard for me to make the connection between the tragedy in Ferguson, Missouri, and the catalyst for my work to stop the climate crisis,” writes Deirdre Smith, strategic partnership coordinator for the environmental group 350.org.
    “To me, the connection between militarized state violence, racism, and climate change was common-sense and intuitive,” she said.
    But not everyone in the African-American community has gotten behind the EPA’s proposed power plant regulations.
    “African-American businesses, entrepreneurs and workers need to better understand this rule because the potential impact may hit them more directly, and more severely, than any other group,” wrote Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
    “Higher energy costs could be devastating to small businesses, for which energy costs are often the highest, or one of the highest, operating expenses,” Alford wrote. “Thousands of jobs by definition will be eliminated by this rule, but the same certainty does not exist in the promise of creating new jobs.”

    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.

    Tags: Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy, Global Warming, National Black Chamber of Commerce



    http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/27/ep...ties-of-color/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #8
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Freedom Outpost

    Global Warming Scientists are not Scientists – They’re an Embarrassment & Frauds - Freedom Outpost http://ow.ly/ANrjw



    Global Warming Scientists are not Scientists – They’re an Embarrassment & Frauds

    The Common Constitutionalist 2 hours ago
    0 Comments

    We out here, living in "Realville," of which Rush Limbaugh is the self-appointed mayor, have been asking, "Where's the warming?" since 1998. And believe me, in New England this summer – we really mean it.
    After 16 years and hundreds of billions of dollars spent worldwide, I think we have a right to know.
    Well, the pro-warming "scientific community" has been quietly asking the same question and desperately seeking an answer.
    Professor Ka-Kit Tung of the University of Washington says, "Every week there is a new explanation of the hiatus," ranging from air pollution to sunspots to volcanoes, etc.
    This appears to be the buzzword that has caught on in the warming community – "hiatus." Global warming is on hiatus, is it? I guess it's taking a well needed holiday. However, because of this 16 year "hiatus," the public, who are footing the bill, and many more scientists, are beginning to question the whole "man-made" warming claim.
    That's why warming advocatesscientists are so desperate to explain this "pause." They're losing the public relations battle. And if they lose that, they'll lose the politicians; and if they lose the political class, say bye-bye to their funding.
    But fear not – Professor Tung has found the culprit – the ocean.
    Apparently the man caused "heat" is being trapped deep under the ocean surface. Yes – that's what's happening – despite everything we know about heat – that it always rises – it is now being pulled down to the depths of the ocean.
    Okay – I'm good with that. Oh, and did I forget to mention – it's only happening in the Atlantic Ocean.
    So why the panic over the hiatus anyway? So the globe is taking a breather. Well, it's because "Climate Models," computer simulations, didn't predict it. They showed steady warming over the same period. The fact is that these computer "models" couldn't predict the 16 year hiatus, but they expect us to trust the "simulations" going forward. The funny thing about facts is that given enough time, they always come out.
    Isaac Held, a Senior Research Scientist at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory says, "No one has ever expected warming to be continuous, increasing in a straight line."
    Actually, yes – yes they did. The computer models told us so. Interesting how their excuses are changed, ever so slightly, to accommodate their ever evolving theories.
    So okay, so the computers didn't account for the heat being magically pulled down to the deep ocean. But scientists like Meehl Trenberth still insist that is where the heat is going, despite having no reliable equipment to measure it. I guess we just take his word for it. No, not exactly.
    Nate Cohn at New Republic writes that this minor inconvenience of having no data is not a problem. He reports that, "Meehl and his colleagues turned to "computer models". Their approach was straightforward: look at naturally occurring hiatus decades in "computer models", and see where the computers put the heat."
    Let that sink in for a second. So, not being a scientist and all – let me see if I've got this.
    The computers told us there would be warming, yet there is none. Now these scientists believe the heat is in the deep ocean – because heat always does that – sink, but they can't measure it, so they plug some more "garbage in" to the computer and it will tell us where the heat went. Is that right? Is that actually right? This is what they expect us to believe?
    Okay, this is so stupid, it's no longer funny. These people aren't scientists – they're an embarrassment. They're frauds and they're desperate to hold on to the myth they themselves have created – man caused global warming.
    Next year I hear the scientists will introduce a new product to the world – the first scientific calculator that always gives you the wrong answer.
    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.


    http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/gl...ssment-frauds/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #9
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Conservative Lady

    Partnering With “Green Racists” – Obama’s EPA Nazi Proclaims Global Warming a Race Issue




    Partnering With “Green Racists” – Obama’s EPA Nazi Proclaims Global Warming a Race Issue
    It’s an obvious claim for the socialist Democrats to make, that the fake threat of “climate change” is unfairly targeting the ignorant and disadvantaged masses.
    gopthedailydose.com

    Partnering With “Green Racists” – Obama’s EPA Nazi Proclaims Global Warming a Race Issue

    Posted on 27 August, 2014 by Rick Wells



    It’s an obvious claim for the socialist Democrats to make, that the fake threat of “climate change” is unfairly targeting the ignorant and disadvantaged masses. Add to that their never-ending “racism hiding under every rock” self-promotion campaign and it’s a natural progression. Socialists always claim to represent the little guy as they place the shackles around his legs.
    Obama’s top climate Nazi, EPA Chief Gina McCarthy, is making the ludicrous but probably effective claim that racism is a factor behind their voodoo of climate change and it’s because rich, white, privileged people, other than herself, just hate people of color.
    Somehow, the recipients of her message are supposed to believe that the evil white folks breathe from a different air supply or maybe they just prefer the way dirty, unsafe air smells. Perhaps those racist whites hate black people so much that they are willing to breathe bad air and force their own families to breathe it too purely for the satisfaction they derive from knowing people of color are having to breathe it too.
    Then again, maybe carbon is what makes you rich or what makes you white. Surely she can come up with some kind of new improved voodoo to establish that connection.
    On August 26th, the group “Green for All” held a conference call in which McCarthy pressed their common agenda. Green for All is a hybrid racist/global warming organization, the perfect vehicle for injecting the propaganda of racial victimization into the debate over the fabricated threat.
    According to McCarthy, the EPA’s economy-killing regulations aren’t just about intervening in the “threat” posed by rising global temperatures; they’re also about “justice” for “communities of color.” Nothing will get a bunch of easily manipulated people riled up faster than telling them they are being unjustly targeted. The hysteria around Ferguson MO was proof of that.
    McCarthy baited the hook, saying, “Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice. If we want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them from climate change.”
    She said, “Asthma disproportionately affects African-American kids. In just the first year these standards go into effect, we’ll avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks — and those numbers go up from there.” Not one person said, “Proof, Gina, where is the proof to support your claims.”
    After attacking the evil producers of power as targeting the black asthmatics, McCarthy went on to explain how they will be better off with the limited power produced from more expensive, less efficient sources.
    She said, “These standards are also doing more than to just address public health. By the time these standards are fully in place in 2030, the average household will also save $8 a month on electricity and create thousands of jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.” Nobody asked if that is because there won’t be any electricity to spend their money on to begin with. These people are simply promoting an agenda.
    The Socialist Democrats know their constituents won’t ask for any substantiation of her claims. In spite of a daily diet of dishonesty, these people still believe that the government, especially Hussein Obama, would never lie to them. McCarthy works for him so whatever she says must be true.
    Green For All exposes their racist slant on their website where they proclaim their philosophy, “Green For All acknowledges the need to disrupt the current economy, because we understand that our current economy was based upon human trafficking, the exploitation of labor, and violent racism.”
    A desire to disrupt our economy because of some perceived need for reparations or vengeance is not something that should be ignored and such an organization should not be considered a legitimate partner for our government in any discussion, particularly this one.
    Economic and environmental domestic terrorism should not be embraced by this socialist cabal masquerading as our government, but it is. Aligning America’s energy policy with a black preference racist organization further exposes Obama and McCarthy’s willingness to use every tool of exploitation at their disposal in the furtherance of their illicit power and their grip on American society.
    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/2014/08/2...-a-race-issue/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Similar Threads

  1. Drudge Report: SHOULD REPUBLICANS IMPEACH OBAMA? ((( DRUDGE POLL )))
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-09-2014, 10:19 AM
  2. Drudge Report: LAW BROKEN: CONGRESS NOT NOTIFIED OF GITMO SWAP
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-01-2014, 08:16 AM
  3. Drudge Report: 'GLOBAL WARMING', 'CLIMATE CHANGE', 'CLIMATE DISRUPTION'...
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-07-2014, 09:53 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-16-2012, 11:11 PM
  5. Obama Pushes Senators for Climate Bill
    By Texas2step in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 11:19 PM

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
  •