It is impossible to believe there is one person on the planet who still believes the global warming scam. There are plenty of hustlers pushing the scam to be sure, but by now even the true believers must know they are mouthing empty talking points. Its no secret that climate hustlers are after the money, but how many of those American true believers who are hurting know that Hussein is giving them food stamps while he sends billions to a few United Nations crooks: [video=youtube;0NM0eeODOJk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0NM0eeODOJk[/video] If you watched the video you heard Senator Inhofe say: Notice that a leading Senator does not know how much money is involved. Assuming House Republicans who control the public purse know the amount how come they dont tell Inhofe? and how come they let Hussein get away with it? The next question is: How does that piece of scum in the White House get his hands on the money? Next question: Where did Hussein get the authority to give tax dollars to a proven scam? As far as I know, Hussein never said the following; so maybe somebody can tell me where one of his scum drops gets the authority to speak for the American people: Inspiring my ass. Taking tax dollars by force and giving them to Americas enemies only inspires crooks and sick freaks with a touchy-feely political agenda like Figueres. It sure as hell does not inspire the people paying the taxes, nor does it inspire the people who are being hurt by the climate change fraud. NOTE: The manmade climate change SCAM hurts mankind a helluva lot more than naturally-occurring temperature fluctuations. Make no mistake about this. The attendees at United Nations Conferences on Climate Change are there representing themselves and the ruling class in their native countries. They will get the money. The poor in Third World countries will never see a penny or a benefit. You have be a complete idiot to believe that hundreds of millions of poor people in Third World countries know anything about climate change. Theres no point, or profit, in scamming people who have nothing. Manmade global warming is a scam engineered by the United Nations to ripoff working people in First World countries. Demonstrating when they are told is the only thing the poor know about manmade global warming. Christiana Figueres gets the B.S. Award of the Year for this one: Sharpshooters who know how to manipulate governments decided that designer-science is more profitable than real science. In another article Ron Arnold says this: The least those pirates could do is convert their petroleum-guzzling yachts to sail. After all, they claim they love wind power! This excerpt pinpoints the danger in the coming years: The Clintons got away with it. There is no evidence coming from Congress that Hussein will be stopped. Hell, Id settle for a sign that the movers and shakers in Congress want to stop him. Finally, for years I railed against ratifying UN treaties. Time and time again I pointed out that the EPA is a United Nations agency. I, and countless others, warned about the EPA to no avail. A few state governments had little success opposing the EPA. So what do I say when a treaty is enforced without being ratified? Here are the links to the articles I quoted:
Its hard to believe why some idiots still insist that man made global warming is not happening: Kim said 97% of scientists agree on the reality of climate change. "It is my hope that this report shocks us into action," Kim, writes in the report. All nations will suffer the effects of a world 4C hotter, but it is the world's poorest countries that will be hit hardest by food shortages, rising sea levels, cyclones and drought, the World Bank said in a report published on Monday on climate change. Under the new World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, the global development lender has launched a more aggressive stance to integrate climate change into development. "We will never end poverty if we don't tackle climate change. It is one of the single biggest challenges to social justice today," Kim told reporters on a conference call on Friday. The report, called Turn Down the Heat, highlights the devastating impact of a world hotter by 4C by the end of the century, a likely scenario under current policies, it said. Climate change is already having an effect: Arctic sea ice reached a record minimum in September, and extreme heat waves and drought in the last decade have hit places like the United States and Russia more often than would be expected from historical records, the report said. Such extreme weather is likely to become the "new normal" if the temperature rises by 4C, according to the World Bank report. This is likely to happen if not all countries comply with pledges they have made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even assuming full compliance, the world will warm by more than 3C by 2100. In this hotter climate, the level of the sea would rise by up to 3ft, flooding cities in places such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. Water scarcity and falling crop yields would exacerbate hunger and poverty. Extreme heat waves would devastate broad swaths of the Earth's land, from the middle east to the United States, the report says. The warmest July in the Mediterranean could be 9C hotter than it is today – akin to temperatures seen in the Libyan desert. The combined effect of all these changes could be even worse, with unpredictable effects that people may not be able to adapt to, said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which along with Climate Analytics prepared the report for the World Bank. "If you look at all these things together, like organs co-operating in a human body, you can think about acceleration of this dilemma," said Schellnhuber, who studied chaos theory as a physicist. "The picture reads that this is not where we want the world to go." As the first scientist to head the World Bank, Kim has pointed to "unequivocal" scientific evidence for man-made climate change to urge countries to do more. Kim said 97% of scientists agree on the reality of climate change. "It is my hope that this report shocks us into action," Kim, writes in the report. Scientists are convinced that global warming in the past century is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These findings by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations in a joint statement in 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/19/climate-change-world-bank 50 years from now, my child will be suffering the effects of all of you who insisted we do nothing about the hole in our life boat.
At the recent global warming conference China and India stated they would take no action on global warming that would affect their economic growth, but that they were ok with the US and the rest of the West pursued carbon reduction schemes at their sole expense. This means that the new polluters do not intend to take any action on AGW. That means global warming activists will fail.
To SFJEFF: Fifty years from now your child will curse you for enslaving him/her without affecting the climate one iota.
50 years from now it wont matter either way. Even if you were right on everything nothing that is being proposed will have any effect. The Wests role in this is already said and done. It is India, China and the rest of the developing world where the rubber meets the road in the 21st century. Taxing the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of the west will have no effect.
More spin by the pseudo-scientists. China is taking steps to reduce carbon emissions without affecting economic growth. Why can't the US figure it out? source:
Pollution is seen over an industrial area of Huaxi village, Jiangsu province, December 3, 2010. Huaxi, a booming market town of 36,000, is a capitalist success story under Communist leadership. Photograph: Carlos Barria/Reuters To MannieD: This is the truth: In any event, ask yourself why none of the climate hustlers like Al Gore ever talk about improving Scrubber Technology? Answer: There’s no money in it.
To MannieD: My point: Communist China said it would NOT reduce carbon emissions. Citing economic concerns for doing the opposite is a red herring. Communist China has every reason to protect the anti-America United Nations; so naturally it frames its position accordingly. NOTE: If you read the caption under the picture I posted you will see that capitalism gets the blame for Communist Chinas activities. I got a laugh out of that. The Scrubber Technology I referred to removes solids from emissions. Since manmade global warming is a fraud there is no reason to extract carbon dioxide a gas. In short: Manmade climate change has replaced air pollution in the Hustlers Guidebook to the Public Trough. Your response tells me you either do not understand the difference, or you were trying to be clever. In addition, Communist China and its apologists talk about Green Technology which is the profit motive, and the impetus, behind the climate change fraud. not only for hustlers like Al Gore & Company, but for pseudo-scientists looking to land in a well-paid spot at the public trough. Incidentally, Ive yet to see anybody defend Indias pollution record the way so many defend Communist China. The environmental movement should be examined in a much different light than the light its advocates use. In 1945, the UNs task of becoming an accepted government at some future point in time was monumental. The UN is only an organization, yet it had to convince the government of every sovereign nation to subjugate their people to UN rule. It didnt take UN social engineers long to realize that voters in First World democracies have to be conned into surrendering their sovereignty and accepting a totalitarian UN government as supreme. Almanacs and encyclopedias still insist that the UN is not a world government. They are partially right for now, but at the same time they promote the myth that says the UN is not a government, they scrupulously avoid any details that might point to where the UN is really trying to go. The battle between sovereignty and global government is never connected to the environmental movement for very good reasons. As time went by, UN supporters realized that they had to do a better job than the League of Nations had done in areas where national governments appear powerless. Something more effective was required; so environmental concerns which have been around since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and possibly longer, were selected as a very good way for the UN to establish its legitimacy. Various environmentally concerned organizations that existed prior to the ascent of the UN could not in any way be considered a movement; any more than todays isolated primitive tribes living with nature in a South American jungle can truthfully be defined as environmental activists. Mainly those groups in the more advanced cultures in pre-UN days kept themselves busy with saving this or that: the eagle, the wolf, etc. Environmental concerns as they are promoted today were conceived to improve the UNs image with that type of person who is always looking for a cause to rant and rave over. Hence, global warming and protect the oceans originated at the UN. The genius behind the scam is to first give the UN absolute legislative authority over the earths atmospheric temperature and the oceans because those two areas are not national no country owns them. Even if the people in a bunch of countries decide to live in harmony with nature the world will still have to be controlled by the UN in order to protect the tree-huggers from the nasty polluters. Ergo, the more doomsday talk there is about the environment the better it is for the UN. The trick is to make Americans say to themselves What good will it do for us to pass environmental laws that dont apply to the rest of the world? Once enough people are thinking along those lines the next step in the con job is easy: The UN is the way to go. It will see that every country obeys. The fallacy inherent in that thinking is in the fact that large powerful countries will produce energy and supply goods to their people no matter what the UN says. China is doing just that. That is as it should be. The simple truth is: The real needs of living people must always come before correcting any questionable damage to the environment as defined by a pack of UN hustlers and second-rate public trough scientists paid to say what the UN tells them to say. Once the environmentalists have convinced enough people that the UN will protect oceans and guarantee comfortable thermometer readings, it is only a small step to UN interference in the sovereign affairs of every nation, and that includes the United States more than any other country. It is fair to ask why any American would take part in diminishing American power? The answer is simple: Those wealthy individuals whose incomes are derived from tax dollars and favorable legislation will not hand their own freedoms over to UN They are trying to establish a new world order administered by them, and their counterparts in other nations, that will add global power and privileges to their national omnipotence. It is the private sector, including prosperous private sector wealth creators, that lose the most in a one government world. Identifying the three major groups most often associated with environmental concerns is important in understanding the food chain involved in the UN scam. The dominant level in the scam is composed of prominent UN supporters in every layer of government in every country in the world, UN social engineers, publishers looking to sell books, and Hollywood movie producers. (When did you ever see a book or movie that portrays environmental hogwash as the fraud it is?) Mainstream media, or at least the people who decide who gets ahead in the media, are also an integral part of this politically formidable group. Once the UN has all of the governmental powers it longs for every environmental concern will be shunted aside by these same people wielding unlimited clout. The second highest level in the scam is populated by low income, unpaid stooges and wealthy Hollywood neophytes who demonstrate at the drop of a hat; who complain to their elected representatives almost daily, talk it up whenever anyone will listen, and in general make a nuisance of themselves because of some inner-need to prove to the world they care. In truth, they care more about unborn generations than they care about living people. Many of the environmentalists who acquired wealth and fame want to protect their wealth by supporting more government control over the poor and middle class even though they have convinced everyone they support the movement for altruistic reasons. The lowest level, but not the lowest paid level, in the UNs environmental scam consists of political opportunists and well-paid professional agitators who control specific causes at the national level. In addition to direct tax dollar funding for various environmental groups the UN secretly helps fund many of these causes at the management level with American UN dues. If true, as I suspect, that is one very good example of UN interference in American life. Whenever the unpaid stooges make a dent with an environmental cause of one kind or another at the national level, the opportunists figure out how to make a buck from it and move right in. Laws, or environmental regulations, or both are soon passed. The opportunists and the paid agitators get rich or run for elected office; the stooges move to the next crusade, and UN supporters move that much closer to achieving their objective. Of course, no matter what environmentalists do to help the UN accomplish its global government objective, the oceans will continue salinizing at a faster rate than all industrial pollution can conceivably attain. And lets not overlook the ever-present promise of another Ice Age should an unprecedented number of volcanic eruptions send their volcanic ash into the stratosphere within a brief time period. If that happens, environmentalists of every stripe will be drilling for oil over at UN Plaza between prayers for a little global warming.
China has a full spectrum energy policy. It is pursuing all avenues of energy production. In that context you should remember that China opens up one new coal fired power plant each week...every week...every month...every year.
To MannieD: There is no manmade global warming and China knows it. They have no intention of fixing something that ain’t broke. To Albert Di Salvo: Exactly. Communist China’s global warming policy is simple. Pay lip service, make promises, and hope the UN, through its agency —— THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY —— will regulate America’s businesses into handing China an economic edge.
link-between-climate-denial-conspiracy-beliefs-sparks-conspiracy-theories.html#post1062037320 Thanks, LiveFree
To MannieD: [video=youtube;-LCsiWL6gn0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-LCsiWL6gn0[/video] Now pay attention when I’m talking to you, boy. The only conspiracy is the one being perpetrated by the people trying to get their hands on hundreds of billions of tax dollars.
<<< Mod Edit: Flamebait - Don't make derogatory statements that are solely intended to elicit emotional responses >>> Here's the facts, from the mouths of the experts. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer: The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate. In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture: A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere. Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world. Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems. In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction. Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded: There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life. source: Scientific opinion on climate change From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
