I am sick of the constant bullshit news that I have been watching this last week concerning the fraud of Global Warming... The freaks out there promoting that bullshit have had the nerve to state that the recent Hurricane that hit the Florida panhandle area was due to the "planet overheating" and that this type of hurricane is "only the beginning".... I have not commented on that hurricane at this blog, simply because I am not sold on the liars in the Jew spew media promoting it to be the "worse of all time".... I will state that the damage was severe, but NOT to the extreme that these lying bastards are trying to promote...As everyone is aware, the criminal IPCC group of liars and fraud artists behind the Global Warming scam put out their "report" this last Monday.... And that report speculates that "unless" we all "combat Global Warming now", the planet has only about 11 or so years left to "fix the problem" to survive! To me, this was nothing more than "fear porn" and some of the worse propaganda imaginable in trying to sway the gullible people out there to accept the criminal 'carbon taxation' that the pricks behind the entire fraud want to impose on the entire planet.....I have already attacked that fraud IPCC report in a previous article this week, and now to further show exactly what the criminals behind the fraud of "Global Warming" are truly all about, I want to present the following report that comes from the "Daily Signal" website, at www.dailysignal.com, that is entitled: "Climate Alarmists Admit They Want To Dismantle Our Free Market System"... This is a very important report for my readers to read, and I have it right here in its entirety.... I have my own thoughts and comments to follow:ENERGYCOMMENTARYClimate Alarmists Admit They Want to Dismantle Our Free Enterprise SystemNicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris / October 11, 2018 /The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is warning that the dire costs of climate change are going to be here sooner than we think.The planet is close to reaching its alleged 1.5-degree Celsius warming threshold, and civilization only has 11 years to fix it.Oh, yeah, and the solution is to tear down the global free-enterprise system responsible for human flourishing and raising levels of prosperity for billions of people.Don’t take my word for it.A writer for the eco-friendly Grist tweeted, “The world’s top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet.”
If you are wondering what you can do about climate change:The world's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet.I mean, if you are looking for something to do. https://t.co/e5l7EWnRSC— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) October 8, 2018
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report itself warns: “There is no documented historical precedent” for the transformation (aka de-development) necessary to curb global warming.The Associated Press reported:
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
The year 2000? Oh, wait a minute. The AP article is from June 30, 1989. Scratch that last warning from nearly three decades ago.The reality is that, though the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and proponents of dismantling the free-enterprise system have been shockingly honest in revealing their true intentions over the past few days, the sentiment is not new.In fact, three years ago, U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres made similar remarks in a push for the Paris climate accord.Figueres said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”The current economic development model that reigns supreme does so for compelling reasons.People that freely exchange ideas and products, that have protection from government coercion and that have well-defined and protected property rights because of a strong rule of law have done quite well for themselves.Free, competitive energy markets drive innovation and provide the affordable, reliable energy that families and businesses need, and yield a cleaner environment.Conversely, international efforts to combat climate change have been centrally planned boondoggles. They’ve resulted in wasted taxpayer money, higher energy prices, and handouts for preferred energy sources and technologies—all for no noticeable impact on climate.Eighty percent of all energy consumed by Americans comes from conventional sources, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. About 80 percent of the world’s energy needs are met by these natural resources, which emit carbon dioxide when combusted.Levying a price on carbon dioxide will directly raise the cost of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and home-heating oil. But the economic pain does not stop there.When considering the impact of a carbon tax on individuals, it is important to note that carbon is intertwined in all parts of life. Energy is a necessary component for just about all of the goods and services consumed, so Americans would pay more for food, health care, education, clothes—you name it.The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report suggests policy proposals that would be economically cataclysmic.It proposes a carbon tax of between $135 and $5,500 by 2030. A $5,500 carbon tax equates to a $50-per-gallon gas tax. An energy tax of that magnitude would bankrupt families and businesses, and undoubtedly catapult the world into economic despair.Importantly, an extreme climate policy would also divert resources away from pressing environmental concerns, such as investing in more robust infrastructure to protect against natural disasters or new, innovative technologies that improve air and water quality.Are those costs worth it? After all, having wealth, health, and affordable power don’t mean all that much if people don’t have a planet to live on. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates the climate costs could total $54 trillion without action.But is there any new revelation in the scientific literature that makes climate doom imminent?Not according to climatologist Judith Curry, a former chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.Curry asserts that the main conclusion from the report is that “things would be a little better at 1.5C relative to 2C.”Furthermore, she notes, “Over land, we have already blown through the 1.5C threshold if measured since 1890.“Temperatures around 1820 were more than 2C cooler. There has been a great deal of natural variability in temperatures prior to 1975, when human-caused global warming kicked in any meaningful way.”Another critical point Curry highlights is the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change largely disregards the lower thirds of likely climate sensitivity values between 1.5C and 4.5C.Equilibrium climate sensitivity attempts to quantify the earth’s temperature response to carbon dioxide emissions, answering the question: How does the earth’s temperature change from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?There is a lot of scientific debate about equilibrium climate sensitivity within the climate literature, with a fair amount of uncertainty. And, as Curry mentions, “Much of this problem goes away if ECS is actually 1.5 to 2C.”What about natural disasters? The University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Jr., who specializes in analyzing extreme weather trends, emphasizes that “the IPCC once again reports that there is little basis for claiming that drought, floods, hurricanes [and] tornadoes have increased, much less increased due to [greenhouse gases].”The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s politicization of policy actions presents another problem, and it is evident in the way the report treats nuclear energy.Nuclear power provides nearly 60 percent of America’s carbon dioxide-free electricity, yet the climate panel engages in fearmongering about its expanded use. One would think that if climate change were an existential crisis, the world would need all the nuclear power it can get.While the report acknowledges that any pathway to meeting carbon dioxide-reduction targets will include increased nuclear buildout, the report says more nuclear “can increase the risks of proliferation, have negative environmental effects (e.g., for water use), and have mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels.”Writing in Forbes, Michael Shellenberger documents the IPCC’s historic bias against nuclear power. Yet, the report unabashedly supports expanded wind and solar development and offers personal lifestyle changes to reduce the planet’s carbon footprint, such as air-drying laundry, eating less red meat, and biking to work.Regardless of the cause, there are undoubted challenges from a changing climate.Investing in coral reef protection or in preparation for extreme weather events can be worthwhile. However, the combination of fearmongering and offering solutions that would require a takeover of the global economy are unrealistic and counterproductive.NTS Notes: I absolutely agree with the findings put forward by the author of this article... And especially the big huge lie promoted in 1989 that stated that the sea levels would rapidly rise and inundate major shorelines by the year 2000... The year is now 2018 and there is still NO sign of this rapid "sea level" increase at all!I also found some alarming numbers put forward by these monsters as to the COST of all of their "initiatives" that they want to "save the planet".... And get this... For some estimates go from around $2.4 TRILLION dollars a year for the next 18 or so years to "lower the temperature" as they speculate, to as much as $122 TRILLION dollars overall to 'save the planet'.... With these outlandish figures, it is no wonder that these criminals are indeed out to dismantle our entire economic systems... To pay these 'ransom" figures out in the form of "carbon taxation" would bankrupt nations across the planet!I will again state the facts... There is ABSOLUTELY NO MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING, PERIOD.........It is a scam and nothing more than fear mongering to get gullible people to accept the fraud of Carbon Taxation which is being thrown out there to fleece individuals of their hard earned wealth..... Carbon Dioxide is ABSOLUTELY NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS.... Being a chemist myself, and a man who understands how Greenhouse gases do work through absorption of heat in the infrared spectrum of light, I will state that CO2 itself is NOT molecularly made up for such absorption... CO2 is in fact a coolant and is a vital necessity for life on this planet.... Plants desperately need CO2 to survive, and I have shown in a previous article that CO2 increases in our atmosphere have actually been a gawd-send for plant life as plants have flourished under more CO2 in our atmosphere! The issue has always been that the pricks and bastards behind the entire Global Warming scam have needed something to force their tax on gullible and stupid people,and after realizing that they could not tax water vapour (H2O) (Good luck on that one.. Taxing water??) or Methane (CH4) (Methane is a greenhouse gas, but it rapidly breaks down in an Oxygen rich atmosphere such as Earth's) for their "tax", they came to the conclusion that the next best thing to force on people was to tax Carbon Dioxide (CO2) which of course is NOT even a greenhouse gas!Yes, this fear mongering has gone too far now... The IPCC and other criminals are now resorting to these type of threats and fear mongering in the hope that it sticks with the most stupid people in our societies.... I and others are not fooled and are trying our best to actually educate people as to the truth behind this scam.... Hopefully the message is getting through...More to comeNTS