RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/02/the-politics

One has to wonder if the shock and despair described in David Bowie’s 1971 hit, “Five Years,” would be the preferred collective mentality for humanity, at least if the relentless propaganda campaigns of climate change activists are successful. And one must admit they have powerful allies at their disposal. A climate alarm consensus informs America’s entire educational, entertainment, and media establishments, along with most corporate marketing, and most political platforms from the local city council to the United Nations.

Climate alarm shouldn’t be a hard sell, and it isn’t. The horror inspired by natural conflagrations taps into primal, instinctual fears; when vividly imagining terrifying acts of nature, even the most hardened skeptic might have a moment of pause.

California’s horrifying wildfire that incinerated the town of Paradise in November 2018 is a good example. Later that month, retiring Governor Jerry Brown appeared on “Face the Nation” and predicted, “In less than five years even the worst skeptics are going to be believers.”

Taking shameless advantage of every natural disaster to stoke fears of climate change has become normal. In October 2018, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a special report predicting imminent global climate catastrophe. A month later, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a grim “Fourth National Climate Assessment.” In both cases, news reports included cataclysmic images designed to tap our deepest, most unreasoning and terrifying species memories; tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, fires.

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=23e577be66

In trendy progressive states here in the U.S., we know how we are going to solve “climate change.” We are going to slash our “greenhouse gas” emissions. Here in New York City, we’re going to reduce our GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. If you don’t believe it, you can just ask Mayor de Blasio. New York State? Same goal, 80% by 2050. California also has a goal of reducing GHG emissions 80% by 2050. Surely, this will solve the problem.

New York and California seem to think that they are big stuff in the world. After all, who is more important than we wealthy coastal U.S. elites? But unfortunately, on a global scale, we don’t really have enough population to count for much. As usual, when it’s time to do the arithmetic, the progressives fall on their faces. Let’s look at some numbers.

New York State has a population of about 20 million. California has about twice that population, 40 million. For comparison, the country of India has a population of about 1.4 billion — about 23 times the combined total of New York and California.

For greenhouse gas emissions, the latest number I find for New York come from 2015, with a total of 218.14 million tons of CO2 equivalent. With twice the population, California as you would expect has about twice the emissions, about 430 MMtCO2e in 2016 per this chart from Grist. For comparison, India’s emissions were about 2.4 billion tons of CO2 equivalent, or close to 4 times the combined total of New York and California. And India is still relatively early in the process of industrializing and building out its electrical grid.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/the_global_warming_pause.html

CO2 may no longer affect climate.

The non-warming of the climate has become a topic much discussed since about 2005. John Christy has testified to Congress about the “gap” between IPCC climate models, which are based on steadily increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and observations of atmospheric temperatures, measured by both satellites and radiosondes, 1978-2015. [REF hyperlink; see Christy fig. below]There have been many attempts to explain this discrepancy, ranging from a flat denial that such a gap exists [REF*; Tom Karl, Science, 2015 pp. 1469-1472, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5632] to attempts to account for the “missing incoming energy.” For example, Kevin Trenberth has proposed that the missing energy instead of warming the atmosphere, “hides” in the deep ocean, to be released later.

Based on all the foregoing discussion, of the log-dependence of CO2 forcing, [REF Myhre et al, GRL, 1998 vol. 25, doi: org/10.1029/98GLO1908] and its possible climate-cooling effect, I have a simpler hypothesis on the ineffectiveness of CO2 in warming the climate. I realize, however, that this explanation is unacceptable to IPCC, and to many climate-warming advocates. However, I believe the “gap,” now 40 years long, according to Christy, has existed throughout the Industrial Revolution — and probably during the whole of the Holocene. In other words, I consider the “pause” may be permanent.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/white-house-plans-to-re-assess-climate-change/

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter its conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.The move would represent the Trump administration’s most forceful effort to date to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are helping drive global warming and that the world could face dire consequences unless countries curb their carbon output over the next few decades.

 http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/22378/the-riddle-of-climate-changehttp://goudsmit.pundicity.com http://lindagoudsmit.com

The Riddle: What climate does climate change change?The Answer: The political climate of course.

Let me explain. Pollution and climate change are two separate issues. Environmental pollution is a man-made problem that humans can and should remedy. Taking responsibility for our behavior is a necessary part of civilized life and eliminating environmental horrors like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is something we all need to support. So far so good.

Climate change, on the other hand, is a natural phenomenon that is an intrinsic part of the earth’s environmental history. For the past millions of years the natural climate on Earth has fluctuated between warm periods and ice ages in approximately 100,000 year cycles. 80-90,000 years of ice age are followed by 10-20,000 years of a warm period.

Climate change was originally called global warming but environmental politicians had to change its name because the earth was embarrassing them by cooling. A rose by any other name is still a rose and so is climate change. The cooling and warming patterns of climate change are a natural, enduring, and ongoing phenomenon.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019

Don’t be fooled, the urgent need to combat climate change, as cited by the Green New Deal, is nothing more nor less than a trojan horse, inside of which lurks Comrade Marx. A utopian paradise for all is its promise — utopian as in Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba and Chávez’s Venezuela.

ROOSEVELT‘s New Deal managed to delay America’s recovery from the Great Depression for years after the UK, Europe and Australia had recovered. This is a mere blip on the course of history compared with the dystopian future offered by the Green New Deal.

Backdropped by older white men of privilege, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) announced her Green New Deal (the Deal) in Washington; in the form of a proposed fourteen-page House of Reps resolution. Presumably the men were props calculated to give the impression that the madness had a kernel of sanity. After all, could middle- and older-aged white men sign up to flights of fancy? Well, yes, they can. Think of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders.

Before I cover some of the elements of the Deal a note of caution is warranted. I heard some conservatives and a few level-headed Democrats say that it was pie-in-the-sky. It isn’t. Pie-in-the-sky is an empty promise of unattainable benefits; writ large, it is a utopian promise of nirvana right here on planet Earth.

The Deal is not a pie-in-the-sky promise but a concrete threat of a future hellhole. And, as we know, unlike nirvanas, hellholes have been regularly brought about. This particular one, as for so many, would be a product of socialism. Don’t be fooled, climate change in the Deal is simply a trojan horse. Inside lurks comrade Karl Marx.

Certainty of climate catastrophe of biblical proportions sets the scene: mass migrant flight, enormous economic losses, wildfires such as we haven’t seen, ninety-nine percent of coral reefs gone, more than 350 million people “exposed to deadly heat stress.” And on top of all of this, rising sea levels, severe storms, and droughts, etc., etc.

If this were not enough on the climate front; on the socio-economic front, inequality and discrimination bear down on swathes of the populace. Suffering are “indigenous people, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialised communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.” Who’s left, you might ask? Obviously, those left are privileged white men – hence I suppose those aforementioned privileged white men hovering behind AOC lest they be among those for the guillotine come the witching hour.