Posted on 06/03/2017 5:15:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
For sheer hilarity and hyperbole it's hard to beat a recent headline on a Washington Post editorial opposing President Trump's decision to remove the U.S. from the nonbinding and unenforceable Paris climate agreement.
"Trump turns his back on the world," it screamed.
A close second goes to the headline on a New York Times piece by columnist David Brooks: "Donald Trump Poisons the World."
Dishonorable mention goes to former presidential adviser David Gergen, who said on CNN that Trump had committed "one of the most shameful acts in U.S. history."
The secular progressives have again revealed their diminished capacity, which ought to disqualify them from leading anything, especially the country.
The central argument supporting "climate change" has been that a "scientific consensus" exists on the subject. Two things about this. The first is that climate scientists who disagree on that consensus have been largely shutout of the debate. Their papers and ideas are blocked from mainstream scientific journals and, thus, are not subject to peer review. Politics appears to have overshadowed science.
Second, there have been numerous cases in the not too distant past where an empirical conclusion among scientists was touted as rock-solid truth, but which later, after further examination, proved to be dead wrong. As with climate change, politicians and editorialists told us we had to accept the conclusions, related costs and possibly even diminished lifestyles in order to save the planet. After all, these were scientists and were thought by many to be as close to God as secularists get.
Newsweek magazine featured a cover story in 1975 about "global cooling." That was supposed to be a scientific consensus.
A June 2010 article in Reason magazine lists some of the other Chicken Little claims about doomsday being just around the corner. The magazine's science writer, Ronald Bailey, found a July 1, 1979 issue of The Washington Post claiming a "broad scientific consensus" that saccharin causes cancer. It took 30 years before the National Cancer Institute reported, "There is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans."
That same year, notes Bailey, the Post published a story citing researchers who believed eating more fiber appeared to significantly reduce the incidence of colon cancer. "Twenty years later," writes Bailey, "a major prospective study of nearly 90,000 women reported that, 'No significant association between fiber intake and the risk of colorectal adenoma was found.'"
Prior to 1985, there was "scientific consensus" that acid rain caused by electricity generating plants fueled by coal and emitting sulfur dioxide was destroying vast acres of forests and lakes in the eastern U.S. In 1991, notes Bailey, "after 10 years and $500 million, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study ... concluded, "That acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems."
There is much more in the article that is worth reading. It should humble the scientists, politicians and editorialists who want us to embrace another "scientific consensus" on "climate change."
President Trump should counter his critics by convening a White House conference on climate. In addition to the apostles of climate change, he should invite scientists -- and only those specializing in climate science -- that have been marginalized from the debate. These would include MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, who claims believing that CO2 controls the climate "is pretty close to believing in magic."
None of those participating in the proposed conference should be academics or scientists who receive federal grants or have other connections to government. This might give them a conflict of interest and reduce their credibility.
Let's have a high-level debate on this issue and settle it once and for all.
It is about the stinking EXEMPT Politicians
in DC taking a percentage of taxpayers money
FOR THEMSELVES and hiding it.
They are scum and should LIVE BY THE LAWS THEY IMPOSE
on the People who elected them to serve, not reign.
bfl
If we don’t Tax our Citizens and Businesses at punitive levels, forcing them in to poverty and despair, then give that money to the rest of the world in the form of Climate Welfare, How are we ever going to save the planet??
The German word for Scientist is Wissenschaftler. Wissen means knowledge, and as far as I am concerned scientists know bs
Russia saved Italy in WWII?
Brother Kaslin, maybe we’re getting old and cynical. We’ve been around here a long time.
I was always taught that a scientist was on a search for the correct understanding of the world. Evidently that got too hard.
The “treaty” would never have been ratified anyway in congress.
It wouldn’t have needed ratification if Hillary had won. Every day Donald Trump shows up for work and isn’t Hillary Clinton is a good day, regardless of the climate.
All political battles are for raising taxes on the little people.
Honey, if we do not pay the carbon taxes our children will suffer in poverty and starvation.
But sweetheart, if we pay the carbon taxes our children will suffer in poverty and starvation.
Oh.
In WW2, Russia and the US defeated Nazism and Fascism. Without that, the French would’ve been saluting their new leader Hitler. There have been instances in history where French ties to Russia, culturally and in alliances have been very strong. Do the French seriously think that Germany has their best interests at heart?
Some of those bleating how this is the end of the world, billionaire Tom Styer for instance. From the hyperbole he is spewing I can only assume he stood to make millions off of this deal. Follow the money. With the exception of a few Hollywood virtue signaling ignoramuses, this is all about money.
I posted this on another thread. It is relevant to this thread:
“The climate change fraud is a way to create a false economy.
Carbon credits will be used as currency. Businesses who’s carbon footprint is larger than their green footprint would have to purchase from businesses who have a carbon credit surplus to offset the difference.
Since Musk Produces “Green” vehicles, batteries and now solar panels, his business would receive “carbon credits”. Tesla would be like a bank and profit from selling it’s surplus credits. It would also ensure you purchase his green products to receive credits.
Most of the tech companies and all of the big banks have small carbon footprints, therefore they would be very powerful in a green economy.
Eventually, paper money would be replaced by credits. You will be assigned a certain amount of credits based on your family model. Your footprint would be measured. If you are found to be above your assignment you would have to purchase the additional carbon credits you used above your allotment.
You will be required to purchase them from an exchange. Anyone who is below their assignment would be able to sell their surplus to the exchange or bank them in case they need them in the future. (Unless, of course, you are rich and/or connected}
Anyone living in a rich western nation would be assigned a carbon footprint the size of someone living in a hut in a third world nation. We will always be in carbon debt, therefore poor nations would suddenly become carbon credit rich and rich nations would be carbon credit poor. It will be the largest wealth transfer in human history.
It is an insidious plan to rob rich nations of their wealth.”
Yeah I know that and the French ties with Russia came from the Napoleon war when he marched into Russia. I do not get the Russia and Italy connection.
Somebody tell me how deep the water should be by now according to AlGore.
Andrew Revkin was one of the manmade global warming gatekeepers at NYT, but is now with Propublica. should also note China is merely shutting down old, inefficient coal-fired power plants. they are not giving up coal domestically at all.
2 Jun: from Probublica: Andrew Revkin: EU-China: New ‘climate leaders’ are also enamoured of fossil fuels
Gas imports to Europe from the US and massive future coal burning in China undermine the rhetoric of the world’s new self-proclaimed climate spearheads
China, while curbing domestic construction of coal-powered plants, has become a leading lender financing the construction of new coal-burning power plants in developing countries, according to a 2016 study by researchers at Boston University and the Institute for World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Science...
And Europe, while generally basking in the glow of the Paris Agreement, has been quietly lobbying the Trump administration since February to fast-track approvals of multi-billion-dollar terminals for exporting America’s abundant shale-drilled natural gas as liquefied natural gas, or LNG, across the Atlantic. Who’s the fossil fuel villain there?...
(in April) secretary of energy Rick Perry used an appearance at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance meeting in Manhattan to announce the approval of a giant Texas LNG export terminal, owned by Qatar, ExxonMobil and others...
In an onstage discussion with Ethan Zindler of Bloomberg, Perry used a question on Paris to point out the difference between Europe’s climate-focused public statements and its work to gain gas supplies. “We’re out in the public and they’re giving all these speeches about the Paris accord and all the things we’re going to do, and we get into private meetings, it’s like, ‘How do we get that LNG?’,” he said, adding: “Don’t get up on the front end and make all these speeches about how good you’re doing, when the fact of the matter is you’re not.”...
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/02/eu-china-new-climate-leaders-also-enamoured-fossil-fuels/
EU are total hypocrites. just like the celebrities who attack President Trump, or the MSM who push the insane idea that China is a “climate leader”, whatever that is.
I have a word for scientists who sell out their integrity - high tech whores.
The Globalist’s version of Cap and Trade.
Can’t you see in the EU today that the French and German people have exactly the relationship most of them wanted 80 years ago?
Americans landing in North Africa (where they were shot down by French troops fighting to maintain their neutrality) and later in France were disgusted at how well the people were living; Brits in particular, who had been dealing with rationing for years, were shocked at how “normal” everything was.
The French understood that when Bolshevism and Nazism clash, there is no “good guy”. The French and British governments went to war in 1939 specifically to defend Poland, only to watch “Uncle Joe” take it in 1945. On top of that, their declaration of war for some reason ignored the USSR’s invasion of the eastern half of Poland, where they quickly went to work perpetrating the Katyn Massacre and such to eliminate any Western-leaning Poles.
Dirty business all around...
Brilliant.
There is a great deal of stupidity going on here. Let me list a few things that make no sense at all:
America now stands with Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not in the Paris Accord. Ok, But North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and Russia are in the accord. And Nicaragua is not in because they say the accord does not solve any climate problems. Nicaragua is actively moving its electric power use away from oil to Hydro, geothermal, and wind. Nicaragua actually cares about this issue a lot.
Most scientists believe in climate change. Which is a stupid statement. First, most scientists are not climatologists. They have no scientific background in the area. Second, since when is a popular vote among scientists a scientific reason to believe something is true. Galileo believed the earth revolved around the sun. But he was not in the majority at the time. Did the sun revolve around the earth until more scientists saw it his way? Then it changed?
The Paris Accord is not a treaty. Its not even legal. We have never ratified the Paris Accord. And by the way, a quarter of the other countries have not ratified it either. Yet Barack Obama took tens of billions of tax payer dollars out of the US defense budget and gave it to the Paris Accord without congress’s approval or authorization. He just gave them the money. The Paris Accord is not only, not legal. Its actually illegal.
Republicans like to say. Americans know best how to spend their money, not Washington. Well, the Paris Accord half way agrees with that. They agree that Washington, with all its elected officials, does not know how to spend American tax payer’s money. But Paris does. And they can do it without any elected officials.
Climatologists all like the Paris Accord. Well, of course they do. The Paris Accord funds them forever. It provides a huge slush fund that they control to fund whatever they want. And of course it will be them.
Almost every country in the world signed on to the Paris Accord. Thats right. The Paris Accord is basically a slush fund which has $100 billion dollars of largely American money doled out to the rest of the world. So why would they not sign. They don’t have to do anything. They don’t have to pay anything. But they get American tax dollars. Where do I sign up?
Elon Musk from Tesla and SolarCity and GEs CEO Jeff Immelt are very upset that America has pulled out of the Paris Accord. Here’s the real scam. American companies that produce solar panels and wind turbines will “sell” their products all over the world to countries who will be given a grant from the Paris Accord to “buy” the solar panels and wind turbines. And of course 10 middle men (foreign government officials) will get paid off as well, so everyone gets rich, but the American tax payers.
America needs a seat at the table. America needs to lead on Climate change. Well let me say that the seat is at a table but so is the cash register. What America wants is to have its companies and scientists get some of the money. Its like these guys cut a whole in the vault that stores tax payer money. And they want to be there to collect the spoils. Otherwise Chinese panels and turbines will be “sold” to other countries using American tax dollars. But wait. If Trump seals the leak. There will be no American tax dollars. And we will see how much money the rest of the world actually puts in the fund. So far its almost nothing.
Top. Men. (Examples)
“Peak oil is now.” German Energy Watch Group –2008
“By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear..…” U.S. Department of Defense –2008 & 2010.
“A global peak is inevitable. The timing is uncertain, but the window is rapidly narrowing.” UK Energy Research Centre -2009
“The next five years will see us face … the oil crunch.” UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security –2009
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.