Posted on 11/11/2015 3:30:00 PM PST by detective
Global-warming alarmists are turning up the heated rhetoric as the UN's Paris "Climate Summit" approaches, claiming that the supposed "crisis" of global warming is “the equivalent of war,†even though there has been no measurable warming of the planet for the past nearly 19 years.
"It is life on our planet itself which is at stake," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared on November 8 at a press conference in Paris, as foreign ministers and climate envoys from around the world met to prepare for the United Nations global summit on climate change
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
If that's true, then why is France building A380's and launching Ariane 5?
Oh, and polluting Paris with belching Peugeot and Citroen diesels. Paris smells worse then L.A.
Believe Monsieur Fabius is looking to improve French trade positions rather then the welfare of Glorius Gaia.
With all of the jihadis they are importing Europe can have some real war-time austerity soon instead of phony baloney Glowbull Warming austerity.
Your master need some sort of a war and the war against global warming is as good as any other. Read 1984. from the 1984 wiki page:
“The book” explains that the purpose of the unwinnable, perpetual war is to consume human labour and commodities, hence the economy of a superstate cannot support economic equality (a high standard of life) for every citizen. By using up most of the produced objects like boots and rations, the “proles” are kept poor and uneducated so that they will not realize what the government is doing and they will not rebel.
Climate Psychotics, Muslim Murderers, Illegal Mexicans, Racist Students, Destabilized Currency, Hillary Rotten Rotten.
Full court press on human civilization.
Looks like we’ve reached the back of The Book.
Follow the money.
They saw how the climate scam enriched Al Gore.
Now they want to jump on the bandwagon.
And in 100 years there be far more 100 year olds living.
Liberalism: invent a cause, create an organization to publicize and fight to further the theme. Name the group responsible for the targeted cause. Create a group or something else victimized by the object of the cause. Demonize those who see through the scam. Tax something to fund the end of the target of the overall campaign.
Go international.
maybe they could start with them?
If they want to tell head-chopping psychos that they have to use less fossil fuels I wish them all the best.
It is impossible to overstate the scandal that a POPE is fully on board with this hoax, which makes him a stooge of Marxist totalitarians.
Yeah, like I’ll take orders from a guy(?) that’s named Laurent.
Laurent sweetie, why don’t you go have some cheese and w(h)ine and leaves us alone?
“Ergo, governments must assume wartime powers to inflict the necessary austerity, controls, sacrifice, rationing, redistribution, and pain necessary for survival.”
I wonder what kind of austerity, controls, sacrifice, rationing, redistribution and pain they practiced regarding their transportation, hotel arrangements, and dining arrangements, you know as examples for the rest of?
I’m sure they implemented a whole panoply of austerity, controls, sacrifice, rationing, redistribution and pain for their conference, no doubt including riding bikes instead of taxis, taking buses instead of flying first class, flying coach when overland routes aren’t available, staying in hostels instead of five star hotels, and eating little else but vegetarian products manufactured from soy and seaweed, and of course consuming no alcohol.
Yep, but once you get through the back, you can start over from the front again. Unfortunately, it reads the same every time.
Uh... no.
...says Rao. "For ordinary Americans, austerities might include an end to expansive suburban lifestyles and budget air travel, and an accelerated return to high-density urban living and train travel..."
Tell me again, how exactly did you get to that conference, Mr. Rao? And what if we don't want to pack ourselves like sardines into already toxic, violent, expensive, corrupt, and bankrupt urban environments?
...Rao avers. "If scientists are right, and there is no reason to think they aren't..."
Oh, really? I can think of quite a few reasons to think the "consensus" scientists aren't, mostly having to do with (ahem) the data.
"Climate change is not a game for amateurs," Rao warns. "The evolving nature of the science, and the possibility (always present in science) that some of today's beliefs might be overturned by new evidence and models, is not a reason to second guess scientists or trust conspiracy theorists instead."
Well, yes it is. Because the behavior of those "consensus" scientists has been not very scientific, to say the least. The "possibility" today's beliefs might be overturned by new evidence? Really? Somebody is hedging his bets here and it isn't "new" evidence but the stuff we've had all along that bears it out. But it isn't really science that Rao is advocating here, it's political action and social engineering based on "beliefs" and pushed by You Know Who:
"The degree to which we are able to prevent future pain will depend strongly on the ability of politicians to establish the narrative that we must allocate high costs today, while we can still afford them, in order to save unborn generations from avertable disasters."
I think we've heard enough from Rao to conclude that science has nothing to do with this and propaganda everything. One does not need to establish a "narrative" in science. One does in politics. And the sort of politics we're hearing about here involve pain, involuntary order, mandated changes in where the citizen lives, how he works, how big a family he is permitted, how, when, where, and how much he travels, what he eats, what he is permitted to throw away; in fact, every single aspect of his life, is to be subordinated to the dictates of "experts" who constitute a new ruling class - a totalitarian government by its very definition.
It is no halcyon world full of clean water and manicured forests that will result, populated by back-to-nature children who are free and exempt from the sins of their parents, but a miserable, regimented urban hell populated by Orwellesque proles. That is not something to be left to any future generation if we love them at all.
Yep. Otherwise the story would not be so accurate. Nothing you say has not been said before.
Are you talking about the Bible, or the Vedas?
Promised Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts: A Useless Gesture
31 Comments
11/11/2015 06:15 PM ET
EmailPrintReprintsComment
inShare
Bjorn Lomborg, president and founder of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.
Bjorn Lomborg, president and founder of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. View Enlarged Image
Environment: What would happen if every country taking part in the United Nations climate summit in Paris later this month cut its greenhouse gas emissions as they have pledged? The short — and long — answer is: nothing.
The goal of the Paris talks is “to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, with the aim of keeping global warming below” 2 degrees Celsius, or 36 Fahrenheit.
To reach this, countries have submitted their “intended nationally determined contributions,” which outline how much they pledge to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.S., for example, promises that by 2025 it will have cut its greenhouse emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels.
If every country follows the U.S. lead that President Obama believes we should take, that should do it, right?
Global warming threat extinguished.
Climate crisis averted.
Don’t believe it.
Those promised cuts will be useless in stopping Earth from warming as predicted by the models — profoundly flawed models, we should add, which have predicted heating over the past two decades that simply has not developed.
Those error-ridden models aside, the proposed cuts in emissions that many hope will be binding after the Paris conference is over will do nothing.
“Paris is being sold as the summit where we can help ‘heal the planet’ and ‘save the world,’” Danish researcher Bjorn Lomborg says. “It is no such thing. If all nations keep all their promises, temperatures will be cut by just 0.05” degree Celsius.”
That’s not enough to even talk about, much less try to attain.
What if the cuts go even deeper?
Lomborg, president and founder of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has figured that in, too: “Even if every government on the planet not only keeps every Paris promise, reduces all emissions by 2030 and shifts no emissions to other countries, but also keeps these emission reductions throughout the rest of the century, temperatures will be reduced by just 0.17 (degree Celsius) by the year 2100.”
Actually, the emissions cuts would have a lasting effect, just not on the environment.
The big impact would be on the economy — where the disruptive nature of the lower-carbon regime would hurt a lot of families.
According to Energy Ventures Analysis, the Obama Clean Power Plan regulatory scheme — think of it as the U.S. contribution to the U.N. effort to lower global CO2 emissions — that seeks to slash emissions by 32% would increase household gas and electricity bills by nearly $700 a year over the next five years.
Meanwhile, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report says the Clean Power Plan rules “threaten to suppress average annual U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by $51 billion.”
Overall, they will “cause U.S. consumers to pay nearly $290 billion more for electricity between 2014 and 2030, or an average of $17 billion more per year.”
At the same time, “the typical household could lose a total of $3,400 in real disposable income” because it is forced to pay higher energy costs.
Meanwhile, the stringent new rules will also kill American jobs, says the Chamber.
“On average,” the report reads, “from 2014 to 2030, the U.S. economy will have 224,000 fewer jobs, with a peak decline in employment of 442,000 jobs in 2022.
“These job losses represent lost opportunities and income for hundreds of thousands of people that can never be recovered.”
Those are some unreasonably steep prices to pay for a policy that does nothing to achieve its stated goals of cooling the planet.
But the attendees who jetted to the Paris climate summit will nevertheless insist on a worldwide agreement to cut emissions — after which they will demand even deeper cuts, because the ones they will just have agreed to will be found inadequate.
Then they will warn us, after jetting out of Paris and spewing CO2 emissions freely into the French skies, that it’s our last chance to save ourselves — a hysterical story that activists have been spreading almost yearly since at least 2001.
The best way to save ourselves is to keep the activists who are pushing these emissions cuts from achieving their goals.
After all, they’re far more dangerous than human CO2 output.
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/111115-780350-greenhouse-gas-emissions-cuts-will-not-lower-temperature.htm#ixzz3rIhHWTEK
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
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.