THE GREAT DEMOCRAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM

Post Reply
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

THE GREAT DEMOCRAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 20, 2019

Opinion: The Great Democrat Climate Crisis Scam


Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante

Yes, people, once again, for those of us with memories, we are being scammed as a nation and as a people by the Democrats, who need us both terribly scared and very angry going into the 2020 presidential elections, so that we will all vote Democrat and hand them control of our federal government, because it is only the Democrats who can save us now, yada, yada, as we can see from an article in the Brit socialist publication The Guardian entitled “When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez met Greta Thunberg: ‘Hope is contagious’ – One is America’s youngest-ever congresswoman, the other a Swedish schoolgirl. Two of the most powerful voices on the climate speak for the first time” by Emma Brockes on 29 June 2019, to wit:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: We are no longer at the point of preventing [climate disaster] from happening entirely – we are now at the point of minimising the damage.

end quotes

Climate disaster?

OMG, sounds very serious, does it not?

But, as The Guardian makes incandescently clear, if we all vote Democrat in 2020 and give total control of our federal government to the Democrats, at least that impending climate disaster can be minimized, and who in their right mind wouldn’t want a climate disaster minimized?

So to save our own lives, we all need to rally behind AOC and the Democrats to save our lives, or we are done!

And how do I know we are done if we don’t vote Democrat in 2020?

My goodness, people, how could we not know?

I mean, look at the AP News article ‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, where we were warned, as follows:

NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.

end quotes

Now, people, would the “expert United Nations climate panel” be issuing a grim new report if things weren’t really grim?

Look at what this one dude is saying about it, to wit:

“The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

“The changes are accelerating.”

end quotes

Now, is that a fact that the oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble?

Or is that really hype and horse**** mixed together in a toxic brew?

As to who Michael Oppenheimer is, Wikipedia informs us as follows, to wit:

Michael Oppenheimer (born February 28, 1946) is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University.

Oppenheimer has taken a leading role in various environmental and science policy related activities, with regard to acid rain, and contributed to the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act.

With regard to climate change, he was a major author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and a lead author of the Fifth Assessment Report.

Oppenheimer is also a prominent public figure and has discussed the various aspects of global warming in the media.

He has been a guest on many television and radio programs and talk shows, including This Week, Nightline, Alcove, The News Hour, The Oprah Winfrey Show, Charlie Rose, ABC News, and The Colbert Report.

end quotes

So, we know the dude is a real expert because of how many different television and radio programs and talk shows he has been on, which is how we in America know who the real experts are, versus the fake experts who don’t believe in all this “dire” stuff and as a result, do not get to appear on those same shows.

And that in turn brings us to an article entitled “Politicized Science” by David Randall, director of research at the National Association of Scholars, where we have as follows:

Climate studies continues as the most politicized science, whose gatekeeping professionals advocate unprofessionally for climate alarmism.

Far too many climate researchers take apocalyptic climate change to be an unfalsifiable paradigm.

The ‘gold standard journals’ Nature and Science, above all, promote the artificial “consensus” of nigh-apocalyptic climate change.

The alarmism of the scientific journals meets its match in the popular press, as well as at the universities, where assent to alarmist conclusions is a near-universal requirement.

The Next Generation Science Standards have injected climate alarmism into K-12 science education in almost every state.

Social media companies censor climate skepticism.

Professors publish articles calling for the formal abrogation of freedom of speech for climate skeptics.

Climate alarmists progressively undermine the climate of freedom necessary to sustain scientific inquiry.

Yet even climate studies remains open to correction.

A pair of Swedish scientists published a report in Science in 2016 on microplastic pollution in the Baltic — and aroused suspicion from their colleagues that they had made up their research data.

Science was slow to respond to these suspicions, but the article ultimately was withdrawn and the scientists censured by Uppsala University for scientific misconduct.

A 2018 report on increasing rates of warming in the oceans was immediately taken apart by a climate warming skeptic — and the lead scientist withdrew his headline claim.

end quotes

So, is there a climate crisis as the Democrats would have us believe?

And given that scientists do tell lies, including our own, how are we to know the difference?

And what is this IPCC we are hearing so much about, as in the CNN article “Greta Thunberg, 16-year-old climate activist, tells Congress to listen to the scientists and take real action” by Leah Asmelash on 18 Sept. 2019, to wit:

Greta Thunberg has had a busy week.

On Wednesday, the Swedish 16-year-old climate activist appeared in front of Congress before a hearing on climate change, just days after she met with former President Barack Obama.

Thunberg, though, told Congress she didn’t have any prepared remarks.

Instead, she said she was attaching her testimony — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on global warming, which reported a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

“I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” she said.

“And I want you to unite behind the science.”

“And then I want you to take real action.”

end quotes

As to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Wikipedia tells us that it is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.

end quotes

So when the IPCC starts coming out with “doom-and-gloom” dire reports that the earth’s oceans and icy places are in big trouble, is that truly an objective, scientific view of climate change?

Or is it really what it seems, which is political horse****?

Afterall, as we are informed by Wikipedia:

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself.

Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.

end quotes

Given that the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself, then in all truth, on what scientific basis is the IPCC making these “doom-and-gloom” predictions?

Stay tuned, for more on that question is yet to come!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... m/#respond
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE GREAT DEMOCRAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 20, 2019 at 6:00 pm

Paul Plante says :

Now, by way of review for anyone just stopping by here and wondering where this thread in intended to take us, which is hopefully to a more rational and informed plane with respect to the earth’s ever-changing climate, on September 8, 2019, the Cape Charles Mirror posted a thread entitled “The Great Climate Hoax” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... mate-hoax/ wherein was stated as follows:

CNN and the field of Democratic Candidates proved once again that we are indeed living in clown world.

For seven hours, the brainy individuals engaged in a forum discussing climate change and the coming end of the world.

end quotes

The conclusion to that thread, which as a grandfather and human being, I find quite relevant and timely, was as follows:

We are raising a generation of kids who are living in fear, like the poor girl from Holland that says every day she wakes up afraid for her future, so much so that she had to sail to New York.

All of this is based on theory, and not empirical evidence, or as some call it, science.

end quotes

And as could be expected, that opening post started a war of words that extended over the space of 202 comments, where pretty much everything of relevance in the original post was lost, starting with these essential existential questions, to wit:

A. Are we in fact living in clownworld here in the United States of America?

B. Is that now a permanent condition of our political existence here in the United States of America, that we should be ruled by benighted ignorance as opposed to rationality and reason?

C. Are we in fact raising a generation of kids in the United States of America who are living in fear, like the poor girl from Holland that says every day she wakes up afraid for her future, so much so that she had to sail to New York?

D. And perhaps most importantly, given that we heard so much in that last thread about “consensus,” as if that empty word had any concrete meaning, who and what is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that allegedly reported low confidence that global warming — manmade or not — was driving increases in extreme weather events.

While touching on the first three by way of background, the real purpose of this thread is to delve into the last question in some detail, so we common folks here in the United States of America whose collective future as a nation and as a people is at stake here can have a better understanding of this issue, because the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not about “science” at all – to the contrary, it is a political body that uses science for a political tool, as we can see from this excerpt from Wikipedia on the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, as follows:

IPCC author Richard Lindzen has made a number of criticisms of the TAR.

Among his criticisms, Lindzen has stated that the WGI Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not faithfully summarize the full WGI report.

For example, Lindzen states that the SPM understates the uncertainty associated with climate models.

John Houghton, who was a co-chair of TAR WGI, has responded to Lindzen’s criticisms of the SPM.

Houghton has stressed that the SPM is agreed upon by delegates from many of the world’s governments, and that any changes to the SPM must be supported by scientific evidence.

IPCC author Kevin Trenberth has also commented on the WGI SPM.

Trenberth has stated that during the drafting of the WGI SPM, some government delegations attempted to “blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report”.

end quotes

That, people, is HORSE****!

“Science” is being decided not by scientists, but by a pack of lawyers meeting behind closed doors in messaging sessions, where what will be called “science” is decided on by majority vote of the lawyers, and it is that which is called consensus.

So how is that happening, then?

To answer that, we need to go back to the beginning of time, as it were, to see where this IPCC crowd came from in the first place, to wit (from Wikipedia):

The IPCC produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change.

The objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.

end quotes

Now, doesn’t that sound like an admirable goal, to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system?”

And my goodness, what am I saying – of course it is an admirable goal to save the world and everybody on it, along with everything on it, from dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system, and whomever can actually do it will get their names down in the history books foreveraftermore as the Savior of Humanity, and who wouldn’t want that chiseled in granite on their gravestone – “HERE LIES THE DUDE WHO SAVED THE WORLD!”

So, can they do it?

And more importantly, what exactly is “dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system?”

And the answer right now, despite claims to the otherwise by AOC and the congressional Democrats, is that nobody really does know the answer to that question, which is why we have so many lawyers involved.

So to bring this chapter to a close, so we can understand how we got to here, wherever here might in fact be, anymore, given our entry as a nation and people into “clownworld,” we first need to understand that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992, which is an indication of how long this issue of climate change has been simmering.

That treaty then entered into force on 21 March 1994, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified it.

As stated previously, the UNFCCC objective is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.

But then, get this: the framework sets non-binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms.

end quotes

So what is it then, besides nothing really?

“We’re fixin’ to get with doing something about climate change, but we’re not really doing anything about actually changing the climate, just making it look like we are because it’s a good gig and a good source of long-term funding!”

And with that, we will cut to station identification and a word from our sponsors, so if you need a beer or sandwich or something else from the concession stand, now is the time to run for it, and we will be right back.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-188715
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE GREAT DEMOCRAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 21, 2019 at 11:03 am

Paul Plante says :

Good morning, sir.

Yes, there is now a lot of water around, so flooding is becoming a problem if you are in areas prone to flooding.

As to Annapolis, its web site states as follows:

The City of Annapolis is susceptible to floods/flash floods anytime during the year but especially from March to September.

Flooding is primarily due to the City’s location as a coastal community.

The lowest lying land is in the downtown Annapolis/City Dock area and Eastport, located at the mouth of the Severn River, Annapolis Harbor, and Spa Creek.

end quotes

And again, the purpose of this thread is not to deny that the earth’s climate is ever changing, because only a fool would take that tack – rather, the purpose is to make an attempt to cut through all the hype and hysteria coming at us from the politicians on both sides of the aisle, but predominantly the Democrats, at present, as well as all the doom-and-gloom coming at us from the irresponsible media who see fostering panic as a good way to sell advertising which is how they make their money.

And specifically, the thread hopes to shed some much needed light on this IPCC – who it is, what it is, why it is, and can we believe a single word it prints, given the highly political nature of the beast.

One of the many triggers of this thread is an article in the Washington Examiner entitled “Democrats invite teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg to testify before Congress” by Josh Siegel on September 12, 2019, to wit:

Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg, 16, is testifying before Congress next week at the invitation of House Democrats.

Thunberg will appear Sept. 18 before a joint hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee and the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

“We’re at the point where an entire generation has grown up in the climate crisis,” said Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, chairwoman of the Select Climate Crisis Committee.

“They know the science, they know the stakes and they know how to rise to the challenge.”

“We need to rise with them.”

end quotes

As an adult, as a grandfather, as a licensed engineer, and as an accredited associate level public health engineer, I personally do not think it is in any way helpful to any cause other than partisan politics for the Democrats to keep blasting us with this “climate crisis” horse**** day after day after day, without alerting us to what the “climate crisis” actually is, and what it is the Democrats plan to do about it, beyond screeching over and over, “hey, hey, ho, ho, climate change has got to go.”

And it is also not enough in a civilized nation governed by rule of law, supposedly, anyway, to now tell us that our laws are going to be made by children.

If these children do know the “science,” then we all have the right to know that science and to review it.

And sincerely, sir, thank you for commenting!

And have a great day!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-188715
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE GREAT DEMOCRAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 21, 2019 at 11:05 pm

Paul Plante says :

Thanks for your service, Mr. Corcoran, and yes, of course something is going on to cause flooding in Annapolis.

The land in the Chesapeake region has been sinking over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years, said Raymond G. Najjar Jr., a Pennsylvania State University oceanographer who has studied the impact of climate change on the mid-Atlantic coast, is a part of it.

And according to an article entitled “Atlantic coastline sinks as sea levels rise” by John Upton on Apr 16, 2016, we have as follows:

The main cause of East Coast subsidence is natural — the providential loss of an ice sheet.

Some 15,000 years ago, toward the end of an ice age, the Laurentide Ice Sheet stretched over most of Canada and down to modern-day New England and the Midwest.

Its heavy ice compressed the earth beneath it, causing surrounding land to curl upward.

Since the ice sheet melted, the land beneath it has been springing back up.

Like a see-saw, that’s causing areas south of the former ice sheet to sink back down, including Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

The study shows that subsidence is occurring twice as fast now than in centuries past in a hot spot from Fredericksburg, Va. south to Charleston, which the scientists mostly blame on groundwater pumping.

“If you draw down your aquifer, the land above the aquifer kind of collapses,” said Timothy Dixon, a University of South Florida professor who helped produce the study.

“If that happens to be on the coast, that can also increase your flood potential.”

Virginia says it’s working on the problem.

“In most places, you wouldn’t notice it; it wouldn’t matter,” said Jack Eggleston, a U.S. Geological Survey scientists who has researched the effects of groundwater pumping on the region’s topography.

“But in terms of practical effects and practical problems, it does matter when you’re right on the shoreline.”

end quotes

So, on the one hand, old geological processes are taking place vis-à-vis the land subsidence, and those processes have added to them the modern issue of groundwater pumping which exacerbates the subsidence.

And then there is the fact that we are in an inter-glacial period where water once stored as ice has received enough latent heat to melt it, so that the level of water in the oceans is rising.

If you were a naval officer, Mr. Corcoran, then you must know how unsettled the earth’s oceans are, and the fact that sea ice is not a constant, as well as how violent the earth’s oceans can be.

Tremendous amounts of heat energy are transported by the earth’s oceans, and when that heat energy already being transported by the earth’s oceans has additional heat energy added to it by the 58 nuclear reactors in France, for example, which waste heat is heating up the Rhone and Garonne rivers, with nuclear power in Germany also heating the Weser river, that heat energy has to go somewhere, and the natural circulation patterns of the oceans carry it north where it melts ice.

And that has been going on for many years now, so while we notice it today in such events as flooding in Cape Charles and Annapolis, in reality, it is nothing new, just something newly noticed.

So what are Annapolis and Cape Charles going to do about the new normal facing us all?

Will they sink or swim?

And again, the purpose of this thread is not to deny what can’t be denied – that being the earth’s climate is not now and never has been stable and unchanging.

The purpose of this thread is to delve into who and what this IPCC is, and why it exists, and why we should believe a single word it prints.

So when I talk about the “Climate Crisis Scam,” I am talking about the hype associated with the term “climate crisis.”

There are over 300 million people in this nation living on 3.797 million square miles of territory, and I would say that for the majority, the climate for them has barely changed at all, so all this “climate crisis” crap is a combination of crying wolf over and over, and the sky is falling, which is making people contemptuous of both science and politics, and I fail to see how that is in any way a healthy development for the nation.

Hence this thread, to speak out about that in a reasonable and responsible manner, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror.

And as to the blatantly political nature of the IPCC, consider this from its own formative history, to wit:

By the late 1980s scientific findings indicated that greenhouse gases including CO2 emissions were leading to global warming.

There was increasing public and political interest, and in 1987 the World Meteorological Organization pressed for an international scientific panel to assess the topic.

The United States Reagan administration, worried about political influence of scientists, successfully lobbied for the 1988 formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide reports subject to detailed approval by government delegates.

end quotes

Reports subject to detailed approval by government delegates!

In other words, science as approved by lawyers, which is not science, at all – just political horse****.

And to close, Mr. Corcoran, it is not a question of denying science – it really is a question of denying reality.

The oceans have been rising now since at least 1900, and that has never been a secret, nor did you need a PhD to realize that, so why has Annapolis been sitting on its hands all this time pretending it wasn’t happening?

That is an existential question for our times, alright, and again, thank you for commenting, and congratulations on your achievement of graduating from the Naval Academy!

That is an accomplishment to be proud of.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-189165
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE GREAT DEMOCRAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 23, 2019 at 7:03 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, yes, people, the Great Democrat “‘Climate Crisis’ Scam,” where the word “scam” in this specific case means a “fraudulent scheme” performed by a dishonest individual or group in an attempt obtain money or something else of value.

As is the case here with this Democrat “climate crisis,” which is a HYPE TERM not supported by actual science, scams traditionally reside in confidence tricks, where an individual would misrepresent themselves as someone with skill or authority, i.e. a lawyer or politician posing as a climate scientist, which takes us back to this IPCC, and through the IPCC, back to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992 with an objective to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

When we read that, we must needs keep in mind that water vapor (H2O) is the strongest greenhouse gas, and the concentration of this gas is largely controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere.

And of importance to this discussion, “UNFCCC” is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat charged with supporting the operation of the Convention, with offices in Haus Carstanjen, and the UN Campus (known as Langer Eugen) in Bonn, Germany.

The Secretariat, augmented through the parallel efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to gain consensus through meetings and the discussion of various strategies.

And again of importance to this discussion, Article 3(1) of the Convention states that Parties should act to protect the climate system on the basis of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, and that developed country Parties should “take the lead” in addressing climate change.

As to that statement, the United States would be considered a “developed country party,” so the burden of “taking the lead” in addressing climate change would fall to us, which takes us back around to the Democrat “climate crisis scam,” which is intended to make us both terribly scared and very angry going into the 2020 presidential elections, so that we will all vote Democrat and hand them control of our federal government, because it is only the Democrats who can save us now, which takes us to Article 4(7) of that convention, as follows:

The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.

end quotes

Focus in on that last sentence there, people: “will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”

Social development is an overriding priority of developing country parties, so that we, the American people have to provide them with financial resources and the transfer of technology to make that possible?

And, besides nothing, what does that have to do with the alleged goal of “preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth’s climate system?”

And there is a look at what the Great Democrat “‘Climate Crisis’ Scam” is really all about, social engineering, where the word “scam” in this specific case means a “fraudulent scheme” performed by a dishonest individual or group in an attempt obtain money or something else of value, which thought takes us to an article in the New York Times entitled “Climate Town Hall: Several Democratic Candidates Embrace a Carbon Tax” by Coral Davenport and Trip Gabriel on 5 September 2019, as follows:

WASHINGTON — Democratic candidates promised unprecedented new action on climate change on Wednesday night in the first prime-time televised forum devoted to the issue in a presidential campaign, vowing to undo the Trump administration’s environmental policies, spend trillions of dollars to promote renewable energy and force companies to pay new taxes or fees.

end quotes

Ah, yes, people, spend TRILLIONS and FORCE companies to pay taxes or fees, which in turn will filter down to us, and here, let me clarify that I am over 70 and living on a fixed low income, so these Democrat taxes will have an outsized impact on people like myself, as well as other low income Americans, this so we can engage in social engineering in poor countries around the world with our tax dollars.

Getting back to that NYT article:

In perhaps the most significant development of the night, more than half of the 10 candidates at the forum openly embraced the controversial idea of putting a tax or fee on carbon dioxide pollution, the one policy that most environmental economists agree is the most effective way to cut emissions — but also one that has drawn intense political opposition.

Around the country and the world, opponents have attacked it as an “energy tax” that could raise fuel costs, and it has been considered politically toxic in Washington for nearly a decade.

end quotes

I should say that the Democrats are totally insensitive to the impact these taxes are going to have on the poor folks in this country who won’t be able to run out and buy themselves a new Tesla, which again takes us back to the NYT:

In addition to proposing $3 trillion in spending on environmental initiatives, Ms. Warren also responded “Yes!” when asked by a moderator, Chris Cuomo, if she would support a carbon tax — a measure she had not spelled out in her official policy proposal.

end quotes

So, there is Lizzie Warren who is going to spend $3 TRILLION on environmental issues, but to do that, she has to first scare enough people into believing that we have an actual “climate crisis,” as opposed to Democrat HYPE, and to do that, get us scared enough to vote for her, she needs us to take this IPCC crowd seriously, and there is where her whole house of cards comes tumbling down, because the IPCC is so blatantly political that it has no credibility.

And that brings us to “barmy” Bernie Sanders from that same article, as follows:

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has not explicitly taken up Mr. Inslee’s ideas, said, “We are proposing the largest, most comprehensive program ever presented by any candidate in the history of the United States.”

Mr. Sanders has sought to win over the liberal wing of the Democratic Party with a plan that takes its name from the Green New Deal and has the biggest price tag of all the candidates’ proposals — $16.3 trillion over 15 years.

end quotes

Think about it, people – $16.3 TRILLION.

Where exactly is that kind of money coming from, given the size of our present national debt, and more importantly, besides down a rat hole, where is that money going?

And how would “barmy” Bernie convince us to shake loose with $16.3 TRILLION and give him control over that kind of money other than by telling us the sky is falling and we are faced with a “CLIMATE CRISIS,” EGADS!

SAVE US, Bernie, SAVE US!

WE’LL GIVE YOU THE MONEY IF YOU’LL JUST SAVE US, Bernie!

You’re our hero, sigh!

Yeah, right!

And remember, friends do not let friends get sucked into Democrat climate crisis scams, hence this thread!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-189165
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE GREAT DEMOCRAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 24, 2019 at 6:45 pm

Paul Plante says :

And what is interesting and ironic here is that while the Democrats are endlessly prattling on about our precious democracy being under attack by foreign elements, they are at the same time paying homage to what is the most un-democratic body on the face of the earth, that being this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC.

According to its history, the United Nations formally endorsed the creation of the IPCC in 1988 in a resolution full of wishy-washy weasel words to include as follows:

“(C)ertain human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially severe economic and social consequences”; and

“[C]ontinued growth in atmospheric concentrations of ‘greenhouse’ gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.”

end quotes

So it could, and it might, and maybe it will but then again, if it could, it also might not, and round and round we go on that, which takes us back to the un-democratic nature of the IPCC as follows:

The Panel itself is composed of representatives appointed by governments.

Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives.

Non-Governmental and Intergovernmental Organizations admitted as observer organizations may also attend.

Sessions of the Panel, IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only.

The opening ceremonies of sessions of the Panel and of Lead Author Meetings are open to media, but otherwise IPCC meetings are closed.

end quotes

Dogs, Irishmen, and other white trash who are not committed members of the carbon pollution crisis cult and true believers need not apply, because you won’t make it past security at the door.

So much for our precious democracy, people – it is a joke, which again takes us back to the political nature of the IPCC, as follows:

The IPCC has published five comprehensive assessment reports reviewing the latest climate science, as well as a number of special reports on particular topics.

These reports are prepared by teams of relevant researchers selected by the Bureau from government nominations.

end quotes

Ah, yes, people – researchers selected from government nominations, and if one is not nominated by a government for its own political purposes, one is left completely outside the process, on the outside looking in, and that is what the Democrats want us to believe is valid, independent scientific inquiry.

To which I must respectfully respond – not hardly.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-190166
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE GREAT DEMOCRAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 26, 2019 at 6:23 pm

Paul Plante says:

And while we are on this subject of the great Democrat “climate crisis scam,” where “scam” means a “fraudulent scheme” performed by a dishonest individual or group in an attempt in this case to obtain scads on money on the backs of the American taxpayer through the federal budget and considerable political power over our lives and futures, which “climate crisis scam” in this case needs all of us so petrified by fear that we can’t think straight for it to succeed, let’s flesh the “climate crisis scam” out a bit more by going back to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Harris announces ‘landmark bill’ with AOC to fight ‘environmental injustice'” by John Gage on 30 July 2019, where we have as follows:

Sen. Kamala Harris announced she was teaming up with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to make sure the Green New Deal would lift up low-income communities, people of color, and indigenous communities.

end quotes

Now, that one sentence alone with its direct reference to the Democratic Socialist/AOC scam known as the “Green New Deal” and “lifting up” low-income communities, people of color and indigenous communities should give us a real clear idea of what is really at stake here, which is something called “social engineering,” which simply stated is the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

Which raises the serious question as we head into the 2020 presidential elections, where the soul of our nation is now truly at stake, of do we, the American people, really want to put our future and the future of our children and grandchildren into the hands of AOC and Kamala Harris in their attempt to manage what they consider to be needed social change here in the United States of America as they regulate the future development and behavior of our society here in the United States of America?

Do we really?

And besides exactly nothing, what does carbon dioxide have to do with lifting up people of color?

As to this “social engineering,” and “lifting up” of people, those of us who still have functioning memories of events more than a few minutes or TWEETS ago who also follow the news as part of our citizenship duties and responsibilities, those few of us who are still citizens as opposed to consumers, who don’t have to think, only shop, because they are the main engine of our economy today, are witnessing the results of previous attempts at “social engineering” by the United States in the on-going riots in Baghdad, Iraq, where people are demanding all the stuff they thought they were promised when Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton put their imprimatur on the invasion of Iraq to remove dictator Saddam Hussein , as well as all the troubles in Syria, which was an attempt by the witless Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton to impose “social justice” on the people of Syria at the point of a gun, which is where change always seems to have to come from, from those people, that said by myself as a VEET NAM combat veteran who saw “social justice” being imposed on the people of Viet Nam at the point of a bayonet by the Democrats and LBJ, who had a thing about “people of color” in VEET NAM.

So, do we really need more of it, this time here in the United States of America?

Think very seriously about that, people, while you have time to do some clear thinking before entering that voting booth come November of next year.

As to the “Green New Deal” itself being nothing more than a fundraising scam, to see how that is, all we need do is go back to the Cape Charles Mirror on April 12, 2019 @ 9:54 AM http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g … ent-140073 where we had as follows, to wit:

So, what are we really looking at here, people, with the “Green New Deal?”

How about fundraising based on false pretenses, which makes this “Green New Deal” one of the slickest SCAMS to come down the pike in a long, long time, made possible by Al Gore’s invention of the internet as a potent and powerful fund-raising tool, as we are seeing in the case of this “Green New Deal,” which is being used to raise internet funds on several different but inter-connected websites, such as the Sunrise Movement and the Justice Democrats, to wit:

OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE

A Platform Democrats Can Fight For


Opinion polls in the United States demonstrate that these policy positions are overwhelmingly popular.

Indeed, throughout the industrialized world these ideas are considered moderate.

This is a movement about freedom and justice.

And it’s a movement of, by, and for working people.

If the Democrats refuse to embrace this platform, they’ll continue to lose, either to Republicans or to us.

Transform Our Economy

We need a bold economic vision that will both reclaim lost capital and put money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans, and create millions of new jobs for those who have been left out of the workforce.

GREEN NEW DEAL

Scientists are sounding the alarm on climate change.

Communities are fighting back.

It’s time to drastically and immediately move away from fossil fuels, develop the technologies of the future, and create prosperity for all of us — not just those on top.

The Green New Deal is a mass mobilization to dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources.

The Green New Deal will also provide all members of our society, across all regions and all communities, the opportunity, training and education to be a full and equal participant in the transition, including through a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one and ensure a ‘just transition’ for all workers, low-income communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, rural and urban communities and the front-line communities most affected by climate change, pollution and other environmental harm including by ensuring that local implementation of the transition is led from the community level and by prioritizing solutions that end the harms faced by front-line communities from climate change and environmental pollution.

SECURE A LIVING WAGE AND TIE IT TO INFLATION

ENACT A FEDERAL JOBS GUARANTEE

REBUILD OUR CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE

BLOCK BAD TRADE DEALS

END TAX DODGING AND LOOPHOLES

END UNNECESSARY WARS AND NATION BUILDING


https://www.justicedemocrats.com/issues

end quotes

And up at the top of the page is that box that says “DONATE.”

Except what you are donating for, as AOC herself informed us on the MSNBC Town Hall with Chris Hayes on 03/29/19, is nothing at all, to wit:

OCASIO-CORTEZ: And first all of we wave a magic wand and we passed the Green New Deal resolution tomorrow, what happens?

Nothing because it’s a resolution.

end quotes

So why aren’t the people being asked to donate on these various websites touting and promoting the “Green New Deal” as the cure for everything that ails this country being told the truth that if the “Green New Deal” were to be passed this afternoon, nothing is going to happen and nothing is going to change?

And where is all that donation money going to?

And for what cause then?

end quotes

And what does any of that have to do with carbon dioxide, besides nothing?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-190843

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 26, 2019 at 6:32 pm

Paul Plante says :

Pardon my mistake, but the link above is incorrect.

The Cape Charles Mirror article in question I was referring to is titled “Green New Deal is really just about ending Capitalism” on April 7, 2019 by Wayne Creed:

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g ... ent-141136

This thread is in essence a follow-on to that thread given the passage of time and new developments in the story since April of this year.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-190843
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE GREAT DEMOCRAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 1, 2019 at 6:30 pm

Paul Plante says:

So, yes, people, while we are this subject of the Democrat’s “GREAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM” which is leading us into the 2020 American presidential election which the Democrats hope to sweep by making us angry at Trump and at the same time scared that the world is going to end because of the “climate crisis” and “carbon pollution,” now that Greta Thunberg and her “FANTASTIC, FANTABULOUS MAKE A CLOUD OF CARBON DIOXIDE TO FIGHT CLOBAL WARMING” World Tour are back in the news, this according to a Marketwatch article entitled “Greta Thunberg rejects climate-change prize: ‘Climate movement does not need any more awards’” by Rachel Koning Beals published Oct, 30, 2019, where we had little rich-girl Greta continuing her leisurely peregrination around the world, this time appearing in California for the Youth Climate Strike in Los Angeles, which is little Greta’s big thing, encouraging children in America to be disobedient and throw tantrums like little Greta, who sees the temper tantrum as a potent political tool, as a way of making the earth’s ever-changing climate stop changing, as if the earth’s climate actually gave a damn about what those children doing the striking want it to do, what I would like to do in here is to take a moment, in the light of a long, long, well-known history relating to the earth’s climate, to address this comment attributed to little Greta, who wants us all, each and every one of us, to feel panic so we can know the “fear” of God-alone-knows-what that little girl feels every day, in that article, to wit:

“What we need is for our politicians and the people in power (to) start to listen to the current, best available science.”

end quotes

So, Greta, tell us, since you seem to know – what is the “current, best available science” that our American politicians and people in power need to start listening to?

You say that over and over, Greta, listen to the scientists, listen to the science, and truthfully, and this is speaking as a compassionate grandfather who is a licensed professional engineer further qualified as an associate level public health engineer that each time you say it, Greta, it sounds just a stupid this time as it did the last time and the time before that, as well.

WHAT SCIENCE, Greta?

And here, people, since Greta’s message is aimed at our politicians, let’s take a moment to consider the long political history this subject of the climate has had in this country, to wit:

As to the best climate science available today, I would have to put forth “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition by Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia College in England, where we have as follows:

The view, so widely held until recently, of climate as constant was perhaps no more than a premature conclusion from the first long records of weather observations made with standard meteorological instruments in the world’s leading cities.

Many of these records had covered a hundred years by about the end of the nineteenth century, and it so happened that between 1875 and 1895 the temperatures prevailing in Europe and eastern North America had reverted to values quite similar to those of just a century earlier.

end quotes

And there is what fuels poor little Greta’s anxiety – the fact that even for little rich girls like Greta, life is not a “just so” story where the climate is just like you want it to be, not too cold, not too hot, but just right all the time, every day in an unceasing progression, and because of that, it can never change and always has to stay the same.

Now, one has to truly wonder how in this day and age with so much information so freely available, including Lamb’s work on climate, little Greta is so ignorant about the reality of earth’s climate, which is that it is not constant, and never should be mistaken for being constant, as we see by returning to Lamb, as follows:

In between there had been some colder decades with important glacier advances — a major climax of the glaciers in the Alps about 1820–50 — followed by a warmer time, which was in fact the beginning of a general recession of the glaciers all over the world until around 1960 or even later.

end quotes

Now, I don’t know what anybody else is thinking, and many in fact aren’t, but that people, is “THE SCIENCE.”

And that science greatly messes with the modern-day “science” little Greta is peddling, that any and all climate change today is not natural, but instead, is solely caused by humans, as if humans were not a part of nature here on earth, which itself is an absurd proposition.

Getting back to Lamb:

The conclusion that climate is essentially constant, which at first seemed to be the verdict of scientific observation, though in fact the hundred-year record was not enough to establish it, was at odds with the acquired wisdom and experience of previous generations.

It had actually been concern about ‘the sudden variations in the behaviour of the seasons’ to which the climate seemed ‘more and more subject’, and about possible effects on agricultural production and human health, that had led to the setting up of some of the first nation-wide networks of meteorological observations from 1775 onwards.

end quotes

Now, seriously, people, given that the earth’s climate was an issue to people living on earth in 1775, which is 244 years ago now, why are we all pretending that this is something new?

Getting back to Lamb, who is writing 38 years ago in 1981, we have the basis of this Democrat “Climate Crisis Scam” being foisted off on us today, as follows:

Estimates published of the warming to be expected by the year 2100 range from 2 to 11°C, the more extreme ones implying that the level of the world’s oceans should begin to rise rapidly as melting of the land-based icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica got under way.

This is an opinion, seemingly founded on firm scientific knowledge, which has to be taken seriously, even though we may notice some grounds for doubt and scepticism.

end quotes

And what is happening today is that absolute certainty is being put in the place of doubt and skepticism, which is very un-scientific, as well as un-democratic.

In fact, if we go to a site entitled Climate Science Investigations http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/introductio ... eptics.php we have as follows:

Why Must Scientists Be Skeptics?

Skepticism is the act of suspending judgment (the opposite of jumping to conclusions) when evaluating an explanation or claims.

It allows scientists to consider all possibilities and systematically question all information in the course of an investigation.

Why is maintaining a skeptical outlook so important?

Skepticism helps scientists to remain objective when performing scientific inquiry and research.

It forces them to examine claims (their own and those of others) to be certain that there is sufficient evidence to back them up.

Skeptics do not doubt every claim, only those backed by insufficient evidence or by data that have been improperly collected, are not relevant or cannot support the rationale being made.

Skepticism allows scientists to reach logical conclusions supported by evidence that has been examined and confirmed by others in the same field, even when that evidence does not confirm absolute certainty.

In order to remain objective, scientists must remain skeptical.

In order for scientific knowledge to be advanced, that knowledge must be open to revision.

Science works to determine the statistical probability (mathematical likelihood) of a claim’s accuracy, not its certainty.

end quotes

With regard to doubt and skepticism, necessary qualities in a true scientist, on Sept. 28, 2019, I received this following in an e-mail from a top NOAA climate scientist, as follows:

Over the Earth’s history, there have been times when atmospheric CO2 has been higher than current levels.

Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods.

Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2?

No, for one simple reason that CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate.

Admittedly, the arguments today do focus on CO2, and while critically important, CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

There are a myriad of other radiative forcings that affect the planet’s energy imbalance.

Volcanoes, solar variations, clouds, methane, aerosols – these all change the way energy enters and/or leaves our climate.

There are many influences of climate and they all need to be considered together to gain the full picture.

end quotes

On Monday, September 23, 2019 @ 7:10:37 PM EDT, that same scientist answered my following question as follows, to wit:

Q. Does the science in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?

A. Frankly, I do not know.

end quotes

So why are the Democrats telling us there is a “climate crisis?”

Besides from little Greta, where are they getting their certainty of a “climate crisis” from?

And that takes us back to Lamb and the political history underlying this issue, as follows:

It was against this background that Dr. Henry Kissinger, who was at the time United States Secretary of State, in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly on 15 April 1974, mentioned the threat of climatic changes and pressed the appropriate international scientific organizations ‘urgently to investigate this problem’.

end quotes

What Dr. Kissinger actually said in that speech was as follows:

The poorest nations, already beset by manmade disasters, have been threatened by a natural one: the possibility of climatic changes in the monsoon belt and perhaps throughout the world.

The implications for global food and population policies are ominous.

The United States proposes that the International Council of Scientific Unions and the World Meteorological Organization urgently investigate this problem and offer guidelines for immediate international action.

end quotes

Getting back to Lamb, once again, we have:

The World Meteorological Organization has for some years been organizing a Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP) with the climate problem as one of its objectives.

The United States took the lead in adopting by Act of Congress in 1978 a National Climate Research Program and urging designation of the twenty-year period 1980–2000 as International Climate Decades, to secure broad international co-operation in the collection and analysis of all available climatic data and study of the problem.

end quotes

So again, people, with all of this history which the Democrats should be as well aware of as I am, why are we hearing about a “climate crisis” today in 2019?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-192896
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE GREAT DEMOCRAT CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR November 2, 2019 at 6:47 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, how long have we been hearing about this “climate crisis?”

And where did this hyperbolic term come from?

And it is hyperbolic because something that might or might not happen some 80 years into the future, when little Greta Thunberg will be 96, does not constitute a “climate crisis” today, period, especially since we have known for several hundred years if not more, especially in the former Viking nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden where history goes back a thousand years or more, that the climate is ever changing.

Early on, the Vikings became Christians, so that their various settlements, including those on Greenland, has priests and bishops who were educated and who kept meticulous records, including on Greenland, which incidentally is the subject of an article in The Independent entitled “Climate change ‘did not force Vikings to abandon Greenland in 15th century'” by Steve Connor, Science Editor, on 4 December 2015, to wit:

Climate change is blamed for many things in history, but it seems that it can now be ruled out as an explanation for why the Vikings had abandoned their settlements in Greenland by the mid-15th Century after 400 years of valiant occupation.

Some historians have suggested that the Medieval Warm Period, when vines were grown as far north as York, can account for the colonisation of southern Greenland by Vikings sailing in ice-free waters from their earlier settlements on Iceland, starting in 986 AD.

Equally, the rather abrupt abandoment of Greenland some four centuries later was rather neatly explained by the start of the so-called Little Ice Age, which was estimated to have run between about 1350 to 1850 and is said to have been why it was possible to have frost fairs on a frozen River Thames.

However, geologists who have analysed the rocky “moraines” left behind by retreating glaciers in Greenland and nearby Baffin Island, where Vikings were also thought to have settled, have all but ruled out changes in the local climate as the reason for the colonisation and abandoment of this most westerly outpost of the Viking empire.

“We have found no reason to believe that it was any more warmer at the start of the colonisation than at the end.”

“It looks like the climate was by and large pretty stable.”

“Other factors must have led to them leaving Greenland,” said Nicolas Young, a glacial geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York.

There is little doubt that the Medieval Warm Period did exist, although scientists have disputed the dates it began and ended.

But there is mounting evidence that it was largely a European phenenomon and related to the “sea-saw” oscillation of the North Atlantic climate – when western Europe is warm, southern Greenland becomes cooler, and vice versa, Dr Young said.

“It’s becoming clearer that the Medieval Warm Period was patchy, not global.”

“The concept is Eurocentric [because] that’s where the best known observations were made.”

“Elsewhere, the climate might not have been the same,” Dr Young explained.

The red-bearded Viking Erik the Red was first to colonise southern Greenland, which he allegedly named as a propaganda exercise to encourage other Icelandic Vikings to follow him.

The colonisers brought sheep and cattle and established farms on the few unglaciated pastures.

They built about 400 stone buildings, including churches, a monestery and even a cathedral with an imported bronze bell and green-tinted glass windows, trading for several generations in polar bear skins, narwhal tusks and walruss ivory with the fellow Norse speakers in Iceland and Norway in return for iron tools and other essentials.

With a population that peaked at about 5,000 individuals, they were the most westerly-living Europeans for several centuries until Columbus discovered America, but something happened in the 15th Century that led them to abandon their remote settlements in the West and then East of southern Greenland.

Astrid Ogilvie, a climate historian at Iceland’s Akureyri University, said that the findings published in the journal Science Advances, show that the climate is clearly a more complicated factor than some people had assumed when it came to the Greenland Norse.

“I do not like the simplistic argument that the Greenland people went there when it was warm and then ‘it got cold and they died’.”

“I think the Medieval Warm Period has been built on many false premises, but it still clings to the popular imagination,” Dr Ovilvie said.

end quotes

Now, if in fact “science” means the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, then I would classify the above as an exercise in what “science” should be, something open and shared, not something closed and concealed as seems to be the case with the supporting evidence for this GREAT DEMOCRAT “CLIMATE CRISIS SCAM that is leading us into the 2020 presidential elections.

And with respect to that, google “Democrats, climate crisis,” where you will find such hysteria-mongering by the Democrats, as follows:

Andrew Yang Offers Dark Vision of Climate Change at …
https://www.esquire.com › andrew-yang-climate-change-democratic-debate
Aug 1, 2019 – Andrew Yang Offered a Doomsday Vision of the Climate Crisis. …

As Climate Change Returns to Capitol Hill, Disagreements …
https://www.newyorker.com › news › news-desk › as-climate-change-returns…
Feb 9, 2019 – Carolyn Kormann writes about the Democratic Party’s disjointed efforts to alleviate climate change, such as the Green New Deal and proposals …

‘Green New Deal’ Democrats Position Climate Change as …
https://www.wsj.com › articles › green-new-deal-democrats-position-climate-…
Feb 8, 2019 – Democratic officials are pushing for a plan to quickly wean the U.S. economy off fossil fuels and dramatically overhaul the energy infrastructure.

Debate is Over for Dems: Climate Crisis It Is. GOP: Crisis …
https://www.dailykos.com › story ›
Jun 28, 2019 – In case you were wondering why Climate Change is getting the attention of Democratic candidates, and why “Climate Crisis” is finally getting …

end quotes

And with that, for the moment, I will rest.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... isis-scam/
Post Reply